Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: fieldmarshaldj; Vigilanteman; BillyBoy; AuH2ORepublican; Clintonfatigued; BlackElk; JohnnyZ; ...

Your “draft” idea is interesting but I fail to see how Romney (or anyone with that much establishment support) would have failed to get himself so drafted whatever the process is.

If you want to stop one RINO from getting a plurality over 2 or 3 Conservatives the best way is a preferential ballot. The best way under the current rules would have been the loser in third place dropping out while there was still a chance but despite his anti-Romney rhetoric he obviously didn’t give a damn who the nominee was if it wasn’t himself.

Your idea of having conservative states vote first is a good one. Probably more likely to be considered by our unimaginative party leaders. IA and NH going first every time is total BS that can’t be justified, I don’t think they even try to they just whine they need the tourism every 4 years.

The OP’s idea of giving Republican states significantly more delegates I don’t like much. Many of us are stuck in states where we are outnumbered. Giving Texas 4 times as many delegates as Cali despite the about same # of Republicans would be grossly unfair and unrepresentative. (McCain 4.5 Mil votes in TX 5 Mil in CA)

I would base the state’s number of delegates on it’s number of Republicans, using the results of the last POTUS election would be fine with me. So if CA got 50 delegates, Texas would get 45. Florida would get 40. Illinois would get 20. ect. smaller states would get a little boost so they matter and DC and the territories would get a minimal number just so they’re represented.

Another idea, strict proportional allocation of delegates. If there are 20 delegates in the state and you get 10% of the vote you get 2 delegates, period.

No more winner take all or any of these silly caucus states that Ron Paul is manipulating. That way if Romney won about 40% he’d have about 40% of the delegates. No way he’d get a majority.

I really think every state should have the same process whatever it is. We’re political junkies and this arcane nonsense makes our heads hurt. And the haphazard and heavily spaced scheduling is absurd. The state parties need to be dictated to and given the method and date when they will hold the primary. No 50 states doing whatever they want. Don’t play ball and your delegates don’t get seated, period. I guarantee you they will all play ball in due course. Sorry Iowa.

I don’t know about the 2/3 rule. The wreaked havoc with the rats when they had it. Today with the conventions being on TV that could lead to a very embarrassing debacle. I could see maybe a 55% threshold to prevent someone from squeaking in but not as high as 67%.


32 posted on 05/15/2012 3:57:36 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: Impy; fieldmarshaldj; Vigilanteman; BillyBoy; AuH2ORepublican; Clintonfatigued; BlackElk

I’d support three changes, to the nomination process. All states should use primaries, not caucuses. Delegates should be awarded proportionally, not using a winner-take-all system. That would prevent a candidate (usually a RINO) from winning all of a state’s delegates, with less than a majority of the vote. Superdelegates should be banned. This year, Illinois will have 17 delegates who will be appointed by IL GOP leaders. They’ll probably support the same candidate (probably Romney). All of the delegates should be chosen because of primary results.


33 posted on 05/15/2012 4:24:02 AM PDT by PhilCollins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson