Skip to comments.GOP Delegate Allocation Fundamentals Need to Be Changed
Posted on 05/13/2012 9:07:15 PM PDT by Vigilanteman
It is given that many, if not most, Freepers are bummed out that the likely GOP nominee may very well be the most liberal candidate of the entire field. Other than the bomb throwers and sabatouers, however, most of us feel he is still better than the abject disaster currently in the White House. How much better, of course, remains a matter for debate. However, rather than throw our mud at each other as some of the Paulistas are doing, why not channel that anger into a complete reform of the GOP voting process?
Other than the bomb throwers and sabatouers, however, most of us feel he is still better than the abject disaster currently in the White House. How much better, of course, remains a matter for debate.
However, rather than throw our mud at each other as some of the Paulistas are doing, why not channel that anger into a complete reform of the GOP voting process?
(Excerpt) Read more at elections.nytimes.com ...
That formula needs to be reversed. Every November, 538 electoral votes are allocated, mostly on a winner-take-all system, as is determined by the states. Limited government advocates in the GOP respect the rights of states to determine said allocation on whatever basis they wish. But overall allocation of delegates should put more weight on states which actually deliver electoral votes to the GOP and less on those which potentially could do so.
The formula which I propose would award each state or territory a minimum of electoral votes which they have or would have if they were a state. This is the concession to fairness for large population states like New York or California which seldom actually deliver electoral votes to the GOP in November.
After that, allocation will be based on actual performance over the last five election cycles in delivering electoral votes to the GOP. Territories without actual electoral history will be calculated as if they gave half their electoral votes to the GOP.
Recent election cycles would count for more than older cycles, 50% for the most recent, 40% for the next most recent, 30% for the third most recent, 20% for the second oldest and 10% for the oldest cycle. Multiply the result by 2.5, thereby giving a MINIMUM of 2.5 times as much weight to past performance as to population. If a fractional delegate results from the formula, always count it as a full delegate. This will encourage states to consider a congressional district system, such as is used in Maine and Nebraska, to earn additional delegates.
There would be bonus delegates (as there are now) given to states which have a GOP governor (1), GOP senator (up to 2) and each house of the state legislature (2 in the case of Nebraska which is unicamerial). Bonus or penalty delegates would be awarded for states holding later primaries (+10% for primaries May 1 or after, +5% for primaries April 1 or after, -5% for primaries in February and -10% for primaries those before January 31) and for proportional (+10%) versus winner-take-all (-10%) systems.
Let's work through a few examples just to show how this would work.
Texas: 38 electoral votes and perfect record in the last five election cycles. Thus, 38 + 2.5 x ([(32x10%)+(32x20%)+(32x30%)]+ [(34x40%)+(34x50%)]) = 38 + 2.5 x (19.2 + 30.6) = 38 + 2.5 x (49.8) = 163 delegates. Remember, the fraction counts as full delegate. Texas also gets a bonus of 1 for the governor plus 4 for both U.S. Senators and houses of the legislature, or a basis of 168 delegates. Finally, add 20% bonus for the May primary (10%) and proportional system (10%) or 168 x 1.2 = 201.6 delegates or 202 total versus 155 under the present system.
California: 55 electoral votes plus total wash-out for performance in the last five election cycles. No bonus delegates for governor, senators nor houses of the legislature. 10% bonus for primary after May 1 is negated by 10% penalty for winner-take-all system, so 55 total delegates versus 172 under the present system.
Florida: 29 under the present system plus electoral votes actually delivered in 1992 (25 x 10%), 2000 (25 x 30%) and 2004 (27 x 40%). Multiply performance delegates by 2.5 = 52 which, added to the 29 is 81 plus 1 for the GOP governor, 1 U.S. Senator and 2 for both houses of the legislature = 85. Then minus 20% (10% for winner-take-all system and 10% for January primary) = 68 versus 50 under the present system.
American Samoa = 3 electoral votes plus 2.5 x (2.25) or 5.625 rounded to 6 performance delegates. 1 delegate for GOP legislature (1 of 2 houses) minus 10% penalty for winner-take-all system. Net 9 delegates, or exactly the same as the present system.
Iowa: 6 electoral votes plus 7 delivered in 2004 for a performance bonus of 2.5 x (40% x 7) or 7. Add 3 since the GOP controls the governor's office and one house of the legislature and U.S. Senator. 10% bonus for proportional allocation is negated by 10% penalty for January caucus. Thus, 6 + 7 + 3 = 16 delegates versus 28 awarded under the current system.
Pennsylvania: 20 electoral votes plus total wash-out for performance in the last five election cycles. 4 additional delegates for GOP governor, one U.S. Senator and both houses of the legislature. 5% bonus for April primary and 10% bonus for proportional system = 24 + 15% = 27.6 delegates rounded to 28 delegates versus 72 delegates under the present system.
As you can see, my suggested system actually apportions delegates on a basis closer to each state's actual value in November. Pennsylvania would have been able to increase their delegate total by about 25 bonus delegates (2.5 x the 10 congressional district average the GOP presidential ticket would have won had the system been in place) or 53 total had our asshat state GOP chairman not blocked our Senate Majority Leader's bill to change our electoral vote allocation system to the district system used by Maine and Nebraska.
Feel free to add your comments. But one of the prices for going into November unified should be exactly this: awarding more delegates to states which actually deliver electoral votes in the fall.
He is the same as Obama. Count me as a saboteur if you wish. Romney came up with socialized healthcare and will not reduce the debt. So it makes no difference if he wins or Obama wins. A Romney win has one disadvantage though - it strengthens the RINO hold on the GOP. If he loses, there is a chance that the RINO grip on the party can be weakened. Of course, Obama has to be kept in control by the members in the Congress.
The same liberals in the party who put romnutts up as the republican candidate also control everything else in the party.The open primaries are the start of their power and that will not change.Just look at the early states that get the ball rolling in the republican primaries.Its a joke.The republican party is a joke and a cruel one at that.
The same liberals in the party who put romnutts up as the republican candidate also control everything else in the party.The open primaries are the start of their power and that will not change.Just look at the early states that get the ball rolling in the republican primaries.Its a joke.The republican party is a joke and a cruel one at that.
I wonder if it has ever occurred to you that the reason that the RINO wing has such a strong grip on the GOP is because the Marxist faction totally controls the Democrat Party (former natural home of modern RINOs) to the point that they now have nowhere else to go?
Just ask yourself which supreme court nominee was easier to stop? Was it Kagan? Or Harriett Meyers?
Then try to tell me that there is no difference between a hard-core Marxist Democrat and a Republican RINO. Such a view is as stupid as it is defeatist.
Actually, you probably should give excess weight to swing states like Ohio, FL, and VA.
You have to win swing states to carry and election.
Think about it: which would the Body Politic, (i.e., the interlocked Liberal Agenda Media (LAM), Democrats and RINOs), find easier to attack, marginalize and ignore?
1.) A single topic attack on them?
2.) A multi-topic attack on them?
Now that their 80 + year Keynesian Rule of us has finally run out of money, we Financial Conservatives know that we have circled the prey and stand ready to attack.
AAHHHHHHRRRRLLLLWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Necessary to our attack is the attack from as many other types of Conservatives as possible. The more hot-button attacks, the better. Multi-pronged beats single-pronged attacks every time!
Presently the arrogant Democrats either ignore all Conservatives, try to marginalize us as A vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy, or accuse us of being villains, mainly through the Court of Public Opinion which is owned by the Liberal Agenda Media, (LAM).
My overarching point is that politicians come and go, political parties come and go, but the thinking that supports the idea that it is SANE to spend more money this year than was taken in as income last year remains entrenched in the policies of the Body Politic, which is the inter-dependant linkage of the LAM, Dems, RINOs, and most importantly you and I as voters.
Support and vote for who you want to, but before you do look into the eyes of your children and grandchildren and tell them that because of you voting or not voting, THEY will have to work a large part of each of their work days for the rest of their lives to pay back principle AND interest to the owners of US Federal Government Bonds that WE sold to give us OUR Entitlements of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Unemployment payments to workers out of work, Food Stamps, Housing assistance to Illegal Aliens, Free Hospital Emergency Medical and Dental care to Illegal Aliens AND their extended families who continue to live permanently in Mexico, Aid to Dependent Children, No child Left Behind, Federal Aid to Education of Young Socialists, Free Student loans to future Federal politicians and bureaucrats, etc., etc., etc.
BTW, to put all of this into perspective, if you are now paying the very low rate of only 10 % Personal Federal Income Tax, then you are currently working every one of your workdays at 10 % X 8 hours = 0.8 hours X 60 minutes = 48 minutes of EVERY work day for The Federal Plantation located at 1600 Plantation Avenue, in the District of Corruption, USSA.
Those 48 minutes per work day feed the Federal Beast for only 60 % of each year, forcing the current Sheriff of Nottingham Timmy Gee to sell more Federal Bonds that HE says that YOUR grandchildrens descendants will be more than happy to pay off.
Did I just describe a Bond Bubble? Obviously not as I am just a marginalized, and ignored member of The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.
Yep, Hilly said it before she became Obamas Secretary of Statements. She knew that eventually we would conspire to replace The Body Politic with a system that works.
You know, the one our Founding Fathers came up with, and clearly specified in THE US CONSTITUTION.
May God Bless America, again. (This time let us not be allowed to take His blessings for granted).
First Bachmann wins the Iowa Straw Poll. Then Romney wins the early count of the Iowa Caucuses, and within a shake of a lambs tail Santorum wins in the late count.
Now an FR article predicts that Ron Paul will have the majority of voting delegates from Iowa.
If Pauls plan to cut 1 TRILLION dollars in year-to-year Federal spending, AND abolish 5 Federal Departments are the main reasons for Iowa Delegates to thaw out their opposition to Paul, then it might later be said that as Iowa goes, so goes the Nation.
BTW, T is for Texas, Tampa and those of us who are TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY!
Here are some more reasons to vote for Ron Paul in the remaining Primary elections:
1.) It will drive the Liberal Agenda Media (LAM) and their Rove-style political consultants NUTS!
2.) It will deny statistical support to Romney.
3.) It could result in an OPEN Convention in Tampa.
4.) It would irritate the snot out of the GOP-E.
5.) It will put the GOP-E on notice that we think that their RINO Party has done NOTHING since we sent 89 TEA Party men and women to the US Congress in 2010.
6.) An OPEN Convention is our ONLY chance of a successful DUMP ROMNEY campaign.
7.) A superb, true Dark Horse Republican Nominee needs an OPEN Convention to replace Romney.
BTW, did I mention the sheer joy of watching the GOP-Endorsers publicly eating crow?
What the Liberal Agenda Media has never figured out, is that the 2012 National Election will be the last National Election where Campaign topics other than the National Debt will be debated again.
IOW, when the grim reaper of financial reality forces Federal Politicians in both parties to pay the US Bond owners before payments to our Entitlement recipients, it will terminate discussion on the main topics that we chatter about so far in 2012.
This National election is all about the money, your grandchildrens descendants money.
Ron Paul is to old and to disliked as being different from what most voters picture a US President to look and sound like to win the Nomination.
HOWEVER, Ron Paul as an Anbody-but-Romney candidate in Tampa is our last, best chance to have an OPEN Convention in Tampa, and for that alone he deserves our Primary voter support.
Paul has soldiered on through this entire Primary Campaign. Let us help him establish a beachhead on the Shores of Tampa!
My Favorite Dark Horse was R Sc US Senator Jim DeMint, but I have been told by those in the know that Jim will not run for POTUS.
Fortunately, there are many other great potential nominees who would be far more acceptable to us than any of the Primary Candidates so far, but a Dump Romney action requires an OPEN Convention.
For those who object to Paul as a Nominee, then treat him as a tired old political soldier who will, with our help, win the Battle to achieve an OPEN Convention in Tampa.
THEN the delegates can win the War, and choose the best Nominee to solve our National Debt Problem.
Remember, this election is all about the money, your grandchildrens descendants money - - - - .
What is the best way that you can use your Primary vote to help the financial future of YOUR descendants?
Fix your link at the bottom of the excerpt here on FR (goes to the NY times, not your article).
I am not knowledgeable enough to know if the #s work out, but I would say that along with conservatives working for and demanding changes such as you suggest in exchange for more our than tepid support for Romney, we MUST also demand an end to open primaries.
I’m not really sure how much water this holds. New York didn’t vote until April 24 and California has yet to vote. How is it that the first and third most populous states that are blue could not be counted in your assumptions, considering the other two candidates were pretty much done by the 24th? I’m not suggesting that your theory is flawed, but there isn’t much quantitative evidence to support it. Also, it might not be such a grand idea to have some votes count more than others unless you can accept some lost opportunity or unintended consequences. The system is skewed enough to where people perceive it as crooked, and instead of embracing the crookedness full throttle and skewing it to a result one set of party bosses want instead of another set, it might be better to make it more fair and transparent.
I’d can the open primary and then go about getting rid of the caucus before I’d resort to this plan.
I just want to add something else to my earlier comment. Rick Santorum lost because he can’t deliver Pennsylvania. And if you can’t deliver that, even when it is your home state, you shouldn’t even be in the race. So, unless we think we can win the general election by also skewing electoral votes, this plan is more likely to backfire than it is to gain anything meaningful in the long run.
Right now you have 50 states with 50 different ways of selecting and placing delegates. While the national sets the general requirements which includes number per congressional district and super delegates loosely based on party membership or the number of party votes cast for the president in the previous presidential election.
The latter number of delegates waxes and wanes on turnout for that particular election. Also some states list the delegate’s name and affilation while some don’t and some don’t list the delegate at all on their primary ballot.
Then too you have different filing dates. Some states require filing three months ahead of their primary while others perhaps two weeks.
Some don’t even hold primaries but hold caucuses.
On the other hand, putting a lot more weight on delegate allocation to states which actually deliver for the GOP will cause those states to consider no only how they select delegates, but how they allocate electoral votes, probably in a way which would maximize their potential for more delegates.
Under the current system, states which almost never vote GOP (New York, California) have an outsized influence in the selection of the nominee.
Losing big in Pennsylvania would likely have been a career ender. Bowing out gracefully when he did ensures he will start 2016 as a top tier candidate.
I also disagree on your backfire comments for the reasons stated in my previous post. Nonetheless, I commend you for at least being willing to engage in an honest discussion of the process (the intention of this thread) rather than descending into a pouty whiny "Romney = Obama" screed as others have done.
The entire setup for nomination needs to be changed.
I've made a specific proposal for discussion purposes. Tweak it. Explain why it is or isn't a good idea. Or give specifics on what you would change.
Mine was merely a broad comment on the subject. I don’t particularly care how Democrats choose their Presidential candidate, but the GOP needs to frankly toss out the entire current method and start from scratch. I’m not addressing whether or not your specific comments have merit or not. One method I would pursue is that any candidates would have to be drafted to run (meaning Joe Blow or Gov. King Rino can’t just throw their hat in because they feel like it or have the big bucks). Names submitted before a super-gathering and pre-eliminated (something akin to what’s done in Utah political primary conventions).
Once the candidates are set in stone, the manner with which the order of the states vote needs to be thrown out. No more IA-NH-SC nonsense. The first two states aren’t reliable GOP states for President and have no business being virtually make-or-break for the candidates. From there, the byzantine method of how delegates are awarded needs to be also summarily tossed. It needs to be simple, clear-cut, and easy for NON-political people to understand. I consider myself a political expert and I cannot fathom this current system in place. Add to this that at both those pre-primary convention and the primary votes that they must be closed affairs. No “Independents” or Democrats crashing the party.
On top of that, no nominating candidates who merely manage to obtain a string of pluralities and are overwhelmingly unpopular to the base (you know whom I’m talking about) and merely getting a simple majority of the delegate votes isn’t enough to get the nomination, either. I would say 2/3rds of the delegates at the party convention MUST agree to the nominee. If they cannot agree, candidates that previously participated in the primaries or even new (drafted) names be put forward.
As an example... let’s say Willard gets to just, say, 60% at the Convention and cannot get above that figure. He is then tossed out of contention and new names put forward. A group of delegates put forth the name Scott Walker of Wisconsin and submit it to a vote, and 75% of the delegates agree. Walker is then made the Presidential nominee.
Your response to my comment was;
“Under the current system, states which almost never vote GOP (New York, California) have an outsized influence in the selection of the nominee.”
My comment simply outlined the problem and offered no solutions .I anticipated most of the commentary on this thorny issue would be all over the place because most don’t know how delegates are selected and some don’t even know what they do.
You are right on with the weighted vote given states which rarely carry a Republican presidential candidate. The problem that this method tries to address is having states with populations the size of cities in those states selecting the candidate rather than the rest of the country having its say.
But the point is that weighted delegate vote is not the only problem.
I, too, like the way which Utah runs their political primary conventions. What's not to like about a system which sent a RINO like Bob Bennett packing and gave us a firebrand conservative like Mike Lee? OTOH, I think the system works well for Utah because it is a small state with a very high level of political activity. Everybody knows everybody else and all that.
I wonder how it would work in a big state like Pennsylvania where the population and political interests are far more heterogeneous.
Maybe my proposal would be a stepping stone for moving us in that direction. All things considered, I agree that money plays an over-sized role in selecting nominees. But even worse is the over-sized role played by a mostly monolithic media and states with big populations which have a near zero chance of voting GOP in November, New York and California being the poster boys.
Then you have the attention whores like Iowa and New Hampshire. They are a lesser problem, in my opinion, because they are at least somewhat in the swing state status. But they do have an over-sized influence on the media coverage and perception of momentum.
Great chart! Thank you!
Nothing like slamming fellow freepers to start off your article to freepers.
It is possible, vm, that some are operating on principle. I know it's not a media-approved thing in America today, not even with the Sean Hannity's and Rush Limbaugh's of the world, but it is nonetheless another reason for not supporting Romney.
I respect the right of the individual to vote for the third party candidate of their choice or abstain for voting for the president altogether.
Hell, if I didn't live in one of the handful of key swing states, I would seriously consider such options myself.
What I don't respect is the hyperbolic crowd who declares they are going to sit on their hands and not even help elect conservatives down ticket or, even worse, vote for ObaMao to teach the GOP a lesson. That worked out really well in 2008, didn't it?
If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.
I live in Ohio which is a swing state.
You distinguished 2 groups: those who support Romney and those who are bombthrowers and saboteurs.
Last I knew, FR was still a primarily conservative site and launching attacks on conservatives for not selling their principles doesn’t seem like a very conservative thing to do.
Just because most people can see the obvious that a Romney RINO is still, at least marginally, better than a naked Marxist thug, that does not mean that you have to support the RINO.
I choose to. You choose not to.
Your choice doesn't make you a bombthrower and saboteur any more than my choice makes me a sell-out.
You become a bombthrower and saboteur only if you choose as some people have clearly done. Case in point: the rabid Paulistas who shout others down. Not all supporters of Ron Paul, only the most rabid who shout others down.
Feel better now?
1. Restore the hallowed GOP convention rule that was (I believe) in force from the time of Abraham Lincoln's first nomination or even Charles Fremont's until we came within a sliver (about 12 delegates) of stopping Nixon in 1968 with Reagan as the only other viable choice. In 1968, Nelson Rockefeller had more votes than Reagan on the first and only ballot but that was Nelson Rockefeller's ceiling and about half of what he needed to be nominated. He was hated by most delegates and party activists. Reagan was governor of what was then far more Republican California and was a younger and even MORE charming version of his magnificent self. Restore the requirement of 2/3 of the delegates to nominate. Then we will never have to worry about voting for a paleoPaulie to cause an open convention.
2. Republicans in many states are registered by public authorities and the lists are maintained by them. In other states like Illinois and many Massachusetts trashbag strongholds, NON-REPUBLICANS get to vote in Republican processes. Put a firm and final end to this. If the government authorities will not register party members, then the party itself may be forced to do so. Without getting into fine details, require six months between dropping a Demonrat registration and registering Republican and require the unaffiliated to register Republican at least one month before they participate in the GOP nominating process. Any state party that refuses loses its entire representation. The SCOTUS ruled forty years ago that for nominating convention processes including choosing delegates, PARTY RULES prevail over governmental legislation or regulation.
3. The requirement that candidates be pre-drafted to run and not merely farm the steers and queers of Wall Street for zillions in unidentifiable superpac cash and toss their hats in the ring regardless of track record or lack of principles (whoever can I mean?) sounds good but needs a lot more thought and specificity.
4. Require that (like papal election conclaves) the party PLATFORM ("The policy" at conclaves) be argued and enacted FIRST and only then does the convention move on to the nomination of candidates and that the final nominations not be official until the nominees formally swear to govern according to the enacted platform. This is a superb leadership principle.
4a. Explanation of #4 by analogy: Imagine, as is reasonable, that communists who had wormed their way into the papal household under the relatively politically clueless Pope Paul VI, were well aware of the lifelong anti-communism of Albino Cardinal Luciani who was elected as Pope John Paul I and murdered him by poison in the hope that his successor would be a political airhead and more manipulable. The second 1978 conclave is held, is driven by Poland's veteran anti-nazi and anti-communist primate who had been imprisoned by both nazis and communists Stefan Cardinal Wycinski who proposes a policy of retaliation against the soviets as the primary policy of the next papacy and Karol Cardinal Wojtyla as the pope to carry it out. Upon election, JP II fired the entire papal household staff in case anyone doubts what happened to JP I. While JP II had to survive two public attempts to assassinate him: one by a "traditionalist" schismatic priest at Fatima using a kitchen knife and the second far more serious attempt by heavy caliber handgun in Vatican Square by Mehmet Ali Agca (a Turkish fascist recruited and paid by the Bulgarian KGB acting on orders from the soviet KGB run by future soviet dictators Yuri Vladimirovich Andropov and Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev). The GOP, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, is subject to the election schedule in the constitution and does not get opportunities for makeovers in the event of non-immediate disasters.
5. Abolish caucuses altogether for the choice of delegates. If someone wants to be a delegate, they must run in primaries. If the state does not fund the primary, then the party must do so. Any state whose delegate process is other than by closed primary loses its entire delegation. Only in the even of death or disability may a delegate be replaced by his/her alternate moving up and the candidate's state vacancy committee choosing and qualifying a new alternate.
6. Establish these changes and see how they work, before any further but unnecessary changes.
7. No one becomes a delegate by virtue of holding public or party office. Every potential delegate must actually run for selection.
Just for the purposes of this discussion, I decided to list the states by order of their voting preference in a 20-year period (counting 6 Presidential elections between 1988-2008):
“Perfect 6 (voted GOP all years in the period)” (13 states)
“5 out of 6” (6 states)
Arizona (all but 1996)
Georgia (all but 1992)
Indiana (all but 2008)
Montana (all but 1992)
North Carolina (all but 2008)
Virginia (all but 2008)
“4 out of 6” (7 states)
Arkansas (all but 1992 & 1996)
Colorado (all but 1992 & 2008)
Florida (all but 1996 & 2008)
Kentucky (all but 1992 & 1996)
Louisiana (all but 1992 & 1996)
Missouri (all but 1992 & 1996)
Tennessee (all but 1992 & 1996)
“Half/Average (equal to 3 elections won by Dems nationally and 3 by GOP)” (3 states)
Nevada (against GOP in 1992, 1996, 2008)
Ohio (against GOP in 1992, 1996, 2008)
West Virginia (against GOP in 1988, 1992, 1996)
“2 out of 6” (2 states)
New Hampshire (voted GOP only in 1988 & 2000)
New Mexico (voted GOP only in 1988 & 2004)
“1 out of 6 (hostile to GOP Presidential candidates)” (11 states)
California (last voted GOP in 1988)
Connecticut (last voted GOP in 1988)
Delaware (last voted GOP in 1988)
Illinois (last voted GOP in 1988)
Iowa (last voted GOP in 2004, and before that not since 1984)
Maine (last voted GOP in 1988)
Maryland (last voted GOP in 1988)
Michigan (last voted GOP in 1988)
New Jersey (last voted GOP in 1988)
Pennsylvania (last voted GOP in 1988)
Vermont (last voted GOP in 1988)
“Rotten Zero (viscerally opposed to GOP Presidential candidates)” (8 states + DC)
District of Columbia (never cast a vote for GOP for President)
Hawaii (last voted GOP in 1984)
Massachusetts (last voted GOP in 1984)
Minnesota (last voted GOP in 1972) — current longest record for voting against GOP Presidential nominee
New York (last voted GOP in 1984)
Oregon (last voted GOP in 1984)
Rhode Island (last voted GOP in 1984)
Washington (last voted GOP in 1984)
Wisconsin (last voted GOP in 1984)
Now this exclusively address their Presidential preference and doesn’t go into their votes for Governor, Senator, Congress, legislature, etc.
In listing this, I would obviously tend to give more credence to those who’ve voted the most for the GOP and least for those that haven’t. I’ll mention the “Big 3” early primary/Caucus states...
As you can see, South Carolina does deserve considerable credibility on picking a nominee as they have been consistently pro-GOP (not since 1976 have they voted Democrat, and before that, 1960). Not necessarily an argument that it deserves the definitive first position in early voting states, but at least it can make the case.
Now look at New Hampshire. It has only voted twice for the GOP candidate in the period covered (1988, which ended the period when it was a more GOP-leaning state Presidentially, and as of this year, lasted voted GOP in 2000 (and only by a slim plurality, with normal Gore voters getting peeled off to Nader) and didn’t even stick with the incumbent in 2004, even as Dubya got a slightly higher % of the vote). In other words, I wouldn’t even call NH a swing state with that record (and voted for the Democrat in 2008 with over 54% of the vote, higher than the national average - McCain carried not even a single county, a first for a GOP candidate in the state since at least the 19th century - even Bob Dole & Barry Goldwater carried at least 1 county). Clearly it is a reliable Democrat state. It has no business being a determining factor for a GOP Presidential candidate and should be swiftly jettisoned as an “early state.” What’s the worst that can happen ? They vote Democrat as they have in every election, save 1, beginning in 1992 ?
Iowa is even worse. Aside from 2004, when GW Bush won by a plurality, it lasted voted GOP for President way back in 1984. It voted 54% for the Democrat in 2008, higher than the national average. It should have even lesser of a say than New Hampshire.
We see Texas staring out at us as a “perfect 6” state, but how often has it even figured as a major player in deciding the nominee ? Democrat New Hampshire is make or break for the GOP nominee, but reliably GOP Texas isn’t ? There’s something seriously wrong there. Texas, as the largest reliably GOP state, should have an equally BIG say.
Anyway, just a few points to augment yours.
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%.
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.
I’m with you on all those.
Your argument is wrong. If Romney is elected, the establishment will continue selecting their nominees. However, if his chances are sabotaged (even if it means Obama wins), the establishment will not only learn a lesson but will also lose its grip over the party.
I understand your frustration with Obama and share it. Perhaps, we can control it by voting the right people into the House and the Senate.
May God bless you and yours!
Thanks! May you and all of yours be blessed now and forever!
Just ask yourself which supreme court nominee was easier to stop? Was it Homer Fortenberry (1968) or Herod Blackmun (a Nixon "Republican" all-time disgrace)? Abe Fortas for Chief Justice or Sandra Day O'Connor? We can all play the same game. Also recall such GOP-nominated giants of judicial conservatism as Sandra Day O'Kennedy, David "Swish" Souter, Earl Warren, Lewis Powell, John Paul Stevens, and (who could forget?) William Brennan. Those are far closer to the kind of baby-killing, gun-grabbing, family destroying elitist schlubs that Robamney would nominate (who would then be brainlessly rubber-stamped by many GOP senators as "our nominees"). Nice try, no cigar!
Oh, and the difference is that the GOP can not be destroyed by Obozo. Only a sorry POS elitist BUYING the GOP nomination like the Massachusetts trashbag can do that. Either Obozo or Robamney will gleefully destroy what is left of the republic. That, for the time being is a fait accomplis because of Robamney's nomination shopping spree.
Whichever of these two is elected needs to be utterly destroyed. Flat. Black. Glows in the dark. No honeymoon. Rule or ruin are the only alternatives. If the GOP does not want an internal civil war of a sort that will make Goldwater vs. Rockefeller look like a tiddleywinks contest, a war requiring the absolute destruction of current GOP financial structures ($ and a snobby way of life being the only things that these corruptocrats in GOP drag care about), it needs to keep social revolutionary POS Robamney from being nominated and, absent that, from being elected.
I will give you a far better and more accurate reason why RINOs control the GOP. All too many members of the party's majority conservative wing are gullible enough to back any POS so long as he/she has the GOP label. If conservatives would determine to make the nomination worthless for any RINO, the RINOs will go away and we prevail not only in the party but usually in the nation as well.
This is EXACTLY right! That is what happened to Arlen Specter. We need to drive out every one of them and they can go to the Democrat Party.
We beat them only one time: with Reagan in 1980 (and 1984 by extension) because we conservatives were better organized and united. We also beat them in 1964 with Goldwater, but they sandbagged the nominee.
It would have been nice if Sarah had gotten in. But she didn't.
We have to play with the hand that we were dealt. It is even possible that a Romney administration might do something right with the right people to push him.
It is a hell of a lot more likely that will happen than pushing Obama in the right direction will happen with a bicameral majority.
I started this thread to discuss positive ways we might reform a RINO rigged system into picking less RINO inclined nominees in the future.
Too bad it has deteriorated into a thread of whining about the latest RINO wing nominee and how we will punish the GOP establishment by taking our marbles and going home.
Conservatives are supposed to be about 40% of the American voting populace, moderates about 40% and liberals about 20%. But the liberals have a firm grip on one political party, the moderates are taking over the other and the conservatives are being consigned to a fringe movement, where the liberals rightly belong.
If that doesn't bother you, then just keep doing what your doing. Whine about the latest RINO nominee and let the opportunity to reform the rigged process which gives us RINO after RINO get p*ssed away -- again!
Posts #36 and #39, just on this thread, certainly suggest such a brilliant strategy.
Taking our marbles and going home is the way to pick less RINO inclined candidates in future. We need to hand a defeat to Romney. Otherwise, we strengthen the hand of the RINOs.
If they had learned those lessons so well, they wouldn't keep coming back with RINO nominees. But they do because (surprise) that's what RINOs do.
Now we have probably the weakest RINO nominee of the bunch and a perfect opportunity to tell them to put up or shut up by changing the delegate allocation rules to give more weight to states which actually deliver electoral votes to the GOP nominee in the fall.
And rather than work for a fundamental change in the delegate allocation process which might actually give a future conservative nominee a fighting chance, you'd rather just pile on the latest RINO offering so you can take smug satisfaction in letting nature take the same course it did in 1960, 1976, 1992, 1996 and 2008.
How clever! How imaginative! How symptomatic of why we keep playing the same game and stay stuck in the same rut!
You got the wrong guy. I am not the one piling on to Willard. I am opposed to him. Maybe, this post was intended for someone else?