In 2012 - no more open primaries - a proposal
By E Pluribus Unum Posted in Elections — Comments (142) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Promoted from the diaries by AE because it's time to start working on this issue.
FROM 2012 ON, REPUBLICANS CHOOSE THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE
To preface:
(1) This is NOT my promised Round 1 of the 'Fredheads will be heard' series, that's getting bumped back to Tuesday or Wednesday. Right now I'm studying some First Principles. Before we measure guys against a standard called "conservative", we have to have that standard defined more specifically than just standard usage and shorthand.
(2) The title is somewhat misleading. You'll see where this is going presently.
(3) I do not have all the intricacies of primary machinery mastered. Where you find blatant errors, aspects I have totally missed, or just stupid moronic reasoning, feel free to point it out. And I know you will. That's what we do here, bludgeon and whip each other for amusement, online. It's like a virtual Fight Club, but physically safer. Marginally.
Let's get to the basic question. What is the purpose of the primary season? It is to select the Republican nominee in the general election for President of the United States. What should the purpose be? For REPUBLICANS to select that nominee, having had a fair chance to evaluate the candidates.
Who is in control of this process? The national Republican Party, along with the state GOP parties, and state legislatures all have a finger in the pie. There is no overriding, bottom-line top-down authority, although the national party can exert influence by setting guidelines and manipulating delegate counts.
The system is a complex, multi-headed beast, and it is broken. It's not easy to fix, because different entities have competing interests. I propose some solutions.
Proposed solutions IMO should incorporate a few thoughts:
(1) Only Republicans should have a voice in who the nominee is, and how the process is done.
(2) There should be no presupposed notion that Republican = conservative. RINOs are still Republicans. Northeast suck-bag liberal Republicans are still Republicans. But there SHOULD be a presupposed notion that the Republican Party stands for certain tenets that are not negotiable, and those tenets must be conservative.
(3) The national party cannot, by law [I think], take over the whole process. But they need to be de facto in charge. Primary elections are state affairs. The party can, however, set standards and punish non-compliance by nullifying, reducing, refusing to seat, etc a state's delegates. [point of inquiry - I know they are doing this on the early primaries - I do not know for a fact that this can be done for other reasons. Somebody pitch in here with the details please]
(4) any solution requires that the national GOP be free to act in its own interest, which BETTER be the interest of Republicans and the Republican platform.
(5) any solution requires that candidates themselves be free to act in their own interest.
(6) the TIME scale in which this is played out is UNACCEPTABLE. It MUST change.
(7) best thought - the national media can SO kiss my butt. They wield ALOT of power in the current system. Let's cut them out of it - coldly, deliberately, and with deadly precision. Not cut them out of *reporting it*, but cut them out of the ability to control the dialog, control the framing of issues for Republican voters.
To recap the current season through EPU's eyes:
(1) Candidates declaring campaigns virtually in the aftermath of the 2006 elections. The one laggard who declared 14 months before the election (instead of the requisite 22 months) was pilloried roundly by the press, the other candidates, and the right-blogosphere.
(2) Televised debates began, what, in July of 2007? Most of them were hosted by the left-wing press, and the fora and questions were distinctly unhelpful [the very NICEST word I can think of here] in helping Republicans get to know their candidates. About ten candidates get soundbite-sized time slots to answer left-slanted questions.
(3) With a September convention crowding the primary season (tic), the first primaries and cauci were in early January. Most of the states were punished for going earlier than the GOP mandated.
(4) The bellwether states were MOSTLY open to Democrats and Independents to vote in (and they DID). The principle thing they ALL had in common was that they were NOT BELLWETHER STATES. NONE of them could be expected to be a reliable indicator of what the Republican voters across America would vote for. South Carolina COULD have been that indicator -- however, open primary. Nice going.
(5) Super Tuesday approaches rapidy - 4 weeks after the first primary, STILL not having had a decent closed primary in a Republican state. Nearly half of the delegates will be designated on that day, 7 months before the convention and 9 months before the general election. Stooooooooopid. The deal will probably be done on that day.
(6) Whatever is not decided Feb 4 will be decided by the end of March 4 -- when Texas and some other bigs have weighed in - 6 months before the convention and 8 months before the general election.
There's more, but that hopefully sets the general tone. At what point have Republicans had a voice in this process?
OK, my shot at a proper solution, in chronological order as the season plays out.
(1) Declaration of candidacy -- no change. This is America, anybody can run and be judged on their merits, and declare as soon or as late as they want to.
(2) Debates -- have the national GOP sponsor a series of debates
(a) at least 6 debates, at 3 week intervals.
(b) starting Nov 1 (this is important -- not a day earlier). We HAVE to give this season a slower start.
(c) all candidates polling at least 3% in Rasmussen/Zogby average should be invited.
(d) the national GOP decides when, where, and who moderates, and what the format and questions are. (I sincerely hope they'll get more than 90 seconds, etc, but I'm just proposing a system)
(e) Have the moderators be prominent, influential conservatives. Picture Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Thomas Sowell, Dick Cheney, William F Buckley, Haley Barbour, Jed Babbin, Fred Thompson, Rick Santorum, Ramesh Ponnuru and probably prominent Republicans who aren't so distinctly conservative as well - Former President George W Bush, Peggy Noonan, Matt Drudge, Bill Kristol. I'm guessing you'd get a few people to tune in (tic).
In addition - it's not nice, but use muscle here. I want all debates by ABC, YouTube, etc, boycotted before the end of the 6 debates. For the GOP debate system, declare that eligibility for these debates is contingent on turning down all other debates. A candidate chooses either/or. Play the media game and hit all those debates, or hit the Republican Party sactioned debate series. [Inner EPU struggle taking place -- I realize we need SOMEBODY to televise these debates, and here we're going royally P*** off pretty much EVERY significant media outlet. I don't know, CSPAN? FNC, even if we won't let them run any debates? I don't know. ON THE OTHER HAND -- there will be loud clamoring by Republicans, both high and low, and an obvious large and thirsty audience. There WILL be somebody willing to air these -- no doubt contingent on letting their people have all the before- and after-debate commentary & analysis, face-time, access, etc]
(3) The Primary season -- Screw Iowa and New Hampshire, we are DONE. They are a hindrance, not a help. As I stated earlier, the national party needs to assert authority and dominate this process - while being a benevolent and fair arbiter of the state machinery. I propose:
(a) that the first 2 primaries be the first and second Tuesday on or after March 1.
(b) they be selected to go on a lottery basis for each 4-year cycle.
(c) states eligible for a "front 2" will have to have gone GOP in the last 4 presidential elections. They will have to be worth at least 8 electoral votes, not have been a "front 2" in the last 3 cycles.
(d) to be able to seat delegates at the convention, primaries (or caucuses) must be closed. Not semi-open, not semi-closed (see definitions). ONLY Republicans select the Republican candidate for President.
(e) anybody going earlier than those first 2 states, seats NO delegates in the convention. Any state not having closed primaries, ditto. NO delegates. Because that will not deter some (IA and NH, notably), then additionally [still working on this -- but cut them out of a whole BUNCH of party stuff, make them pay in a way that should ensure compliance]. Candidates who "file" (whatever the term is) in states who violate, those candidates will not be allowed to speak at the convention, even if they are the nominee. Brinkmanship? Oh yeah. It's a time for political courage by the party. Time to grow a pair.
(f) No "super-days". Using the number of electoral votes as my guide (good rule of thumb, another barometer will do) - no primary day may have more than 70 electoral votes at stake (that's less than 15% of the total). This allows little bitty states to combine their "purchasing power" without Republicans getting stupid about it. How to arbitrate? I'm open, but I'd suggest a first-come, first serve.
(4) The Convention -- Have it in FREAKING July, the first full week after the July 4th holiday. This compresses the primary season (March - June), and magnifies the general election season. This is done de facto anyway.
So to sum up: the Republican process for selecting a presidential candidate is broken. It's too long. The anti-Republican press has WAY too much influence on the process and the outcome. Too many open primaries, and especially EARLY open primaries in purple-to-blue states allow non-Republicans power to unduly influence the process.
It's broke.
Fix it.
It takes courage and resolve.
Grow a pair.
This is a plan.
That is all
[procedural update -- it would be very sloppy of me not to point out that this whole thing was inspired in part by Jed Babbin's excellent column Whose Primaries are They? from today's Human Events.]
Keep in mind, my proposal is admittedly a brain-storming thing, I don't hold every point dear.
But I DO hold dear the "Only Republicans should have a voice in who the nominee is, and how the process is done." I agree with you in that there should be a LOOK toward independents and cross-over Democrats. But that is a matter for the candidates to debate, and the Republican rank and file to evaluate. Right-media will be all over it. Have no doubt that polls by reputable outfits like Rasmussen will keep a close eye on that, and Republicans of all levels will be watching those polls closely. We won't be caught unawares. We might choose unwisely, but not unawares.
On caucuses, I leave it to the states. Outdated, a bit weird? Yes. Interesting and exotic? Also yes.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
about a week ago, but no one commented: http://www.redstate.com/blogs/torched/2008/jan/14/in_light_of_all_the_re...
1) Index the first five contests according to the highest percentage of votes cast in the last presidential election, five highest first, then in blocs of 15 states still according to the percentage. In the first five states a closed primary will be required and the delegates will be indexed to the percent of votes. All others can set according to state rules.
2) Separate all states into five regional categories: Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, Southwest and Midwest. Select one state from each of the regions with the highest percentage of red votes in the last presidential election. Then, among them, index from highest to lowest; All five closed and delegates indexed. Then blocs of 10 or 15 are created from the next 2 or 3 highest states in the different regions, all set according to state rules.
3) Keep current system intact but all states must have closed primaries.
4) Keep all states rules intact and create a single day for all primaries.
5) Pick 5 to 10 states that we feel represent our core party best and let them vote first similarly to our current system. The rest vote on a single day.
Quick analysis of each:
1) This option will give the most conservative candidate the most momentum bar none. It may also alienate states that are more diverse or swing states.
2) Gives a strong conservative candidate with broad regional appeal the momentum. It is fair to all regions but still might alienate larger, more diverse swing states.
3) Keeps old regulars happy. Swing voters get no say which may alienate them.
4) This takes away identity politics since no one will get momentum. It will force voters to pick based on principal. Downside is smaller campaigns with little to no money will be alienated.
5) Gives a solid conservative candidate. States that are picked might need to be changed again one day.
I never saw that diary -- and that's happened to me before -- something I thought was a perfectly decent, well-written diary, and nobody noticed. It happens.
Your #3 (all closed primaries) and #5 (first primaries are good red states) are ideas that I've incorporated into my thoughts here. Some of those others are interesting and worthy of discussion.
Good one, Torched. Keep writing and keep your chin up.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
I like the fact that you propose stricter limits on debates. Subjecting our candidates to the liberal media's watered-down debates seems to go directly against conservative goals. We should push to get a RNC backed debate circuit that takes all the candidates through the first few contests and moderated by someone who knows our issues. Then invite the cameras in as spectators not as rule-makers.
The dumbing down of the debates make them practically useless. I'm not sure anyone these days even understand what a real debate is.
Let's try and gauge what the candidates IQ's are as part of our evaluation process.
Is it possible to incorporate into the changes, that the first
state(s) to hold a primary are not definitively chosen any sooner than 60 days before the scheduled primary election in those state(s).
except that i'd reverse those percentages and make the majority of primaries open. it's very important that a candidate be able to please more than core conservatives in order not only to win in the general but to lead the nation as a whole for the next four years.
but otherwise, very good. thanks.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
You and I are going to to-ma-to/to-mah-to on everything this year, aren't we?
Say it with me now CLOOOOOOOOSED. CLOOOOOOOOOOOOSED PRIMARY.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
no fun otherwise
but hey, we agree on most of it
now go get yourself a donut, copper
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
Limit the influence of Independents -- stop counting their votes after a certain number (determined potentially by a percentage of actual registered Independents in the state) has been achieved, i.e. in an election consisting of 10,000 voters, allow a maximum of 1,000 of those votes to be Independent.
This way, you still have the Independent influence, but on a limited scale which still highlights the intent of the actual Republican voters.
-- Wingzfan99 --
There's a lot of potential for a truly close primary to become an echo chamber and you come out with a candidate that cannot pick up the NPs and win a general. It isn't an insuperable obstacle, but it is one. I would suggest that the R primary be open to NPs, but closed to any registered to another party - and no "instant" registrations, put a thirty or sixty day limit on that. Even if the State law allows you to register instantly or thirty days before an election, the most common, the Party doesn't have to let you participate in its primary.
Second, as with registration, the Party may control its membership and its primary participation, but states control elections. No D controlled state is going to be cooperative, so maybe the solution in the D controlled states is the caucus/convention system rather than primary elections.
BTW, Recommended.
In Vino Veritas
Excellent point on the D-controlled states. Can the R party in a D-state do that? Can they step out of the state primary election and say [for example] "the Republican Party of New Jersey is going to caucus to select delegates, and it ain't gonna be Feb 20 when the statewide primary is, it's gonna be March 27". Can they do that?
Pretty good thoughts on the NP. I don't want NP's to vote in Republican primaries, that's my pretty firm opinion. To much mischief. As I describe upthread, due to incessant polling, we would not be completely ignorant of what candidates have no crossover appeal.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
I thought all you FredHeads loved Federalism so much, but here you want to beat the states into line if they don't agree with what a national group wants. Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean you get to change the game. If you want to, get your state to have a closed primary (assuming they don't already); try for that but don't you dare think you get to tell me how MY state picks it's delegates for the convention.
John S. McCain III
We've come a long, long way together/Through the hard times and the good
I have to celebrate you, baby/I have to praise you like I should
It's the exact same frame of mind.
John S. McCain III
We've come a long, long way together/Through the hard times and the good
I have to celebrate you, baby/I have to praise you like I should
It's that freedom of association thing; quaint notion, huh?
Your state can do whatever fifty percent plus one in the Leg decide to do.
In Vino Veritas
Neil probably covered this better than I could. There is a "freedom of association" component here. The Republican Party is NOT a government entity (though I can see that the lines blur). It is free to determine how it selects its nominee. It should do so.
And to a point you raised - you're dang right I'm gonna work to get Texas to go to a closed primary.
To another point "telling you how YOUR state picks its delegates". Pick them any way you want. When you want. The national party is not obligated to seat them for what is a national candidacy.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
I swear, even if I was pro-McCain I'd drop him based solely on what I've seen from his supporters recently.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Hey, we had to take a lot of crap here when McCain was down last year. People were dancing on his grave.
John S. McCain III
We've come a long, long way together/Through the hard times and the good
I have to celebrate you, baby/I have to praise you like I should
bigger critics of mccain around here
but ok, i get that you're frustrated. your tolerance is a bit low, i think, given that until now almost all the attention has gone to fred, fred, fred, huckabee, romney, and fred.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
Finrod I always enjoy your comments. But I think it is absurd for any Redstate user to point a finger at one particular set of pro-Candidate X bloggers. All the pro-ers and the con-ners have, broadly speaking, dirtied their hands.
For my part, I've gone far out of my way not to denigrate any candidate (other than Paul) or his supporters (other than Ronulans).
absentee
Other than the Ronulans, I haven't seen any candidateBot-type do anything quite as annoying as for example JAG using the same bl**dy subject line for something like 15 comments in a row.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
In what I said. Yes, the McCainbots are exactly as annoying as any of the other. That was my point. Every group here has guilty parties. Your comment singled one group out. It's not realistic. I've seen bad behavior tied to each of the candidates.
absentee
and even McCain supporters objected to it
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
Let's have 1 day Feb. 5 where Every state votes in Both parties. The candidates declare their candidacies earlier in the summertime and spend that time campaigning and making stump speeches to every state that has the most delegates or where their base can give them enough. Spend the summer having debates just like we did this time around as well, while exhaustive they were effective..some more than others.
Then we go to a brokered convention in July where everyone sits down and works out a deal and then it's taken to the floor for a vote.
And after that we go to Election Day
Small states have no voice that way. None at all. Too early too. I mean, this is just my opinion.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
You can end up with a truly disastrous nominee taking the nomination in a five way race. A guy who wouldn't stand a chance in a two or three way race. The staggered schedule works to avoid this by slowly winnowing down the field.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
The RNC, like the Electoral College,is not first past the post. You have to have a majority to win.
We would want to consider a runoff process though, undoubtedly.
You need a majority at the Convention, but you don't need a majority in the primaries to get a majority in the Convention. With a national primary you run the risk of the votes being fairly evenly spread and someone could - in principle at least - win every state with 25-30% of the vote. That would get them all the votes from the winner take all states and usually a large majority in the district states. (I don't think any states use actual proportional distributions).
The other risk with this is you end up choosing someone with a high national profile, such as a Senator, in preference to someone with actual governing experience.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
I also like that there's a few small states where voters can really get a chance to see the candidates before they vote.
A national primary would be totally media-driven.
so the rinky-dink first state ballots right now can wipe out a candidate before 95% of the US gets a chance to vote. That just ain't right.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
I prefer a national primary day, too. One person, one vote.
But then again, I live in big red Texas, so a national primary day would give me back my vote like no other solution would.
But if we had that, then wouldn't the candidate with the most money/name recognition going in automatically win?
If we had a national primary three weeks ago, wouldn't the nominee be Romney or Giuliani?
I like giving smaller states a chance in this. Now, I'm from Texas, and think that Texas should be the first Republican primary because we're the largest reliably Republican state, with a population that represents the entire breadth of the party.
Texas as the first in the nation primary, anyone?
It may not be the perfect plan, but it's a good start.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
E Pluribus, this was brilliant. I have to disagree with you on one thing though. I think you completely understand the primary process and the disasterous shape it's in! When I was growing up on the farm, I hand milked a cow every morning. She was a b!@#h of an animal and often stuck her crap encrusted hoof in the bucket right when I got done. To stop her, I had to put the kickers on so tight that her back legs were completely held together. If I didn't, I had to throw the whole bucket out, and that always ticked me off. How is letting Jellos and Devious Libs vote in OUR primary any different then me not putting the kickers on tight? Great post!!!
Tim Schieferecke
Good analogy. But I think my proposal has a few brilliant points if I may say ( the GOP-led debates moderated by conservative all-stars), but other than that there are alot of areas that are at best, a first-look that would benefit from alot of critical input.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
I may quibble with a few of the details, but it's a good start.
If you determine the first state by lottery, then you can control the start of the campaign season. You can't campaign if you don't know who will vote first. You could try to run a national campaign first, but it would be extremely expensive and not very efficient.
I agree with others who are against a national primary. It is the surest way to end up with a brokered convention. I would have three states go first, each one week apart. First two small states and then one big one. After that I would be ok with regional primaries, but nothing to big.
"(c) states eligible for a "front 2" will have to have gone GOP in the last 4 presidential elections. They will have to be worth at least 8 electoral votes, not have been a "front 2" in the last 3 cycles."
By my quick count, that would make the following states eligible, if this system were in place for 2008: South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Alabama, Indiana, Oklahoma and Texas.
However, that was my only quibble with the whole post, as there are times when states that are normally red go a blue for one cycle, and there are times when a candidate does a clean sweep, like Reagan in '84.
The specific thing I proposed is simply that - and BYW, good job on researching that. A more practical list might be "4 of the last 5", since occasionally a landslide happens (a la Goldwater, McGovern, Mondale) in which almost every state craps out.
My personal opinion - that list of states is a FABULOUS list of states worthy of being on the "top 2" bellwether rotation. In my heart I'd add a few others.
So, what think ye? How might you change it?
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
My thought was to make sure that the "first 2" were pretty reliable Red States, the better to give an actually representative bunch of Republicans the chance to strike the first blow.
Both IA and NH would qualify under "last 1 of 2", and they are both frankly on my personal "hit the road, Jack" list.
But hey, this is America, let's negotiate. Last 3 of 4?
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
... that this is the one point on this list I really disagree with. You want the early primaries in competitive states, not solid Republican states (and especially not solid Democratic states). Iowa and New Hampshire are a bit eccentric, and NH has open primaries, but I'd really prefer the first two states voting be places where a GOP win or loss is not a virtual guarantee.
I mean, i still like it the way I recommended though. This means the early campaigning shoots right at the base. There is plenty of time to play to the middle once we've gotten a good look at the candidates' bona fides.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
National Primary, and all on the same day, and no revelation of the polls until the polls have closed on the west coast. Kind of like a general election, but just for the GOP
Can't tell you how much I enjoyed turning the radio on as I drove home from work and to vote just to learn that my vote was irrelevant.
In Vino Veritas
... but the basic thrust of your post (i.e. get rid of closed primaries, start the primaries later, get rid of overloaded 'Super Tuesday' type mega-primary days) has my complete support.
Why is CA on Super Tueday? CA alone would be a Super Tuesday?
I'm pretty sure bonus delegates would put Texas on top, and maybe Florida too.
Looking it up... I'm wrong. California 173, Texas 140, Florida 114 (before penalty).
I'll do some serious reflection on this issue and try to come back later and see if I can add/tweak anything to this debate.
However, it will not happen because the people who run the Party are really dumb.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
I'm sorry for my ignorance, but what does "5" mean? I see it posted here a lot, and I totally don't get it.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
It's a throwback to the days when you could rate comments from 1 to 5 (still can on some sites).
So you never do a "6" or a "10", that's gauche. But you *can* do a 55555555, or 5x5x5x5x5, or a 5^infinity to express that you really, really, REALLY like a comment.
Tbone and I go way back. Mostly we argue, but it's all in fun.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
see the Unofficial RedState FAQ, conveniently referenced in my signature... ;-)
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
The reason Regan Dems came to be was he won them over in the Michigan Primany in 80. You miss the oppurtiny to open up a whole core of voters, and in the states like CA and NY it is stupid because there is so many more Register dems than Republicans you have to reach out.
I believe all things considered, the benefits of EPU's proposal far outweigh any downsides.
As to the point you make, I do not believe it would be a downside at all. If you will recall, EPU has the convention wrapping up the nomination process in July... right after the 4th. With this compressed primary schedule, plenty of time remains for our nominee to impress America- particularly when standing beside the Dem nominee.
I agree. I am sick of Iowa and New Hampshire determining who the nominee is before the rest of the states have a say. I am also tired of the fact that the campaigns start so early. Just think after the November election, the party that lost will already be criticizing the policies of the new president before they take office and that party will already have about five candidates (mostly U.S. Senators) lined up ready to start raising money for their campaigns.
I propose the following:
A. No formal debates or campaigning (ads, mailings, etc) until six months prior to the first primary.
B. Get rid of the caucuses. They do not allow all voters to have a say and they are usually rigged. The caucuses do not give the country a true representation of the candidates.
C. I agree all primaries should be to the party you are registered. If you are an Independent, too bad. Vote for the Independent Party candidate. Make a choice in your life.
D. The primaries should be broken down into time zones. The first primary will be the eastern time zone and those elections will take place the first Tuesday in February. If necessary I would be ok with splitting that time zone into two halves (Upper eastern from Virginia north and the southern states from North Carolina on down.) The next round of primaries will be the Central Time Zone and these primaries will be conducted the first Tuesday in March. See the pattern.
This would allow all of the states to have a say and would allow the candidates to campaign without having expensive air travel flying from Iowa to New Hampshire back to Nevada. It would also eliminate the disenfranchisement of voters like Michigan and Florida. What does it say to voters in those states who want to make sure their issues are heard and then take away their right to be involved in the selection of the president.
E. All primaries would be winner take all. This would keep people like John Edwards or Rudy Guiliani from staying in the race.
F. The most important part is that all candidates must compete in every state. No selecting states. If you want to be president then you must be president of all of the United States not just a select few.
These are my reforms.
Having only Conservative Republicans choose the nominee is an almost certain recipe for a candidate that is not acceptable to Liberals and Moderates which comprise about 70% of the electorate. And of course, the "Northeast suck-bag liberal Republicans" will I'm sure continue to vote for the GOP since they are so accepted and respected.
If we continue to allow liberals and moderates to choose the GOP candidate, then one day there will be no difference whatsoever in the two parties. We're almost there now!
Make a stand!
: sigh :
I see simplistic notions of who Reagan was, and why he was able to do what he did, are the only acceptable explanations, and prove any idiotic theory about why your candidate of choice will win.
: sigh : carry on.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Conservative candidates can and do win. They can and do pull from the middle. The whole POINT of what I propose is that Republicans take charge of the Republican Party, and quit letting lefty media and Democrat voters pick our candidate.
Why is that complicated OR controversial.
If our candidate loses on the merits, so be it. But by NO means is that anything resembling a given.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
It's complicated because politics is complicated. It's controversial because it's simple-minded and, basically, wrong.
If it was merely running a "conservative," that got you landslide election victories, then Barry Goldwater wouldn't have taken a 45 state drubbing.
You could run a candidate taking identical positions to Reagan without his charm, and he wouldn't have had the same kind of victory, if he would have won at all. You could take a candidate with identical positions and charm as Reagan, and run him during a different year, and he may well not have won. You could take Reagan, in 1980, and run him against anybody but Carter, and he may not have won. Hell, if you think Reagan would have beaten Scoop Jackson in a landslide in 1980 had Jackson been nominated over Carter in 1976, you're nuts. He may have won, maybe, but frankly, even if he had, he would have entered politically crippled and without a lot of support he needed to do what he did, and a lot of the same people singing his praises today wouldn't give him a second thought.
Reagan was a particular man in a particular time that did great things. He's not timeless. You can't endlessly do what he did in every situation and hope to get the same results. He's not God. His story is not Gospel. His results were based in large part because of the circumstances of the time, his own personal abilities, and the abilities of others surrounding him.
You can't re-create that, and I'm sick and tired of him being used as a prop for every idiot who wants to insist that his candidate is the only one sufficiently "pure" to carry the "Mantle of Reagan." I'm sick and tired of idiots who try to prop up wingnuts as being "true to Reagan," and denouncing anybody who supports another candidate as "not conservative enough," no matter what the situation, no matter what the office, especially when you take into consideration that it was Reagan who recruited moderates like Arlen Specter to run because he thought they had a chance to win. It was Reagan who took Gerald Ford's and George H.W. Bush's campaign manager, Jim Baker, and made him Chief of Staff and Secretary of the Treasury. It was Reagan who picked George H.W. Bush to be his Vice President, for God's sake.
Basically, I'm sick and tired of people who don't know Reagan, don't understand Reagan, and don't really like Reagan as he existed, but only how he exists in their mind, using him as a tool to beat on others in a self-righteous attempt to subordinate them to their will and their points of view. It's bullcrap and I'm tired of it.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
88 - W
92 - L
96 - L
00 - W
04 - W
Considering 00 was so close, it's practically 50/50 whether a non-conservative will win, either.
Next time, let's try a conservative again. Especially should we lose in 08 (unlikely, but possible), it's the conservatives' turn.
We should separate the open primary issue from the scheduling issue, and focus on the former. There is no consensus on the scheduling beyond that the current system is broken.
IMO we can quickly reach a consensus that open primaries must go. I'd use a mix of carrots and sticks.
1) Any state primary or caucus which is restricted to registered Republican voters only gets double delegates.
2) Any state primary or caucus which lets registered Democrats vote gets half delegates.
The politicians will figure that one out real fast.
But I'm a little more of a hardliner. No delegates for those who don't play ball. None, zip.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
They didn't do it this year - and when they did punish by reducing delegates in half it stil didn't impact the decisions of Florida, Michigan, South Carolina, Wyoming or New Hampshire . What makes you think the party will move to alienate state aparatuses next time?
The GOP is not good at acting like a top-down party and any attempt like this will fail miserably.
The better bet is to work from the grassroots in the states that do have open primaries and get their legislatures to change it.
When the children are running amuck without any guidance, it's time to locate the belt and get somebody's attention.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
The state parties aren't children to the adult nation party - maybe that analogy holds for the Democrats but the GOP is more of a grassroots organization. The state parties are adults as well and are just looking out for their interest. This isn't surrender, it is right way to change the process.
Personally, I don't see why it is so broken. Sure, it's a long time for people to maintain attention on the election and they will tune out from time to time, but they will still tune in close to teh election so who cares? You might not think that we are picking the 'optimal' nominee but I don't see it that way - I think the winner that comes out of this will be a stronger candidate for the process and be a good nominee for the Republican party. And, I don't think that if we had your suggested process we would have had different nominees in the last 30 years - I really don't see any evidence to suggest otherwise.
It has only lately become stupid. But it has become stupid.
And my primary points remain . The press and Democrats are exerting WAY too much influence on how Republicans select their nominees.
I want our party back.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
First, I think that this is closer to equillibrium. The desire to move primaries earlier for each indiviudal state is not stupid but driven by their natural desire for influence and the tons of money that comes from all the campaigns, their entoruages and the press touring around the state. We can set it back if we want, but it will drift back to this time line - and frankly, why does it matter?
As for the Democrats and the press exerting influence - that's nonsense. The Republican nominee is being chosen by Republicans. You might not like who Republicans are choosing, and you might think they are abandoning Conservatism (I would argue that too is nonsens) but the Republicans in SC preffered McCain and Hucakbee over Thompson by a large margin and only 2% of voters there where Democrats - not a number that maters. As for the press, well in so far as that is where most people get their information sure they have undue influence - but the primary structure won't change that.
Should we have primaries in 2007? November 07? August 07? January 07? It is out of control, some states are not going to govern themselves. Like I said, it is time for the adults in the room to take charge.
Your second paragraph, the whole thing, is either deliberately obtuse or you don't seem to be observing much.
Open primaries in which the number of Democrats voting in Republican primaries was substantial. Not a SINGLE closed primary in a Red state. Not to this day. And several candidates are eliminated -- shockingly, the most conservative ones (imagine that).
Debates. Hosted by liberals, for liberals. Did you watch any of those? You certainly heard Huckabee asked if he believed the Bible. You heard questions on the AGW hoax. Did you hear questions about Iraq? The surge? Terrorism? Trade with China? Supreme Court nominations?
Concede a point already. This is tiresome.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
In South Carolina democrats voting were 2%
In Michgian 7%
In New Hampshire 2%
These number had zero impact on the end results. The candidates 'eliminated' are becasue they haven't resonated with the voters anywhere - Thompson could have followed Rudy's strategy if he wanted and spent the last month camped in Florida trying to win voters, but I doubt it would have changed anything because his failing was his inability to convince a substantial number of Republicans to back him as a leader. Absentee's post comparing his experience at McCain and Thompson events captures his failing best.
As for how early it can go - it can go exactly as early as the candidates and the press allow it. So long as they think they can sell advertising dollars, and candidates think they can win donors and voters, it will get ealrier. Both parties tried sanctions this year - states ignored them. This is yet more great evidence of the impossiblity of central control against natural equillibriums - the free market at work.
And finally, the debates. Your right, they sucked. The banality of results in the last several campaigns have been insulting - but also probably reflect the level at which voers these days are making decisions. In any case, I would love to have serious debates hosted on CSPAN by professional moderators; of course I doubt it will get a large enough audience to impact the election results. If you can get the Republican party to sponsor those I'll back it 100%.
It is up to the Party to decide how it selects its candidates - USSC affirmed that in a CA case a few years back. The leg can decide when there is a state primary since the state pays for it, but it can't determine voting criteria or even whether the primary result has any effect on candidate selection. E.g., my state's August primary is merely a beauty contest at the Presidential level. Nominees are chosen in caucus and convention in the Spring.
In Vino Veritas
"Have the moderators be prominent, influential conservatives. Picture Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Thomas Sowell, Dick Cheney, William F Buckley, Haley Barbour, Jed Babbin, Fred Thompson, Rick Santorum,"
Do You want a real debate or an infomercial? A good moderator needs to take somewhat of a devil’s advocate position to get a person to support his views. A debate moderated those named above would come across as phony baloney.
I don't think a moderator should be interjecting opinion at all, but I think the above listed people would ask more questions relevant to Republicans than the idiot lefty reporters the party usually lets moderate.
Or you could remove the personality of the moderator all together and use a local high school debate moderator/teacher. The focus will be on the candidates as it should and the questions can be picked by whatever panel you want beforehand (ideally each debate is topically defined anyway rather than tryibng to cover all the ground at each outing)
The names I listed are not nice people. Do you really think Rush would throw softball questions to presidential candidates? Rush has "Devil's Advocate" tattooed on his behind (I'm told).
Seriously. Please.
Do you know who Thomas Sowell is? I'd DIE to hear him examine candidates on Fair Tax, Flat Tax, consumption taxes, VAT, or any concepts of monetary policy, budgets, and so on.
Softball questions? No cross-examination? Sycophants?
Dick Cheney? Infomercial? William F Buckey? Phonye baloney?
I disagree, MGreb. And after enduring idiots like Chris Matthews and YouTube, there's only one way to go, and that's up.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
I think it's a major issue that no matter what candidate anyone supports in this cycle, we can come together on this.
EPU along with Torched have put out solid ideas to create some framework, along with some good input by others we can build a solid process.
We need to have a national meeting with all the state parties in the same room to come to an agreement. Everyone must understand that what is BEST for the PARTY and not state by state competition.
WE can do this!! Grass roots style, it's OUR PARTY!!!
After reading the original post but not having time yet to read All the comments... here's a thought on the Independants in a primary.
Set aside some delagates based on % of the total states' vote. Their vote would still be as an Independant so they actually have some reason to come over to our candidate. They then could not vote in the Democrats primary or a different party in the general. It would force them to carefully exercise that vote either way and not just be a spoiler as a alternative vote. To lock them out would create more reason to start a third party to further devide the votes. But the impact on the delagates would be small unless they come over in large numbers and hence drive up a repuplican vote.
Fight for the Right!
I'd prefer a system where we had primaries every few days, with states going in ascending order by the number of delegates.
that it would really skew the campaigning towards the big states. As it is now, unless you are early or big you don't get any of the candidates in your state. Less visibility in your state means a less informed decision.
The smaller states would go first. No way would the candidates ignore a shot at getting momentum there (except maybe Rudy and his "big-state" plan).
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
Ascending...man...I really should pay attention. Maybe I was spending too much time doing research for this one. I think you really have something here EPU and I'm hoping to get something good for ya.
So....you're cooking up something juicy to follow up? Looking forward to it, and give me a shout when it's up.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
Here might be a good pic for you to use in your signature:
and here is the link here
You might even say I'm "money in the bank". "Richly" imbued with humor. I know for a fact I've been described as having a metal plate in my head.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
This was the only good one on our money. Sad that it was the penny. It is becoming irrelevant...I hope you don't follow.
Ba-dum-bump
Try this picture instead...better size(click to go to source)
But I have news for you - I am on the nickel, dime, quarter, and yes, the dollar bill! You have to look really closely to see the one on the dollar bill.
So while perhaps the dollar is suffering against some foreign currencies, it is merely down and not out.
I REMAIN RELEVANT! FOR NOW!
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
I don't know who would be the one to implement it, the state or the party, but I would suggest that either the ballot allow for ranking choices or there be runoff elections so that someone actually gets a majority of the vote. I think that would solve a lot of the complaints we are having with this election.
The original proposal is excellent, especially regarding taking the debates out of the media's hands.
Whatever the primary schedule, I strongly agree with Menlo that voters should be allowed to rank their choices. For example: Huckabee won't become the nominee, but clearly has attracted a following. Their second choice should count rather than being thrown away. Ranked voting is even more important for longshot candidates like (apparently) Tancredo and Hunter. People should be able to vote their conscience without worrying about throwing the result to someone they most oppose.
I think the voting should be totally different and revitalized, like have a series (maybe 3) nationwide votes all on the same day each time for every state in the union all at once.
Doing this will give the American people more of a voice to pick a canidate instead of having them battle it out in only certain states and they can't really changed message to fit the people of the audience.
After each nationwide primary the canidates can campaign for a month, then we vote again and then again, and the party will have a good idea who to pick for the nominee against the Demo's choice.
I think as technology evolves that it will be easier and smarter to do it this way in the future.
That would be the single best change to the system, even if everything else were left as-is. That way, people who really want to vote for Thompson, Tancredo etc. can do so without worrying that they're throwing the election to Huckabee. Presumably when the also-rans are eliminated one at a time, their delegates will move to the next closest candidate. We get some of the benefits of this now, but the runoff should continue even if one candidate gets a majority at some point. It would also be better for delegates to be assigned in a more proportional way in each state.
I like the ascending order by delegates idea (nater) but that might result in blue states having too much influence. I don't think limiting early primaries to solid red states is a great idea either, though. Mississippi is a red State. Florida is a toss-up. However, I'd rather give the weight to Florida because of the demographics. The Republicans in Florida are (arguably) closer to the party line than NY and MA Republicans, but they have a broader distribution of opinions than the Bible belt.
Of course, this changes depending on whether the primary is open or closed. What if we allowed open primaries in solid Red states and closed primaries in swing states? Or vice versa? I can see benefits either way.
all the primaries on the same day? That would be interesting to try...maybe just once...
That would be a sure way to make the smaller states irrelevant. It would be much like the general election: Lip service to the smaller states, while the big ones like NY, CA etc. get a lot of attention.
I live in California. I probably won't even get a chance to vote for Fred Thompson. What's fair about that?
I think as long as all the states are voting/caucusing on the same day, it doesn't matter HOW they choose the delegates. As long as the delegates are chosen, it's fine.
Caucus the same day, but adjust the time to where when one poll closes, all the rest close.
In other words, what always messes up the west coast is the time zone issue. We should have the east coast hours set to where they open later like 10:00 A.M. and the west coast open at 7:00 A.M. and give everyone the same time window to vote.
It's agreed. Lets to it. That way everyone gets a chance to vote for the candidate of his or her choice...
Well, at least if we're going to do things on the same day.
EPU has some great points here worth tossing around.
My ideas are really just a jumping-off point for better ideas that happen when conservative thinkers apply a little work to it.
That said, I'm personally partial to the system where primaries are spread out over 3 months. Winnowing, sharpening of messages.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
Two bodies...one with equal representation for each state(1 state = 1 or 2 votes) and representation based on population. I'm working on that idea. I may have my own post on this whole thing after the night is over.
I realize that it's sacrilege for a non-Republican to post here...but on most of the points of the proposal I agree with you. On the biggie, I disagree, but in a compatible way.
You see, as a centrist, I hate closed primaries. I hate having to file new paperwork whenever I see an interesting primary race that I want to participate in. And, if there are interesting races in both major parties...well, I have to pick one of the other.
But my biggest beef with closed primaries is my belief that if my tax dollars are going to operate the primary, I ought to be able to vote in it.
If it's a closed primary, I don't want tax dollars or "normal" election resources going to support it.
I mention this because it provides a potential end-run opportunity to get around the state-legislated requirements on primaries. If the GOP were to truly bring the Presidential primaries (or caucuses) in-house, you'd likely be freed from many of the constraints imposed by state law, finding your goals achievable.
And I'd be free from having to pay for a primary I can't vote in.
Hey, if you want to pass a law ending taxpayer funding of primaries, I'm all for it. Entirely.
I hate the institutionalization of the parties and would love to reverse it.
Welcome. We enjoy healthy, constructive debate here.
And, if there are interesting races in both major parties...well, I have to pick one of the other.
This would be the case anyway. As far as I am aware no state allows you to vote in both primaries. I know it is specifically forbidden
in the GOP rules. From GOP.com:
3) No state law shall be observed which permits any person to participate in a primary delegate and alternate delegate selection process that also permits that person at the same primary to participate in the choosing of nominees of any other party for other elective office.
Actually, one state tried it; and the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional. It had to do with the freedom of association.
Getting the parties and the nominee selection process divorced from government involvement would be splendid. I guess I was not thinking as grandly as was possible.
I'm conveniently ignoring the fact that you admit as an independent that you'll expediently register for party affiliation when you see an interesting closed primary coming up -- shouldn't I be....unhappy that you invite yourself to shin-digs that you're not really welcome at?
All I got to say is, I'm serving whatever darn beer I want to, and I don't take requests.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
back to caucus and convention, what I'd favor anyway. I unabashedly share the Founders' distrust of democracy. I really don't see anything wrong and much right with precinct caucuses comprised solely of registered Party members. The caucuses elect delegates to a state convention (maybe intermediate regional conventions in the largest states), which in turn elect delegates to the national convention which chooses a nominee. The presidential candidates campaign to people who are actively involved in and actually know something about politics instead of whoever the candidate or some interest group can shove on a bus and get to vote their way for the promise of a hot dog.
The caucus and convention system worked awfully well for this Country for over a century and a half. This whole let everybody vote on everything really only came about from the Left trying to go around the Democrat Party establishment beginning in '68. Since then, it has been a free-for-all.
In Vino Veritas
No primaries at all. No electoral college.
One month of debates and ads.
One election day. One person. One vote.
Top vote getter of all the candidate wins.
Let's also amend the constitution to get rid of the two term limit to make it one six year term maximum for President and Congress.
Simple, cheap, and fair.
the framers of the Constitution had very good reasons to have a representative republic as opposed to a full blown democracy. I'll try to expand on this point in my post here or when I create my own blog on this one.
Keep it simple. NO open primaries. NO caucuses. EVERY state votes on the SAME DAY or they get NO delegates. Period.
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
We'd be talking about a Huckabee/Romney battle...
and we'd be going up against Obama.
---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
Obama is only competitive because of the independents voting for him.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Republicans should keep their primaries at the same level of "openness" as the Democrats. Independents should either be able to vote in either primary or neither one. Likewise, cross-party voting should either occur on both sides or not at all.
It's really just based on my own speculation about the general election, but I suppose it would not really make any difference in the long run.
I'm not in the business of addressing the national scene, the Dems, or independents, etc. I want US, the good guys, the Republicans, to have closed primaries. And I'm not opposed to closed caucuses (if indeed there's such a thing as an open caucus).
But closed to everybody who is not a registered Republican. I want Republicans to pick the Republican nominee. Simple as that.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
"Only Republicans should have a voice in who the nominee is, and how the process is done."
If this is the case, how are we to gauge the possibility of a candidate's appeal to independents? We cannot win without them in Nov. Better solution:
1. Rotating regional primaries with a 75%/25% mixed of closed/open primaries, to ensure that the nominee has some appeal to independents.
2. Eliminate caucuses altogether. These are a ridiculous sysyem that would have embarrassd Tammany Hall.
3. Debates: Totally agree that they have been a disaster in both parties this year. How about debates divided by topic? For example, an Iraq debate, a health-care debate, etc. Any twit can memorize 30-second talking points.
4. Tell IA and NH to bug off. You could start off the season with a few small states (Delaware, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oregon, etc.) and rotate them around to get some of that retail politicking in.