PDA

View Full Version : GOP wants OUR opinion on how to do their primaries




AnonymousRPsupporter
10-12-2008, 02:12 PM
A high ranking member of the GOP has asked for our opinion on how to best reform the GOP primary system:


In this person's e-mail:
"I would very much appreciate your input and that of others. The issue we are attempting to address is how to structure the Primary process for selecting our nominee. The focus has been on the calendar. Should Iowa and New Hampshire be first? When should other states be allowed to hold their primaries? What should be the penalty for violation of this rule?

The real question is whether it is possible to create a system in which all or most of the states will be relevant to the outcome and which does not result in a one day nationwide primary.

I look forward to your thoughts on this subject. "


At a recent local Republican meeting this person spoke about how not everyone's vote counts because 'the GOP primary is essentially over after Super Tuesday'. This means that not everyone is included in the process and many States are left out. The Dems' primary can last long into the early summer.

Also the 'conservative vote' within the Republican Party was split almost 5 different ways which is how Senator McCain won the nomination. This lead to a situation where the Repubs were stuck with a nominee that almost no one really liked because he didn't really get a majority. And it looks like the GOP might lose the Presidency because of it. How can this be prevented in the future?



What ideas can we come up with to send this person?



For now it's best to remain anonymous about who this high ranking member of the Republican Party is, where he spoke, and who is feeding this information.

constituent
10-12-2008, 02:14 PM
50 states, 1 day.

Winner takes all.

AnonymousRPsupporter
10-12-2008, 02:18 PM
50 states, 1 day.

Winner takes all.
The States won't stand for it. NH, IA, and SC get MILLIONS of dollars worth of ad money, media attention, event expenses, etc from their early primaries. This person told us that really the State members told this person that they don't care what kind of penalties the National RNC does they will not change their dates.

nate895
10-12-2008, 02:51 PM
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, one rotating small state, one rotating medium state, and one rotating large state should get to go before Super Tuesday, in that order, with the rotating states all going on the same day. After that, it's a free-for-all, but there should be a way to prevent all the liberal states from voting on the same day. The reason why McCain won was a whole bunch of liberal, winner-take-all state scheduled for Super Tuesday, with almost no winner-take-all conservative states on the same day. The conservative states didn't get to vote until it was all over.

jmlfod87
10-12-2008, 02:56 PM
largest to smallest. it'll never happen though.

Kludge
10-12-2008, 03:00 PM
50 states, 1 day.

Winner takes all.

Woodrow Wilson did get something.... kind of right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Primary

Dave39168
10-12-2008, 03:05 PM
The current system isn't too bad.

Just tell them to follow their own rules if they want a fair nomination.

torchbearer
10-12-2008, 03:06 PM
How about do them fairly?

nate895
10-12-2008, 03:08 PM
largest to smallest. it'll never happen though.

That would disenfranchise small states, and a liberal would almost certainly receive the nomination every election.

forsmant
10-12-2008, 03:08 PM
Eliminate primaries and decide your candidate at the convention with party members choosing who best represents the party.

nate895
10-12-2008, 03:09 PM
Eliminate primaries and decide your candidate at the convention with party members choosing who best represents the party.

I like that idea as well, a 100% caucus system sounds a lot more republican and would eliminate the people who aren't committed to the party's core principles.

Kludge
10-12-2008, 03:11 PM
It'd be much cheaper just to eliminate parties altogether....

Then we could do a type of IRV.

GunnyFreedom
10-12-2008, 03:11 PM
Make Primary season exactly 50 days from the first vote to the last, rule that no 2 states can vote on the same day, and then draw the voting order randomly for every election. :D

(or alternately, 100 days with the same rule, spread em out and still only 1 per day.)

forsmant
10-12-2008, 03:12 PM
I like that idea as well, a 100% caucus system sounds a lot more republican and would eliminate the people who aren't committed to the party's core principles.

I think it would also encourage more parties and participation in the government on all levels.

RockEnds
10-12-2008, 03:20 PM
I like that idea as well, a 100% caucus system sounds a lot more republican and would eliminate the people who aren't committed to the party's core principles.

+1

A caucus also eliminates voting machines.

eok321
10-12-2008, 03:25 PM
Ask Ron Paul-he's been right on everything else

forsmant
10-12-2008, 03:28 PM
The way it is now local governments pay to choose a private organizations leadership. The state should only pay for the general election. Primaries are a way of limiting who is on the general ballot and should be eliminated. I do think that there should be a price to get on the ballot.

Mini-Me
10-12-2008, 03:31 PM
largest to smallest. it'll never happen though.

I was kind of thinking just the opposite, actually.
Gunny's idea isn't bad, either.

I'm not sure how much I like forsmant's idea, though. The Republican Party might be a "private organization" on a superficial level, but it really isn't in the ways that count. The ballot access laws are rigged in their favor (along with the Democrats), and they also receive a shit ton of taxpayer money for their convention. I'm sure that there are plenty of other aspects of the party that call its status as a truly private organization into further question. Since none of that is likely to change, that makes me believe that we the people should have a say in how their primary goes.

nate895
10-12-2008, 03:43 PM
I was kind of thinking just the opposite, actually.
Gunny's idea isn't bad, either.

I'm not sure how much I like forsmant's idea, though. The Republican Party might be a "private organization" on a superficial level, but it really isn't in the ways that count. The ballot access laws are rigged in their favor (along with the Democrats), and they also receive a shit ton of taxpayer money for their convention. I'm sure that there are plenty of other aspects of the party that call its status as a truly private organization into further question. Since none of that is likely to change, that makes me believe that we the people should have a say in how their primary goes.

Anyone can go to the caucuses, but it should be limited to the registered members of the party (or in my state, it would be totally open since there is no party registration). This would help eliminate the McCain-types who are only moderately Republican, he lost every caucus except Washington State, which was rigged because of the way they counted the votes.

Working Poor
10-12-2008, 03:54 PM
how about having a candidate worthy of voting for...

scandinaviany3
10-12-2008, 03:59 PM
A high ranking member of the GOP has asked for our opinion on how to best reform the GOP primary system:


In this person's e-mail:
"I would very much appreciate your input and that of others. The issue we are attempting to address is how to structure the Primary process for selecting our nominee. The focus has been on the calendar. Should Iowa and New Hampshire be first? When should other states be allowed to hold their primaries? What should be the penalty for violation of this rule?

The real question is whether it is possible to create a system in which all or most of the states will be relevant to the outcome and which does not result in a one day nationwide primary.

I look forward to your thoughts on this subject. "


At a recent local Republican meeting this person spoke about how not everyone's vote counts because 'the GOP primary is essentially over after Super Tuesday'. This means that not everyone is included in the process and many States are left out. The Dems' primary can last long into the early summer.

Also the 'conservative vote' within the Republican Party was split almost 5 different ways which is how Senator McCain won the nomination. This lead to a situation where the Repubs were stuck with a nominee that almost no one really liked because he didn't really get a majority. And it looks like the GOP might lose the Presidency because of it. How can this be prevented in the future?



What ideas can we come up with to send this person?



For now it's best to remain anonymous about who this high ranking member of the Republican Party is, where he spoke, and who is feeding this information.

have him put up a poll and a link

Mini-Me
10-12-2008, 04:02 PM
have him put up a poll and a link

That wouldn't really work too well though until after we send in our ideas. After all, since they're apparently asking for creative ideas, that means means they can't think of what options they should even put in the poll.

Isaac Bickerstaff
10-13-2008, 10:16 AM
A high ranking member of the GOP has asked for our opinion on how to best reform the GOP primary system:


Remove the media hype and all the crap about first second and third tier candidates.
Candidate selection should be candidate selection not a bunch of party leaders telling us why we need to support the candidate of their choice.

Minlawc
10-13-2008, 10:30 AM
100% Caucus and/or

Range Voting
http://rangevoting.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting

Bern
10-13-2008, 10:59 AM
Proportional delegates is the only viable answer. Have delegates awarded by county/district instead of by state.

Having all votes on the same day would make it almost impossible for candidates to run. It would require enormous funds to campaign in all states ahead of the vote.

Krugerrand
10-13-2008, 11:01 AM
There was a plan a while back that got shot down ... but has a lot of potential.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_Plan

Run the primaries in several groups in order of state size. The smaller states would go first with the largest states going last.

This way, the smaller states would have the opportunity to whittle down the number of viable candidates and have some real influence. The larger states would still have the influence of their size at the end of the election.

All primaries on one day would make for a name recognition contest (more so than already exists). Plus, it is unrealistic for everybody to campaign in every state. This way, lesser known candidates would have a more realistic shot since they could focus their efforts on smaller states and get some momentum going. Candidates could ignore states where they have no shot and 'plan ahead' for bigger contests.

georgiaboy
10-13-2008, 11:25 AM
Don't intend to hijack the thread, but this to me looks like trying to fix a symptom without addressing the actual sickness. Plus it strikes a chord that gives me a chance to do some venting.

What an intriguing OP. The last time I remember someone saying there was a high ranking GOP'er within the party engaging this forum was DeepThroat, who told us that there was discontent within the party, and we should all go try and become national delegates and GOP insiders would be with us to help gain the nomination for Ron Paul. We see where that got us. If the party were worth anything, we should've seen just such a coup take place. Instead, we saw a party get all joyous about McCain, and do everything in their power to quell the Ron Paul movement within the party.

Even now, with the bailout, and Ron Paul making the ONLY sense on the issue, and the public outcry against it, we saw Republican office-holders, including McCain, get behind the bill, and still the party trumpets him for election in November. Disgusting. If the party leadership had any conscience or sense of American patriotism at all, they'd long ago have called McCain for the socialist he is and replace him with a real conservative by 'executive order'. They have not, so I can only assume they're happy with their choice.

Seems like the RNC needs to worry less about the primary system and more about what being a Republican is, especially after seeing the base lining up behind McCain.

Why on earth people would be discussing the primary process when the much larger issue of basic education of Republicans on what true conservatism is, what sound economic and monetary policy is, etc., just makes me shake my head further.

Given all the above diatribe, however, I guess I should come to expect no less than windowdressing. The hollow echo is nauseating.

Anyway, to keep the thread on topic, I don't know much about caucusing, but if somehow it managed to filter out McCain, then maybe it deserves a second look.

Timing of the events in the various states should not matter one way or another. It's much more about educating those within the party and those voting in the party primaries about (1) how they should be looking at the issues, and (2) where the candidates stand on the issues, in order to (3) get the candidate with the best credentials nominated.

Seems to me the place where (1) can best occur from our perspective is via C4L in local party meetings, and broader public, online, & televised forums of all types. I'd love to see Money as Debt or something similar broadcast on the History Channel or Discovery Channel, for instance. Continuing the grassroots C4L education programs will be excellent also. Just gotta figure out how to mainstream this. RNC should also be worried about issue and voter education from a true conservative perspective.

The place where (2) occurred this past year for most voters were the debates, and this cycle, the debates were extremely biased against our man, Ron Paul. How best to fix this? Not sure, but it seems to have something to do with the moderators, the format, the network producing the event, the questions, etc. This to me is a major area where the RNC could get active and make some real changes.

Maybe caucusing helps with both (1) and (2) as well? Dunno.

I tend to agree with other posters who say a 'one-day nationwide primary' is unfruitful. What the voters in each state need to understand is that just because they're at the tail end of the primary season, doesn't mean their voice is not valuable.

The RNC should also go to great lengths to not be suckered into MSM spin and allowing predictions about who the nominee will be before all votes have been cast. This further erodes late state participation, and just is not true.

georgiaboy
10-13-2008, 11:33 AM
Again, not meaning to take things off-topic, but here's something else for the RNC to consider:

If the district, state, and national conventions were actually used to further refine and allow for changing the nominee selection, instead of becoming events were the so-called "pre-ordained" selections are crowned, then the whole process would become much more informative, interesting, valuable, and necessary for the entire election cycle. No longer would the media be trying to pick the nominee after the first primary debate, or after Super Tuesday, but people would really have to wait for the conventions and for the delegates to decide.

More than anything, this would re-invigorate the primary season as well as the conventions, and would probably generate even larger media due to the increased volatility it may induce.

Badger Paul
10-13-2008, 11:43 AM
Because the Republicans do their presidential nomination process state-by-state rather than the Dems' all controlling manner, it's very difficult to have broad based reforms. And worrying about the calendar is worthless because the state's are what control that process and it was clear this year that state's were not intimidated by any national party ruling stripping them of delegates. The only the party can maintain control of the calendar is by threatening not to even seat delegations who's states jump the gun.

The big problem in this year's nomination process was transparency, especially in the caucus and convention states. The processes in these state were controlled by insiders who mustered every trick in the book to try and keep outsiders and new party members from having a say in the process. If you're going to run the GOP like country club, where it's members only and you have to "pay your dues first" then don't be surprised then if that's what people think of you.

Each of us in our individual states need to demand an open process in the way the GOP selects its delegates from the precinct caucus to the convention. People need to know what the rules are right off the bat so there's no confusion nor opportunity for dirty tricks to be played. In my state of Wisconsin, I'm satisfied with the way the GOP here choose delegates because they're are upfront and clear with how they do it and it's been done for years the same way. But if I lived in Nevada, Wyoming, Montana, Washington, Hawaii, Missouri and especially Louisiana, I would have been pissed to hell at what was done. It discourages new party participation and reinforces and old boys' network mentality that is not good for the party as a whole.

Now that we have this opportunity within our respective state parties, we need to come up with ways of selecting convention delegates at all levels of process to be fair to all candidates. No more cross slating of candidates or "Unity" slate or "Ronald Reagan slates", no more just allow precinct committee persons to vote (like in Wyoming and Montana), state conventions should follow strictly Roberts Rules of Order and nominations for delegates can be made from the floor. No more provisional ballots. Assign delegates at the precinct caucuses to candidates strict the way the Dems do instead of just having generic straw polls so that there is a clear winner and loser right on caucus night. Let's pick delegates in such a way the reflects upon the way we wish our democracy to work, not an insider's game.

Krugerrand
10-13-2008, 11:45 AM
Again, not meaning to take things off-topic, but here's something else for the RNC to consider:

If the district, state, and national conventions were actually used to further refine and allow for changing the nominee selection, instead of becoming events were the so-called "pre-ordained" selections are crowned, then the whole process would become much more informative, interesting, valuable, and necessary for the entire election cycle. No longer would the media be trying to pick the nominee after the first primary debate, or after Super Tuesday, but people would really have to wait for the conventions and for the delegates to decide.

More than anything, this would re-invigorate the primary season as well as the conventions, and would probably generate even larger media due to the increased volatility it may induce.

A valid point. I don't by the theory of "a convention should be a pep-rally." The GOP would get much more interest and media attention if it were a lively debate of policy and platform. This, in turn, could help keep the voting public more educated and interested.

pacelli
10-13-2008, 12:03 PM
A high ranking member of the GOP has asked for our opinion on how to best reform the GOP primary system:


In this person's e-mail:
"I would very much appreciate your input and that of others. The issue we are attempting to address is how to structure the Primary process for selecting our nominee. The focus has been on the calendar. Should Iowa and New Hampshire be first? When should other states be allowed to hold their primaries? What should be the penalty for violation of this rule?

The real question is whether it is possible to create a system in which all or most of the states will be relevant to the outcome and which does not result in a one day nationwide primary.

I look forward to your thoughts on this subject. "



The GOP is still trying to put out cigarette butts when they should look at the lighter in their hand. They need to play by their own rules-- because dates of primaries doesn't make a difference if the GOP conventions exclude members of their own parties by blatant violation of their own rules just because some members don't agree with the person that has been ordained for nomination. In short, end the corrupt rule breaking behavior we saw by the GOPs of Louisiana & Nevada (and others).

If they want all or most of the states to be relevant to the outcome then perhaps they should encourage their state GOPs not to stack up their primaries on the same days. Perhaps they should stop trying to make adjustments based on the dems and the media, and stand on some principles and follow them. Seems like common sense to me.



Also the 'conservative vote' within the Republican Party was split almost 5 different ways which is how Senator McCain won the nomination. This lead to a situation where the Repubs were stuck with a nominee that almost no one really liked because he didn't really get a majority. And it looks like the GOP might lose the Presidency because of it. How can this be prevented in the future?

The GOP is not going to lose the presidency because the conservative vote was split almost 5 different ways. If the GOP loses the presidency, it will be due to their continued support of congressional and senate members who spent our country into the worst financial crisis in the US since the great depression. In short, through their actions they have consistently proved that they don't give a squat about conservative values, nor their conservative constituents.





For now it's best to remain anonymous about who this high ranking member of the Republican Party is, where he spoke, and who is feeding this information.[/CENTER]

"For now" nothing-- we'll never learn this person's identity because the GOP members are too chicken shit to rock the boat themselves. This fear of the party is exactly the reason the GOP is in it's "damned if we do, damned if we don't" situation right now. Luckily, intellectual prostitution is still constitutional.

torchbearer
10-13-2008, 12:06 PM
the gop is still trying to put out cigarette butts when they should look at the lighter in their hand. They need to play by their own rules-- because dates of primaries doesn't make a difference if the gop conventions exclude members of their own parties by blatant violation of their own rules just because some members don't agree with the person that has been ordained for nomination. In short, end the corrupt rule breaking behavior we saw by the gops of louisiana & nevada (and others).

If they want all or most of the states to be relevant to the outcome then perhaps they should encourage their state gops not to stack up their primaries on the same days. Perhaps they should stop trying to make adjustments based on the dems and the media, and stand on some principles and follow them. Seems like common sense to me.



The gop is not going to lose the presidency because the conservative vote was split almost 5 different ways. If the gop loses the presidency, it will be due to their continued support of congressional and senate members who spent our country into the worst financial crisis in the us since the great depression. In short, through their actions they have consistently proved that they don't give a squat about conservative values, nor their conservative constituents.




"for now" nothing-- we'll never learn this person's identity because the gop members are too chicken shit to rock the boat themselves. This fear of the party is exactly the reason the gop is in it's "damned if we do, damned if we don't" situation right now. Luckily, intellectual prostitution is still constitutional.

+1776

The Lantern
10-13-2008, 12:08 PM
Proportional delegates is the only viable answer. Have delegates awarded by county/district instead of by state.

Having all votes on the same day would make it almost impossible for candidates to run. It would require enormous funds to campaign in all states ahead of the vote.

Keep in mind that if all the primaries would have been held on one day, Ron Paul might have done extremely well. He was the only candidate operating grassroots operations in all 50 states. During the last quarter Ron raised more money than anyone other Republican. If there would have been say a January primary for all states, Ron might have fared pretty well. If nothing else, he would have been nominated from the convention floor and we might have had a change of direction.

pahs1994
10-13-2008, 12:10 PM
I like that idea as well, a 100% caucus system sounds a lot more republican and would eliminate the people who aren't committed to the party's core principles.


I like the all caucus idea. Also, Maybe they can divide the country into 5 segments, Consisting of 10 states each. Every week, 1 state from each division would hold their primary/caucus. 5 states at a time x 10 weeks and sprinkle in DC and the territories somewhere in there.

Rotate what states go first every election. Easy enough.

Xenophage
10-13-2008, 12:37 PM
Make Primary season exactly 50 days from the first vote to the last, rule that no 2 states can vote on the same day, and then draw the voting order randomly for every election. :D

(or alternately, 100 days with the same rule, spread em out and still only 1 per day.)

This is a GOOD idea.

Determine the primary order well in advance.

Of course, this will make the primary season much more competitive than it already is.

I think that's a good thing.

fr33domfightr
10-13-2008, 12:51 PM
I know there was some discussion about NOT having political parties. I'm thinking they might still be useful as long as the party plank is developed by all those in the party and not the party elite. The plank also must be adhered to by all those running under the party banner. That way, you don't have people running that are way off the mark. Once a nominee is selected at the National Convention, I don't believe that candidate should have any say about what the National Party Plank states, they are supposed to follow its basic philosophy as developed by the grassroots members. That is to say, the nominee isn't the leader of the party, they are only the nominee. This way, the nominee can't drag the party in some willy nilly directions at their whim.

I think having small states first is a good idea, as it allows for lower costs to run, and to help weed out the candidates better. I believe caucuses are a better form of primaries in that they allow greater participation of the party members. No party member should be excluded. This party insider business appears to be ruining the Republican Party. Maybe after the election we can pick up the pieces they've left behind.



FF

georgiaboy
10-13-2008, 12:52 PM
I also think a major blunder this year was beginning the primary season way too early in the election cycle. The whole "me first" state race to gain some kind of primacy, attention, etc., only served to deny any time for the public at large to really get to know the candidates over a long enough period of time to make an informed choice.

Who, other than us junkies, is really wanting to start watching party presidential debates over a year in advance of the election, and then voting in primaries shortly thereafter?

fr33domfightr
10-13-2008, 01:07 PM
I also think a major blunder this year was beginning the primary season way too early in the election cycle. The whole "me first" state race to gain some kind of primacy, attention, etc., only served to deny any time for the public at large to really get to know the candidates over a long enough period of time to make an informed choice.

Who, other than us junkies, is really wanting to start watching party presidential debates over a year in advance of the election, and then voting in primaries shortly thereafter?


I agree. This early business is for the birds. Remember they were already doing stuff during the Christmas Holiday?!?! Plus, it means candidates with a large surplus of cash can start way ahead of everyone else. I say, we have a start date, and no one can run before that time. This will reduce the time for this process and make it more fair for all running, not just the guy with the most money at the start.


FF

rancher89
10-13-2008, 01:28 PM
Let's meld some ideas:

Break the country up into 6 sections NE, SE, NM, SM, NW, SW, based on population as well as you can--these sections take turns being first, rotating basis

From there you have 12 weeks of primaries, one every other week.

The primaries are proportional, if a candidate gets 10% of the popular vote, he/she gets 10% of the delegates. At the state level there are "at large" delegates that get chosen, they round out the proportionment.

If it is done according to the rules and the apportionment is truely done right, I.e. a Romney supporter is elected to fill a Romney slot, then all should be OK. Who guards the sheepdogs? I think if a candidate felt that he/she had a chance, he'd have a rep at the state convention (from out of the region) who knew who his supporters were and was ready to challange the election or appointment to someone who wasn't really his candidates supporter. That person would have a lot of power, backed by the status of his/her candidate.

This means that the state conventions would have to follow the same basic rules, so that things would follow the same rotation, by region.

The national convention could be an exciting place if there are still candidates trying to win you over and change your position...... Imagine, instead of going to PAC luncheons where someone blathers about the fine things they've done for your state, you go to mini caucuses where candidates "put on their stuff" and try to win you over! Gasp, there might even be talk about issues!!

Right now the national convention is a complete waste of time and totally pointless, a relic of smoke filled rooms...

mlmvh
10-13-2008, 01:39 PM
I also think a major blunder this year was beginning the primary season way too early in the election cycle. The whole "me first" state race to gain some kind of primacy, attention, etc., only served to deny any time for the public at large to really get to know the candidates over a long enough period of time to make an informed choice.

Who, other than us junkies, is really wanting to start watching party presidential debates over a year in advance of the election, and then voting in primaries shortly thereafter?

Yes! The election season is WAAAY TOO LOOONG. They shouldn't hold the debates until January of the election year, preferably without the "analysts" who try to tell everyone what to think, and they should hold the primaries and/or the caucuses from March or April until right before the Convention in September. And yes, it would be NICE if the GOP was welcoming and FAIR to newcomers.

sratiug
10-13-2008, 01:59 PM
All local caucuses on the same day. All county conventions the same day. All congressional district conventions the same day. All state conventions the same day. Proportional voting only. Nobody gets ahead of anybody else. Fight it out at the national convention.

That's four different days of state voting that are spread out to enable media pundits to go crazy with all the possibilities.

Candidates don't have to campaign in every state. In fact, none do now.

AnonymousRPsupporter
10-13-2008, 06:02 PM
Instead, we saw a party get all joyous about McCain, and do everything in their power to quell the Ron Paul movement within the party.TRUST ME the majority of the Republican Party is NOT excited about McCain. I can't speak for the leadership, I do think many recognize the problem, but the average local Republican is NOT happy about McCain.



If the party leadership had any conscience or sense of American patriotism at all,Those are dangerous words to be throwing around ;)



I can only assume they're happy with their choice.If this were the case then why do you think they might be considering revamping their primary system? Perhaps so that this doesn't happen to them again.




Seems like the RNC needs to worry less about the primary system and more about what being a Republican is, especially after seeing the base lining up behind McCain.The base is only lining up behind McCain because they are scared to death of Obama and the Dems controlling the entire federal government and of course they like Sarah. Other than those two reasons, they wouldn't be lining up behind McCain. And you do realize that the REASON McCain got elected was because of the way the primary system is setup, right?




Why on earth people would be discussing the primary process when the much larger issue of basic education of Republicans on what true conservatism is, what sound economic and monetary policy is, etc., just makes me shake my head further.Because when 3 or 4 'conservatives' ran, it split the vote and gave the Republicans a liberal as a candidate. It's the old divide and conquer idea. That's why they are looking at changing it.

KenInMontiMN
10-13-2008, 06:22 PM
Winner take all primaries are poison to those candidates not thoroughly bought by the big money. Proportional primaries are better, but still vastly inferior to the caucus system that selects unbound delegates to the next level- especially if you need 15% min to make the grade as is the general rule with the proportional states. The unbound part is important- it means nobody has to make up their mind in Feb, they can watch the game unfold across the summer into the Nat. Convention with no way of knowing how the vote would come in there.

The unbound caucus system keeps the informed and motivated in higher proportions to the final national vote, then in the general election the vast and less informed, less motivated masses can have their say. That's how it should work for both parties. We'd get much better candidates through such a system, with much less media/big money control of the game- since nobody could ever be 100% sure where things stood, and no winners could ever be declared prematurely.

With the fog surrounding the universal unbound caucus system, it wouldn't make much difference who went first and who went last.

georgiaboy
10-13-2008, 07:04 PM
TRUST ME the majority of the Republican Party is NOT excited about McCain. I can't speak for the leadership, I do think many recognize the problem, but the average local Republican is NOT happy about McCain.

---hmm, trust you? a spokesperson for the Republican Party? What possible reason would I or anyone on the Ron Paul Forums have for trusting You? Especiall when after I throw a volley of self-described rants, you immediately go all aggressive on me?

---not excited about McCain, huh? Well, that explains why, by the tens of millions, they'll be voting for him. There must be something there that's tickling their fancy.



Those are dangerous words to be throwing around ;)

---I see your wink, but why would you say this?



If this were the case then why do you think they might be considering revamping their primary system? Perhaps so that this doesn't happen to them again.

---After this year's experience, my first thought would be that they would want to do everything in their power to stop something like the Ron Paul phenomenon from ever happening again. We on here have attempted to give the GOP the benefit of the doubt over and over again this year and have been proven wrong time and again. Maybe if you weren't being so secret-agent like in the way you're engaging the forum and actually told us some things and could point to some specific actions that would indicate what you're inferring we'd be more inclined to believe you. Once bitten, twice shy, as they say. Regardless, on this thread we've given you quite a bit to work with regarding your question, myself included. Given all the other responses, it's interesting you pick out this post to go all postal with.

---more in followup posts....

Korey Kaczynski
10-13-2008, 07:09 PM
repeal a certain amendment

georgiaboy
10-13-2008, 07:15 PM
The base is only lining up behind McCain because they are scared to death of Obama and the Dems controlling the entire federal government and of course they like Sarah. Other than those two reasons, they wouldn't be lining up behind McCain. And you do realize that the REASON McCain got elected was because of the way the primary system is setup, right?

---oh wise one, due tell, how did this happen? How did these folks who don't like McCain get religion and line up behind him? What on earth would make them scared to death of Obama and not just as scared of McCain? And why would just adding Sarah Palin make the choice of McCain any better? Why wouldn't the vast majority of Republicans who you stated are dissatisfied with McCain not look for a conservative candidate to get behind? After the largest growth of government since the New Deal, which these last 8 years was Republican led, why didn't the pundits, talk show hosts, and rank and file Republicans decide enough was enough and let their actions do some talking? words, words, words. but in the end, sellout. party line.



Because when 3 or 4 'conservatives' ran, it split the vote and gave the Republicans a liberal as a candidate. It's the old divide and conquer idea. That's why they are looking at changing it.

---Based on the shenanigans we saw this year at the conventions around the country, the party can do whatever it wants in any election cycle. There's no reason they could not have swapped McCain out for any of the other candidates, encouraged delegates to actually do their job and caucus and vote their conscience, this year. In fact, Ron Paul Republicans were trying to do just that. To blame the McCain fiasco purely on primary 'splitting the vote' phenomenon is silly. Anyway, hope some of the ideas on here actually help you in your quest.

Anti Federalist
10-13-2008, 07:16 PM
Those are dangerous words to be throwing around

Hmmmm...you haven't been around here long, have you?

georgiaboy
10-13-2008, 07:24 PM
Hmmmm...you haven't been around here long, have you?

Looks like I struck a nerve.:eek:

pacelli
10-13-2008, 07:30 PM
Please forward my response in this thread to your high-level GOP anonymous person.

torchbearer
10-13-2008, 07:31 PM
Please forward my response in this thread to your high-level GOP anonymous person.

+1.
With Love from Louisiana too.
Hope McCain was worth it. You've made enemies of the wrong people.

forsmant
10-13-2008, 07:32 PM
Please forward my post to the dude.

jabrownie
10-13-2008, 07:57 PM
Please forward to your person:

Method: All the states and provinces which have delegate votes in the party (56) are divided into three groups based on population: small states, medium states and large states. The large state group will be comprised of eighteen (18) states/provinces, while the other two shall have nineteen (19). There will be a random drawing to place the states into a numerical order within their particular group. This order will be used with the schedule below to determine when each state shall hold their primary election. After each presidential primary election, the state listed as first within their group shall become last, and each other state shall move up one spot. This will ensure that every state has an opportunity to vote early in the election cycle as well as later in the election cycle. Proportional delegates similar to the DNC will be used in each state election, as opposed to winner-take-all systems.

Schedule:
Week 1: Small state #1 and Medium state #1. This will allow the candidate to get out and really meet the people, just like with Iowa (Medium state) and New Hampshire (Small state). It will also allow all the candidates the opportunity to get themselves known w/o a lot of money.

Week 2: Off (No-elections scheduled). Lets the candidates raise money, and start to spread their name before the first set of elections. It also gives everybody a chance for debates.

Week 3: The next two small states, two medium states, and two large states.
Week 4: Same
Week 5: Same

Week 6: Off. The race is one third over, probably no clear cut winner yet. Now the candidates can rest for a day then go raise money and do another debate.

Week 7: Same
Week 8: Same
Week 9: Same

Week 10: Off. The race by this point is probably just ending, similar to after Super Tuesday, but two-thirds of states have been heard. If it’s not over, things are heating up, everyone’s excited and this is a chance for another final debate.

Week 11: Same
Week 12: Same
Week 13: Same

Total time: 3 months. March 1st – May 31st. We have a nominee by June 1st who can begin running for the general.

Benefits:
1. Rotating states in a mixed manner allows every state to get involved throughout the election cycle at some point. It will also let states that otherwise would be inactive become more active within the Republican party.
2. By letting the democrats start earlier in the year our party gets a better idea of who their candidate will be, which allows us to take into consideration which of our candidates would best be able to beat them.
3. Letting the dems go earlier will give them the news cycle to start with, however, (unless they have another one that drags out till the end) we will have the cycle mostly to ourselves in the early summer. People have a short term memory and it’s better to get all the air time when events are really starting to heat up as opposed to earlier.
4. Additionally, if they have selected their candidate, or narrowed it down to two, by the time we are only halfway through our selection process, every one of our candidates can target / bash their candidate specifically, whereas they won’t be able to respond very well in kind. [Just think about how little coverage McCain got when he was selected b/c the race was still hot news on the dem side. Both Hillary and Obama were able to attack him repeatedly and there was little he could do about it. Now imagine the same thing in reverse, with three or four of our candidates beating up their one on a number of different issues.]
5. A proportional vote system will enhance this recommended system as opposed to a winner-take-all delegate system. Yes, it will cause the effective length of the race to increase, but that’s the goal. Overall it will provide for closer races, enhanced participation from more states, more media coverage for an extended period of time, a greater degree of ground organizations to be built within more states, and a greater representation of our party members.

This plan will provide for greater interaction from all states and all members of the party, while retaining the early emphasis on small and medium sized states. It will also reshape the length and dates which will provide a distinct advantage to our candidate by providing them with a take over of the early summer media, and the chance for our candidates to tarnish the image of our opponent early in the general, before a national audience, with the opposition having little chance to adequately respond.

TastyWheat
10-13-2008, 10:06 PM
Option 1: Hold regional primaries (see List of regions of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_of_the_United_States)) where all primaries of a certain region occur on the same day. If Iowa is going to bitch, its region can always go first, but otherwise the order of the primaries will be chosen at random.

Option 2: The primary dates stay as they are (the states set the dates) and the purpose of each primary will be to guarantee ballot access. So in one primary every single candidate for president would be on the same ballot. The top 3 would have a guaranteed spot on the ballot, the rest would have to turn in a petition or a filing fee or both. Any top 3 candidate would be able to withdraw his/her name or substitute it with another (if he or she did not end up winning the nomination). The delegate allocation could still work the same, the other candidates (from different parties) would just have to be excluded from the calculation.

pahs1994
10-13-2008, 10:14 PM
Because when 3 or 4 'conservatives' ran, it split the vote and gave the Republicans a liberal as a candidate. It's the old divide and conquer idea. That's why they are looking at changing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Example_1
Instant runoff voting in non-caucus primary states would fix all of that right?

LibertyIn08
10-13-2008, 10:45 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Example_1
Instant runoff voting in non-caucus primary states would fix all of that right?

Approval voting is superior to even that.

Carole
10-13-2008, 11:42 PM
Since the states all count on the media attention and revenue generated for their primaries, it is understandable that having them all on one day might not be a feasible solution.

However, neither is having a Super Tuesday a good idea. Super tuesday does result in a lack of interest for the remaining states.

Maybe to keep the primary season shorter by scheduling possibly three to five states on one day, three to five on another possibly one to two weeks later, and so on.

If there must be a Super Tuesday it should include the last several states to vote.

I'll try to come up with some more tomorrow when I am not tired. :)

ValidusCustodiae
10-14-2008, 03:22 AM
Whatever is done per scheduling, I will reiterate and reemphasize earlier similar posts. The caucus system is indeed not only the least susceptible to tampering, but works in favor of liberty candidates because it allows a thorough presentation of platforms to occur before a selection is made.

Just look at our successes in the caucus states.

Call Me V
10-14-2008, 07:34 AM
All the states primaries are on one day.

That is the only fair way to do it.

speciallyblend
10-14-2008, 07:40 AM
step one ,follow your own dam gop-bylaws

scandinaviany3
10-14-2008, 08:11 AM
Make Primary season exactly 50 days from the first vote to the last, rule that no 2 states can vote on the same day, and then draw the voting order randomly for every election. :D

(or alternately, 100 days with the same rule, spread em out and still only 1 per day.)

interesting idea like a draft and no one knows what to plan for

fr33domfightr
10-14-2008, 08:36 AM
I just thought of something else that might be helpful if it could be worked out. The mix of states that get selected to have primaries should be selected in such a way as to get a mix of states that might favor a variety of candidates. What I mean is, some states may be more centrist, while others may be more conservative, or liberal. By having an equal mix of these, the various candidates will get a more equal distribution of electors. This should help by not giving the edge to unworthy candidates in the beginning of the primary run. Not have a winner take all state might be helpful too, in that other candidates can get some electors too.

I think this is important because as you recall, the media likes to jump on someone and pronounce them leader before many states have even voted.



FF

TastyWheat
10-19-2008, 01:07 AM
Approval voting is superior to even that.
In what respect? One important criterion that it doesn't meet is later-no-harm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Later-no-harm_criterion). So by checking off more than one candidate you may cause a lesser choice to win over your primary choice. It may make a lot of people reluctant to approve more than one choice.

This is not the case in IRV since your vote only counts for one candidate (the highest non-eliminated candidate on your ballot). I would actually prefer a mixture of IRV and Coombs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coombs%27_method). I like the Coombs' method because it eliminates the most disliked candidate first, but it should require that a majority dislikes the same candidate otherwise it could eliminate the condorcet winner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_criterion).

JAlli41
10-19-2008, 06:40 AM
I would have to think that the best way for the so called "convservate party," to pick their nominee would be to let the most conservative states go first ie: NH, Alabama, South Carolina, Texas, Colarado, Montana, ect. One of the major problems that I have is that a state like Iowa, who is mostly farmers and blue collar christian conservatives hold MASSIVE amounts of sway in the selection of a nominee. Then on super Tuesday we get states like Massahusetts (my neck of the woods), NY, and California who are not going to vote for the candidate in November. Also a 50 state 1 day system would never happen because it would force candidates to pick and choose where their scarce resources go rather than have a slowly building momentum with a 50 state strategy. My opinion get the blue states out of the early decision process.

Truth Warrior
10-19-2008, 06:43 AM
The GOP sure does not want MY opinion. ;)

freelance
10-19-2008, 08:27 AM
How about do them fairly?

I'm just guessing that's not on the table.

AnonymousRPsupporter
11-18-2008, 10:15 PM
Thank every one for their replys I am copying some of the information in these posts into an email to send to the person in the Rep. Party.

LibertyIn08
11-18-2008, 10:55 PM
In what respect? One important criterion that it doesn't meet is later-no-harm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Later-no-harm_criterion). So by checking off more than one candidate you may cause a lesser choice to win over your primary choice. It may make a lot of people reluctant to approve more than one choice.

This is not the case in IRV since your vote only counts for one candidate (the highest non-eliminated candidate on your ballot). I would actually prefer a mixture of IRV and Coombs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coombs%27_method). I like the Coombs' method because it eliminates the most disliked candidate first, but it should require that a majority dislikes the same candidate otherwise it could eliminate the condorcet winner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_criterion).

IRV would more often result in a candidate less favored by the general populace winning than would approval voting.

I'm obviously not for straight approval voting with out some bounds, but the fact that many scientific and mathematical institutions use it as their preferred voting method should suggest something.

devil21
11-18-2008, 11:55 PM
All caucuses! That eliminates most of the sheep that vote based on name recognition or similar meritless reasons. It'll never happen, probably for that very reason, but it's a nice thought.

Matt Collins
08-01-2009, 04:38 PM
Another discussion is going on here in this topic:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2241243

AbolishTheGovt
08-01-2009, 05:00 PM
Federalism.

Let folks sort it out on the state-level, however they think best.

MikeStanart
08-01-2009, 05:51 PM
The current system isn't too bad.

Just tell them to follow their own rules if they want a fair nomination.

We got Mccain as the GOP nominee. Something obviously is going terribly wrong. I would have at least expected the GOP to pick Romney over him.

erowe1
08-01-2009, 06:01 PM
The way the Republican and Democrat parties choose their candidates should be via means (whether primaries, caucuses, conventions, or any combination thereof) that are entirely funded, run, and regulated by the party itself with no state involvement of any kind, just as the so-called third parties do. The Republican party is supposedly a private organization, just like the CFL is. There's no reason taxpayers should be funding its in-house elections.

pacelli
08-01-2009, 06:54 PM
GOP needs to either fully back every candidate that we tell them, or get out of the way with this big party government bullshit and leave the whole thing to us.

MelissaCato
08-01-2009, 08:48 PM
50 states, 1 day.

Winner takes all.

This.

angelatc
08-01-2009, 09:02 PM
A high ranking member of the GOP has asked for our opinion on how to best reform the GOP primary system:


In this person's e-mail:


The real question is whether it is possible to create a system in which all or most of the states will be relevant to the outcome and which does not result in a one day nationwide primary.

I look forward to your thoughts on this subject. "





Easy. Make it a horse race. The states with the smallest number of delegates go first, building all the way up to the states with the most.

The GOP lost the primary because they lost their way, but we all know that.

free.alive
08-01-2009, 09:20 PM
Originally Posted by constituent:
50 states, 1 day.

Winner takes all.

Absolute madness. Whoever starts out with the most money, has the most existing name-recognition, has the coziest relationship with the media, is the least controversial to the socialists and is the most palatable to the principle-bereft "independents" gets the win.

That would never be a libertarian. You just guaranteed that a John McCain will always be the winner.

Brian4Liberty
08-01-2009, 09:38 PM
and which does not result in a one day nationwide primary.


Why not a one day nationwide Primary? Too much influence for the larger States? If that is the case, how about 4 Primary dates, staring with the smallest 25% of States on the first date, working up to the largest 25% on the last date?

13 Smallest States first Primary date.
12 States second Primary date.
13 States third Primary date.
12 Largest States final Primary date.

Brian4Liberty
08-01-2009, 09:40 PM
Make Primary season exactly 50 days from the first vote to the last, rule that no 2 states can vote on the same day, and then draw the voting order randomly for every election. :D

(or alternately, 100 days with the same rule, spread em out and still only 1 per day.)

I like it...

dgr
08-02-2009, 01:14 AM
The problem is that the primarys are popular vote and most states are winner take all in the presidential election.
The rural and the cities are split on their candidates. This is best seen in state elections. In my state we have 100 counties, in the last election for GOP govoner the vote was 66 counties for one candadite, 33 for one and 1 county for the another , one candidate won no counties. the candidate who only won 33 counties won the election, why, he won all the counties with cities.This is how primaries are won at all levels, it is only in the presidential race, the electrol college leveles the field , and that is destroyed by states that have winner take all rules.

Working Poor
08-02-2009, 08:25 AM
I know how bout they produce a candidate that is real for a change they ought to insist that Ron Paul be there leader that is the only hope for the republican party to ever be viable.

Sorry Romney and all those other clowns are just not good enough or strong enough to do the job.

pacelli
08-02-2009, 08:28 AM
Why not a one day nationwide Primary? Too much influence for the larger States?

We saw what the media did with super tuesday. Imagine how fast they would make the liberty candidate disappear if all states were in 1 day.

speciallyblend
08-02-2009, 08:47 AM
How about do them fairly?

+1 and get rid of a good majority of the failed gop leadership!!