I've decided to start blogging again. I have a few things to say, and I'd like to know if anyone is listening. I'd also like to know if my ideas have merit, or if I'm as crazy as many people say. I intend to write a lot about Utah, things I hope would be of interest in other states, and to write about the Union in general. There will be some changes along the way, as we see what works and what people like, but, for the first issue, I'm taking a stab at a problem we rarely hear much about, but one that we've paid a heavy price for making. It's from a letter I recently sent to the RNC:
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,
I've seen a lot of Republican presidential candidates over the past 40 years I've been paying attention, and, frankly, not too many have impressed me. Fewer still have impressed me after their election. I want a candidate that the largest portion of Republicans can get behind and support philosophically, financially and actively. So, how do we achieve broad-based, Party-wide support? I have three suggestions:
1. End open primaries.
Since I have no polls or hard evidence to back this opinion, I'll have to go on straight logic:
Premise: The Republican Party was founded so that people could organize support for candidates that espouse their shared (traditionally, conservative) philosophy.
Fact: Open primaries allow people who are not Republicans to have a voice in choosing the Party's candidates – Democrats, third-party members and independents. All these, by definition, do not fully share and support the Party platform.
Conclusion: Open primaries dilute the "shared philosophy" factor of the Republican nominee, resulting in loss of appeal to mainstream Republicans and loss of support.
We all remember Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos." He asked Republicans to vote in Democratic primaries (if they didn't have a close GOP race), to extend the fight between Clinton and Obama. We don't know what effect, if any, that ploy had on the Democratic race, and, frankly, I don’t care. I care very much that it could happen to us.
According to a recent article in USA Today, there are 204 million eligible voters in the USA.
Rasmussen.com says 37 million are registered Republicans and 33.7 million are registered Democrats;
the rest are registered in minor parties or as independents.
Regardless of how those numbers have changed since that article was written, Republicans are less than 1 out of every 5 voters. We could easily be overwhelmed at the polls and our candidate could easily be chosen by people who are not members of our Party – in fact, by people who do not like us or what we stand for.
Can we really expect rank and file Republicans to support the Party, if the Party cares so little about their opinions? Can we really expect the rank and file Republicans to support the Party when the Party spends more time, effort and money to curry the favor of non-members over that of Party members? Can we really expect rank and file Republicans to support the Party, when the Party's candidate isn't their candidate? (I'll quit here, but I could go on.)
Oh, yes, one more point: "The Big Tent" – strike it, roll it up and stow it! People who tell you we need a big tent have just one agenda, whether they know it or not – to dilute the traditional conservatism of the Republican platform. Whenever we do that, we lose.
2. End winner-take-all primaries.
Just as certainly as open primaries dilute my vote for Republican candidates, winner-take-all primaries eliminate them. Here, I have some facts, from the CNN 2008 primary coverage website:
With just four large state wins, Sen. McCain had almost one-quarter of the total needed for nomination, despite the fact that he won barely over half of the votes in those states, while the runner-ups divided less than one-tenth the delegates, despite winning nearly half the votes.
Who is his or her right mind thinks this is fair? No one. The states that host winner-take-all primaries want disproportionate power in choosing the nominee, and they have it. If this were a lawsuit and these states were defendants, no honest judge would find in their favor. I don't want to get into a discussion of the nationalization of presidential races; I want to deal with the situation that exists at this moment. If I were a Romney supporter in California, or a Huckabee supporter in Virginia, my vote would not have counted at all!
Now, that is a slight hyperbole. It was cast and it was counted, but it should have counted as long as and with equal force of the vote of any other Republican in my state.
I cannot stress this too much: The rules adopted by some State Republican Parties are disenfranchising Republican voters. That statement, by itself, should be reason enough to encourage — require, if it is possible — that state parties switch to proportional allocation primaries.
Before I move to my final point, an aside is appropriate: Closed & allocated primaries would, as I'm sure you noticed, make it harder for a candidate to reach majority before convention. This is not a negative to me, in fact, it is a positive. According to CNN, McCain passed the 1,191 mark following the March 4th primaries. Presidential primaries continued to be held until June 3rd. These voters, too, were disenfranchised because there was no way anything they did could affect the final outcome. I have not taken the trouble to crunch the numbers; simply saying that the 5-month Republican presidential primary season was over in exactly 60 days should be sufficiently disturbing to demand the attention of this committee.
3. Choosing a vice presidential candidate.
In theory, the delegates nominate and the voters elect both president and vice president, but, in reality, the sidekick isn't a factor in presidential elections these days. Was Sarah Palin a positive or a negative to the John McCain campaign? Yes, but not enough of a negative to sink that campaign, and not enough of a positive to save it.
But none of that is actually an issue. In fact, the presidential nominee gets the running mate of his or her choice. (I mean, seriously, only Barack Obama would choose Joe Biden to be just one heartbeat away from having his hair plugs – I mean his hands – on "the football.") Fortunately, Republicans have better sense and better taste, but still, is there a better, wiser, more fair, more logical, more politic process than putting any person one heartbeat away from the presidency on the say so of one person?
Absolutely, and that way is originalism. The original Constitutional plan, as we all know, was to have the electoral majority winner as president, and the first runner-up as vice president. That worked well for two elections (Washington and Adams in 1788 and 1792), then quickly fell apart over Adams' and Jefferson's animosity (in 1796), and collapsed completely when Burr stood his Constitutionally-correct ground (in the 1800 tie), resulting in the12th Article of Amendment.
This does not prevent the Republican Party implementing an originalist selection process for our vice presidential nominees. Would giving the person with the second highest delegate count the Republican Party vice presidential nomination hurt the Party or the process? In fact, I think it would enhance it.
First, my previous two proposals could result in no candidate with a majority at convention, (personally, I'm leaning toward hoping it does). This could result in floor fights or backroom deals to get a nominee. Either prospect fills me with dread, as I consider both possibilities among the core problems of modern American politics. However, since the top two candidates will almost certainly have a majority between them – more likely a greater- or super-majority – together, they would control the convention. I know they might be people who don't get along any better than Adams and Jefferson, but forcing them to work together might go a long way toward bringing the Party together after a long, hard primary fight.
Second, Governor Romney left the campaign in February when he saw the handwriting on the wall. If there had been a chance for him to win the second spot, or a chance to prevent Governor Huckabee from winning the second spot, I think Romney would have kept fighting. The same could be said for Huckabee. Both of them had substantial support, whereas Governor Palin was a total unknown and, though she got very popular very fast, we could've had a VP candidate that we'd been watching and getting to know for months, and one which many of us supported.
Now, we all know that no one runs to be vice president. It could be about the least glamorous job in American politics. However, Reagan lost the nomination twice before winning it; McCain, Bush 41 and Nixon all won it on their second try. We could remake the vice presidency into a national, party-wide priority; an honor and an opportunity for name recognition, camera time, accomplishment, experience and many other positives. The vice presidency could become a stepping stone to the presidency, the way the post of Secretary of State was in the early 19th Century. Check the list of SecStates who became president; it's impressive! This has a side benefit – giving the GOP a long-term perspective of the highest offices and, maybe, more continuity in power.
Conclusion: I believe that a more strenuous process will result in better nominees. The process I propose will allow us more time to consider the candidates; it will force the candidates to work harder to win every vote; it will discourage states from stacking up early primaries. Of greatest importance, it will prevent states from exercising undue influence through unfair distribution of delegates.
I am also convinced that this proposal will garner stronger support for the winning ticket from Party members nationally than we have seen in the past.
Respectfully,
Phoenix Roberts
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,
I've seen a lot of Republican presidential candidates over the past 40 years I've been paying attention, and, frankly, not too many have impressed me. Fewer still have impressed me after their election. I want a candidate that the largest portion of Republicans can get behind and support philosophically, financially and actively. So, how do we achieve broad-based, Party-wide support? I have three suggestions:
1. End open primaries.
Since I have no polls or hard evidence to back this opinion, I'll have to go on straight logic:
Premise: The Republican Party was founded so that people could organize support for candidates that espouse their shared (traditionally, conservative) philosophy.
Fact: Open primaries allow people who are not Republicans to have a voice in choosing the Party's candidates – Democrats, third-party members and independents. All these, by definition, do not fully share and support the Party platform.
Conclusion: Open primaries dilute the "shared philosophy" factor of the Republican nominee, resulting in loss of appeal to mainstream Republicans and loss of support.
We all remember Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos." He asked Republicans to vote in Democratic primaries (if they didn't have a close GOP race), to extend the fight between Clinton and Obama. We don't know what effect, if any, that ploy had on the Democratic race, and, frankly, I don’t care. I care very much that it could happen to us.
According to a recent article in USA Today, there are 204 million eligible voters in the USA.
Rasmussen.com says 37 million are registered Republicans and 33.7 million are registered Democrats;
the rest are registered in minor parties or as independents.
Regardless of how those numbers have changed since that article was written, Republicans are less than 1 out of every 5 voters. We could easily be overwhelmed at the polls and our candidate could easily be chosen by people who are not members of our Party – in fact, by people who do not like us or what we stand for.
Can we really expect rank and file Republicans to support the Party, if the Party cares so little about their opinions? Can we really expect the rank and file Republicans to support the Party when the Party spends more time, effort and money to curry the favor of non-members over that of Party members? Can we really expect rank and file Republicans to support the Party, when the Party's candidate isn't their candidate? (I'll quit here, but I could go on.)
Oh, yes, one more point: "The Big Tent" – strike it, roll it up and stow it! People who tell you we need a big tent have just one agenda, whether they know it or not – to dilute the traditional conservatism of the Republican platform. Whenever we do that, we lose.
2. End winner-take-all primaries.
Just as certainly as open primaries dilute my vote for Republican candidates, winner-take-all primaries eliminate them. Here, I have some facts, from the CNN 2008 primary coverage website:
State
|
McCain
Votes (# / %) |
1st Runner-up
Votes (# / %) |
McCain
Delegates (# / %) |
1st Runner-up Delegates (# / %)
|
California
|
1,238,988 / 42
|
1,013,471 / 35
|
155 / 91
|
15 / 9
|
New York
|
333,001 / 52
|
178,043 / 28
|
98 / 100
|
0 / 0
|
Texas
|
697,767 / 51
|
518,002 / 38
|
121 / 87
|
16 / 13
|
Virginia
|
244,829 / 50
|
199,003 / 41
|
60 / 100
|
0 / 0
|
Totals
|
2,514,585 / 57*
|
1,928,519 / 43*
|
434 / 93
|
31 / 7
|
* Percentage of total votes in this table; both totals would be lower when other candidates are included.
With just four large state wins, Sen. McCain had almost one-quarter of the total needed for nomination, despite the fact that he won barely over half of the votes in those states, while the runner-ups divided less than one-tenth the delegates, despite winning nearly half the votes.
Who is his or her right mind thinks this is fair? No one. The states that host winner-take-all primaries want disproportionate power in choosing the nominee, and they have it. If this were a lawsuit and these states were defendants, no honest judge would find in their favor. I don't want to get into a discussion of the nationalization of presidential races; I want to deal with the situation that exists at this moment. If I were a Romney supporter in California, or a Huckabee supporter in Virginia, my vote would not have counted at all!
Now, that is a slight hyperbole. It was cast and it was counted, but it should have counted as long as and with equal force of the vote of any other Republican in my state.
I cannot stress this too much: The rules adopted by some State Republican Parties are disenfranchising Republican voters. That statement, by itself, should be reason enough to encourage — require, if it is possible — that state parties switch to proportional allocation primaries.
Before I move to my final point, an aside is appropriate: Closed & allocated primaries would, as I'm sure you noticed, make it harder for a candidate to reach majority before convention. This is not a negative to me, in fact, it is a positive. According to CNN, McCain passed the 1,191 mark following the March 4th primaries. Presidential primaries continued to be held until June 3rd. These voters, too, were disenfranchised because there was no way anything they did could affect the final outcome. I have not taken the trouble to crunch the numbers; simply saying that the 5-month Republican presidential primary season was over in exactly 60 days should be sufficiently disturbing to demand the attention of this committee.
3. Choosing a vice presidential candidate.
In theory, the delegates nominate and the voters elect both president and vice president, but, in reality, the sidekick isn't a factor in presidential elections these days. Was Sarah Palin a positive or a negative to the John McCain campaign? Yes, but not enough of a negative to sink that campaign, and not enough of a positive to save it.
But none of that is actually an issue. In fact, the presidential nominee gets the running mate of his or her choice. (I mean, seriously, only Barack Obama would choose Joe Biden to be just one heartbeat away from having his hair plugs – I mean his hands – on "the football.") Fortunately, Republicans have better sense and better taste, but still, is there a better, wiser, more fair, more logical, more politic process than putting any person one heartbeat away from the presidency on the say so of one person?
Absolutely, and that way is originalism. The original Constitutional plan, as we all know, was to have the electoral majority winner as president, and the first runner-up as vice president. That worked well for two elections (Washington and Adams in 1788 and 1792), then quickly fell apart over Adams' and Jefferson's animosity (in 1796), and collapsed completely when Burr stood his Constitutionally-correct ground (in the 1800 tie), resulting in the12th Article of Amendment.
This does not prevent the Republican Party implementing an originalist selection process for our vice presidential nominees. Would giving the person with the second highest delegate count the Republican Party vice presidential nomination hurt the Party or the process? In fact, I think it would enhance it.
First, my previous two proposals could result in no candidate with a majority at convention, (personally, I'm leaning toward hoping it does). This could result in floor fights or backroom deals to get a nominee. Either prospect fills me with dread, as I consider both possibilities among the core problems of modern American politics. However, since the top two candidates will almost certainly have a majority between them – more likely a greater- or super-majority – together, they would control the convention. I know they might be people who don't get along any better than Adams and Jefferson, but forcing them to work together might go a long way toward bringing the Party together after a long, hard primary fight.
Second, Governor Romney left the campaign in February when he saw the handwriting on the wall. If there had been a chance for him to win the second spot, or a chance to prevent Governor Huckabee from winning the second spot, I think Romney would have kept fighting. The same could be said for Huckabee. Both of them had substantial support, whereas Governor Palin was a total unknown and, though she got very popular very fast, we could've had a VP candidate that we'd been watching and getting to know for months, and one which many of us supported.
Now, we all know that no one runs to be vice president. It could be about the least glamorous job in American politics. However, Reagan lost the nomination twice before winning it; McCain, Bush 41 and Nixon all won it on their second try. We could remake the vice presidency into a national, party-wide priority; an honor and an opportunity for name recognition, camera time, accomplishment, experience and many other positives. The vice presidency could become a stepping stone to the presidency, the way the post of Secretary of State was in the early 19th Century. Check the list of SecStates who became president; it's impressive! This has a side benefit – giving the GOP a long-term perspective of the highest offices and, maybe, more continuity in power.
Conclusion: I believe that a more strenuous process will result in better nominees. The process I propose will allow us more time to consider the candidates; it will force the candidates to work harder to win every vote; it will discourage states from stacking up early primaries. Of greatest importance, it will prevent states from exercising undue influence through unfair distribution of delegates.
I am also convinced that this proposal will garner stronger support for the winning ticket from Party members nationally than we have seen in the past.
Respectfully,
Phoenix Roberts
No comments:
Post a Comment