New RNC Rule for Allocating Delegates

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Apparently this caused a big stir at convention, so I figured we could discuss it here, since I didn't see it anywhere else (and it really doesn't fit in the 2012 board):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With all of the debate about the new RNC rule, here's my opinion on it:

It's done to give more organization to the process.

What is the point of Iowa holding a caucus if the delegates from Iowa aren't allocated to the results of the caucus?

If you're not going to allocate based on the votes of the general public, why not just skip the caucuses and primaries that are "beauty contests" and simply elect your delegates at state conventions?

If you choose to hold a caucus or primary, you should be allocating your state's delegates based on those results.  If that's not how you want to allocate your state's delegates, then don't hold a caucus or primary.

[後援会]

This is very very very good. If we lose in 2012, we don't want a Paul-type or Bachmann-type having a shot of victory in 2016.

[Free Palestine]

This is very very very good. If we lose in 2012, we don't want a Paul-type or Bachmann-type having a shot of victory in 2016.

Paul didn't have a shot at victory anyways.  All this does is close the playing field to establishment candidates.

[Link]

If you're not going to allocate based on the votes of the general public, why not just skip the caucuses and primaries that are "beauty contests" and simply elect your delegates at state conventions?

If you choose to hold a caucus or primary, you should be allocating your state's delegates based on those results.  If that's not how you want to allocate your state's delegates, then don't hold a caucus or primary.

I think some kind of combination wouldn't be bad.  Frankly I would prefer for party insiders to have the majority of the say with a minority input from voters.  A scenario like that would probably cut down on a lot of the Looney Tune nonsense from the Republican primary.  Cain, Bachmann, and Paul would have never been able to set foot into the race.  Paul would be the only one I would miss.  T. Paw would have probably been in it for a lot longer.  Perry would have bowed out even faster than he did.

The role of Iowa needs to be deemphasized.  The straw polls and caucuses are simply ludicrous.  People setting up shop in that state years in advance and carpet bombing it is totally idiotic.  Is this any way to run a country of 300+ million people?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The thing is, is the process supposed to be about selecting delegates or nominees?

A caucus is first and foremost about selecting delegates, with nominee preferences being used to help guide the selection of delegates.  If you want to go to a bound process, then simply hold primaries.

[後援会]

I think some kind of combination wouldn't be bad.  Frankly I would prefer for party insiders to have the majority of the say with a minority input from voters.  A scenario like that would probably cut down on a lot of the Looney Tune nonsense from the Republican primary.  Cain, Bachmann, and Paul would have never been able to set foot into the race.  Paul would be the only one I would miss.  T. Paw would have probably been in it for a lot longer.  Perry would have bowed out even faster than he did.

The role of Iowa needs to be deemphasized.  The straw polls and caucuses are simply ludicrous.  People setting up shop in that state years in advance and carpet bombing it is totally idiotic.  Is this any way to run a country of 300+ million people?

I agree on both points. In fact, regarding the second point, how about we move the entire Iowa process to New Hampshire.

[Link]

The thing is, is the process supposed to be about selecting delegates or nominees?

A caucus is first and foremost about selecting delegates, with nominee preferences being used to help guide the selection of delegates.  If you want to go to a bound process, then simply hold primaries.

Good point.

I think some kind of combination wouldn't be bad.  Frankly I would prefer for party insiders to have the majority of the say with a minority input from voters.  A scenario like that would probably cut down on a lot of the Looney Tune nonsense from the Republican primary.  Cain, Bachmann, and Paul would have never been able to set foot into the race.  Paul would be the only one I would miss.  T. Paw would have probably been in it for a lot longer.  Perry would have bowed out even faster than he did.

The role of Iowa needs to be deemphasized.  The straw polls and caucuses are simply ludicrous.  People setting up shop in that state years in advance and carpet bombing it is totally idiotic.  Is this any way to run a country of 300+ million people?

I agree on both points. In fact, regarding the second point, how about we move the entire Iowa process to New Hampshire.

Nice.  Actually I was thinking about some kind of rotating system with say five states all going at once but rotating which five states.

[Хahar 🤔]

The way I'm reading it, a caucus is still perfectly permissible, with delegates being able to vote for whomever they choose; it's only a caucus with a straw poll that would bind delegates.

[Mr. Morden]

Should be noted that the rule change also helps prevent states holding their caucuses earlier than the rules allow while evading delegate penalties:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=157966.msg3398198#msg3398198

With the overall package of rules changes, we might actually see Iowa and New Hampshire move back to the latter half of January, rather than starting immediately after New Year's.

[後援会]

Should be noted that the rule change also helps prevent states holding their caucuses earlier than the rules allow while evading delegate penalties:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=157966.msg3398198#msg3398198

With the overall package of rules changes, we might actually see Iowa and New Hampshire move back to the latter half of January, rather than starting immediately after New Year's.

So a shorter presidential primary? Sounds wonderful.

[Mr. Morden]

Should be noted that the rule change also helps prevent states holding their caucuses earlier than the rules allow while evading delegate penalties:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=157966.msg3398198#msg3398198

With the overall package of rules changes, we might actually see Iowa and New Hampshire move back to the latter half of January, rather than starting immediately after New Year's.

So a shorter presidential primary? Sounds wonderful.

It'll probably only be shorter by about 2 or 3 weeks.

[後援会]

Should be noted that the rule change also helps prevent states holding their caucuses earlier than the rules allow while evading delegate penalties:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=157966.msg3398198#msg3398198

With the overall package of rules changes, we might actually see Iowa and New Hampshire move back to the latter half of January, rather than starting immediately after New Year's.

So a shorter presidential primary? Sounds wonderful.

It'll probably only be shorter by about 2 or 3 weeks.

That's still pretty good.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

This is very very very good. If we lose in 2012, we don't want a Paul-type or Bachmann-type having a shot of victory in 2016.

This is absolutely insane. The establishment/moderates have had unreasonable dominance on nominees my entire life. Only one conservative has gotten the nomination. That was Reagan in 1984. The rest have been neocons (Bush 41, 43, McCain or moderate hero (Dole). It's the conservative/libertarian wings turn at the driver seat of the party for awhile. We want the Paul type. He could beat Obama unlike your pale pastelic play it safe club. Conservatives win when we lead.

[Supersonic]

This is very very very good. If we lose in 2012, we don't want a Paul-type or Bachmann-type having a shot of victory in 2016.

This is absolutely insane. The establishment/moderates have had unreasonable dominance on nominees my entire life. Only one conservative has gotten the nomination. That was Reagan in 1984. The rest have been neocons (Bush 41, 43, McCain or moderate hero (Dole). It's the conservative/libertarian wings turn at the driver seat of the party for awhile. We want the Paul type. He could beat Obama unlike your pale pastelic play it safe club. Conservatives win when we lead.

Paul would be crushed. Not to mention that Paul flopped big time in the primaries, and don't give me none of that 'HE WAS CHEATED OUT OF DELEGATES' because he lost the popular vote in every state. Also George H.W. Bush was not a neo-conservative.

[MaxQue]

This is very very very good. If we lose in 2012, we don't want a Paul-type or Bachmann-type having a shot of victory in 2016.

This is absolutely insane. The establishment/moderates have had unreasonable dominance on nominees my entire life. Only one conservative has gotten the nomination. That was Reagan in 1984. The rest have been neocons (Bush 41, 43, McCain or moderate hero (Dole). It's the conservative/libertarian wings turn at the driver seat of the party for awhile. We want the Paul type. He could beat Obama unlike your pale pastelic play it safe club. Conservatives win when we lead.

Paul would be crushed. Not to mention that Paul flopped big time in the primaries, and don't give me none of that 'HE WAS CHEATED OUT OF DELEGATES' because he lost the popular vote in every state. Also George H.W. Bush was not a neo-conservative.

You aren't aware?
Ron Paul won Iowa, but its votes were thrown in rivers.
Same thing in other states.