Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 19, 2014, 08:46:13 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Questions and Answers
| |-+  Presidential Election Process
| | |-+  Republicans need to change their nomination procedure
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Republicans need to change their nomination procedure  (Read 12186 times)
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2276
View Profile
« Reply #25 on: July 14, 2011, 10:14:47 pm »
Ignore

If the Republicans want to avoid anoter McCain disaster, they need to modify their rules for primaries.

First, the winner take all system allowed on candidate with a minority of the total vote, and a very narrow plurality to take everything.

Second, McCain was able to win narrow pluralities in early primary states courtesy of the votes of non-Republicans in the Republican primaries.  The Democrats have recognized the problem with such 'raidable' primaries, the Republicans should wake up to the problems, and close the primaries.

That was just the beginning of how rigged the Republican nomination system was. Winner-take-all primaries were concentrated in the North, while Southern primaries were mostly proportional. GWB stacked the deck as much as possible to nominate Rudy Giuliani. McCain merely seized the opportunity after Giuliani imploded.

Some of the mischief in the caucuses in West Virginia and Lousianna ["pro-life, pro-family"] are a whole nother subject.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10660


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

View Profile
« Reply #26 on: August 11, 2011, 05:40:46 am »
Ignore

If the Republicans want to avoid anoter McCain disaster, they need to modify their rules for primaries.

First, the winner take all system allowed on candidate with a minority of the total vote, and a very narrow plurality to take everything.

Second, McCain was able to win narrow pluralities in early primary states courtesy of the votes of non-Republicans in the Republican primaries.  The Democrats have recognized the problem with such 'raidable' primaries, the Republicans should wake up to the problems, and close the primaries.

Well, the RNC listened to me on my first point:

III. Proportional Allocation Requirement for Nominating Processes Held Before April 1st

 Any state (other than the four states allowed to conduct their processes in February) conducting its process prior to April 1, 2012 must allocate its delegates proportionally

I understand they are working on the second point, but, due to a number of conflicting court decisions, which is strange considering the ruling in California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000), closing primaries may not occur until a subsequent election.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2011, 05:43:39 am by CARLHAYDEN »Logged

Registered in Arizona for Fantasy election purposes.
Mr. Morden
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20297
United States


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: August 11, 2011, 06:00:53 am »
Ignore

III. Proportional Allocation Requirement for Nominating Processes Held Before April 1st

 Any state (other than the four states allowed to conduct their processes in February) conducting its process prior to April 1, 2012 must allocate its delegates proportionally

Yes, though as I explain here:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=128721.msg2829427#msg2829427

the states don't have to use "real" PR.  They can use a kind of hybrid that would still allow the statewide winner to get all / nearly all the delegates if they win statewide by a decent margin.
Logged

HOG & Blondie: A Tale of Atlas Future

What is your opinion of this thread?

Watch Dave being briefed by the mods.

Being a moderator is basically like one giant party.  Except you're the one ruining the party and everyone hates you.
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10660


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

View Profile
« Reply #28 on: August 11, 2011, 08:23:29 am »
Ignore

III. Proportional Allocation Requirement for Nominating Processes Held Before April 1st

 Any state (other than the four states allowed to conduct their processes in February) conducting its process prior to April 1, 2012 must allocate its delegates proportionally

Yes, though as I explain here:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=128721.msg2829427#msg2829427

the states don't have to use "real" PR.  They can use a kind of hybrid that would still allow the statewide winner to get all / nearly all the delegates if they win statewide by a decent margin.


True, its not perfect, but, its a step in the right direction.
Logged

Registered in Arizona for Fantasy election purposes.
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29022
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #29 on: August 12, 2011, 12:11:17 am »
Ignore

McCain was able to win narrow pluralities in early primary states courtesy of the votes of non-Republicans in the Republican primaries.  The Democrats have recognized the problem with such 'raidable' primaries, the Republicans should wake up to the problems, and close the primaries.

I understand they are working on [this] but, due to a number of conflicting court decisions, which is strange considering the ruling in California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000), closing primaries may not occur until a subsequent election.

I fail to see the relevance of California Democratic Party v. Jones.  The issue of open primaries is not relevant to that case and Scalia's footnotes in his opinion indicate that he would at least give consideration to the idea that voting in an open primary is an act of association, and might even be in favor of that view.  In any case, the closed primary is for now at least, impossible to implement in at least one early primary State, South Carolina.  We have no party registration that could be used to close a primary.
Logged

People find meaning and redemption in the most unusual human connections. Khaled Hosseini
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10660


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

View Profile
« Reply #30 on: August 12, 2011, 06:51:43 am »
Ignore

McCain was able to win narrow pluralities in early primary states courtesy of the votes of non-Republicans in the Republican primaries.  The Democrats have recognized the problem with such 'raidable' primaries, the Republicans should wake up to the problems, and close the primaries.

I understand they are working on [this] but, due to a number of conflicting court decisions, which is strange considering the ruling in California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000), closing primaries may not occur until a subsequent election.

I fail to see the relevance of California Democratic Party v. Jones.  The issue of open primaries is not relevant to that case and Scalia's footnotes in his opinion indicate that he would at least give consideration to the idea that voting in an open primary is an act of association, and might even be in favor of that view.  In any case, the closed primary is for now at least, impossible to implement in at least one early primary State, South Carolina.  We have no party registration that could be used to close a primary.

Ernest,

I am pleased to see you disagree with me.

Its too bad you are unable to understand the difference between a holding of a court and footnotes which are not binding precedence.

Uh, do you know what precedence is in jurisprudence?

Hint: look up the term "obiter dictum" in Black's.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2011, 06:53:15 am by CARLHAYDEN »Logged

Registered in Arizona for Fantasy election purposes.
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29022
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #31 on: August 14, 2011, 10:37:20 am »
Ignore

I fully understand the difference.  As I pointed out, there is nothing in the ruling of California Democratic Party v. Jones that touches upon open primaries. California Democratic Party v. Jones dealt narrowly with a specific topic, the blanket primary.  As such, then at most it would be of relevance to the question of whether voting in one party's presidential primary would preclude a voter being able to vote in a different party's primary for the other offices that was held on a different day but as part of the same campaign cycle.  (I.e., if despite being held on different dates, the two primaries should be considered as a single one.)

The question of whether States hold open or closed primaries is at present a political decision, not a judicial one.

However, since you brought up the case and the footnotes of California Democratic Party v. Jones discuss open primaries I looked at them to see if any tea leaves might be there to be read if a case involving the legality of the the open primary were brought.

Of course, there is a simple non-judicial way for the Republicans (or the Democrats) to close their nomination process.  Pay for it themselves instead of having the government subsidize it.  I'd be quite happy to get the government entirely out of the candidate nomination process, but I don't see either of the two major parties being willing to stop sucking from the government teat.
Logged

People find meaning and redemption in the most unusual human connections. Khaled Hosseini
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines