Republicans need to change their nomination procedure

[BigSkyBob]

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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

[Mr. Morden]

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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

[True Federalist]

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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

[True Federalist]

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.