Politico: GOP Seeks Order to Primary Process
Jim sent me a link to this article with these comments:
"Three things jumped out to me.
1. The sentence to the effect that the weakest part of our political system is how we select our candidates. I say "Can't we do better?".
2. Interesting discussion about why the GOP is doing this now. GOP - looking for order -- Dems - fair to all. Good or bad, to me, that explains why the GOP has had their candidate for two months, while the Dems??????????. Actually, I see that tendency in several areas, including Obama's tardiness in addressing the pastor issue.. Also, if the GOP is first to develop a new primary plan, the Dems may have to follow.
3. The plans for scheduling the primaries.
Jim, I definitely agree with you, especially #1. This is going to be one of the things I talk about tonight.
The drawback to the GOP approach, present and future, according to the article is some states lose their vote.
Why was there all the jockeying among both the Republican and Democratic parties for when they would have their primaries? Because the states at the back of the line on the calendar didn't want the decision made before they had a chance to vote. How many GOP voters are there in the primaries now who don't want John McCain as their nominee, but are confronted by a fait accompli because of the winner take all approach? Look at how many votes Ron Paul got in Pennsylvania.
The Democratic approach may seem bloody, but when all is said and done, very few of their party will be able to say they didn't have a voice in the process.
I do indeed think there will be some re-ordering of how the primaries are done, but I think the GOP may also go for the proportional, rather than the winner take all approach.
Thanks for sending, Jim.
Here's the link.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10099.html
Jim, I definitely agree with you, especially #1. This is going to be one of the things I talk about tonight.
The drawback to the GOP approach, present and future, according to the article is some states lose their vote.
Why was there all the jockeying among both the Republican and Democratic parties for when they would have their primaries? Because the states at the back of the line on the calendar didn't want the decision made before they had a chance to vote. How many GOP voters are there in the primaries now who don't want John McCain as their nominee, but are confronted by a fait accompli because of the winner take all approach? Look at how many votes Ron Paul got in Pennsylvania.
The Democratic approach may seem bloody, but when all is said and done, very few of their party will be able to say they didn't have a voice in the process.
I do indeed think there will be some re-ordering of how the primaries are done, but I think the GOP may also go for the proportional, rather than the winner take all approach.
Thanks for sending, Jim.
Here's the link.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10099.html
Larry,
Thanks for posting this.
I generally agree with your comments, except in one spot. You say "I think the GOP may also go for the proportional, rather than the winner take all approach".
If you buy the idea that the GOP tends toward order, while the Dems favor fairness, the issue of fairness is fairly low on the GOP totem pole. The idea of proportional representation is definitely a fairness idea.
Why would the GOP give up the order of the current process for the chaos and uncertainty of a proportional (maybe fairer) system? They would be deliberately buying into what the democrats have right now. Not logical. Or orderly.
Just my opinion.
Reply to this