At this past weekend’s 2016 Quadrennial Republican Party of Virginia State Convention, the Nominations Committee reported a recommended slate of 13 delegate candidates, and 13 alternate delegate candidates to be elected by the Convention. Just like they did in 2012. And 2008. And 2004…and in every presidential year going back to at least 1972, the last year in living memory for anyone involved with the current process. The controversy surrounding this process illustrates perfectly why it has outlived its usefulness.
The composition of the Nominations Committee is a function of the Party’s rules. The State Chairman appoints two members, including the committee chairman and one at-large member. Then, the balance of the 13-member body is filled by a single appointment from each of the GOP Chairmen in Virginia’s 11 Congressional Districts. I was appointed to the Committee this year by First District GOP Chairman Eric Herr.
In keeping with custom, the Nominations Committee considered the candidacies of all those who had filed for the office of national delegate and alternate. There are no rules or requirements about how we were to go about the process of winnowing down a list of 80 delegate candidates to a recommended slate of 13, only decades of precedent. This process that has been in place for at least 44 years wasn’t chosen by the members of the Nominations Committee. The process chose us, not the other way around.
In past years, decisions have been made on the basis of who “deserved” the honor of representing the Commonwealth at the national convention, with most recommendations going to past and present holders of statewide offices, other elected officials, and as a reward to activists whose work had “earned” them a spot on the slate.
But this year was not like most years. In most other years it hasn’t mattered who the delegates were, as the results of the national convention were already known on the basis of a single candidate’s having secured the bound delegate votes necessary to clinch the nomination. This year, it is not overly dramatic to say that those whom we selected could quite literally determine who the next President of the United States will be. In large part, this informed the preferences of committee members this year.
The rationale for having a recommended slate is one of convenience. It is logistically difficult to have 80 candidates on a ballot to allow state convention delegates to have an open vote on who will be elected, and when the composition of that delegation never really matters, few are willing to sit through the additional time necessary to count such ballots and tabulate the weighted results. This logic is flawed.
Almost all other states have processes for selecting at-large delegates that are much more open and transparent. Colorado, for instance, had direct election of their at-large delegates at their state convention, with over 400 candidates on the ballot. Difficult? Yes, but not impossible or impractical. But is it worth the trouble? Yes, most definitely, as Saturday’s convention showed.
Our failure to accommodate the reality of 2016 and the possibility of a contested national convention gave rise to a tsunami of ill-informed vitriol about our process, only about half of which is unjustified.
Setting aside the opportunistic demagoguery from certain quarters, it is entirely legitimate and correct to say the process lacks transparency, and places too much power in the hands of a few leaders at the expense of the grassroots of our Party. I’m not yet sure what method I would recommend to replace it, but it must be replaced.
There are two main reasons why so much of the criticism is silly and uninformed. First, as I wrote on Sunday, despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, Donald Trump had a good day even though he only captured three of the 13 delegates up for grabs. That’s because he got three more delegates than he would have in a more transparent and open process. The pro-Cruz, former Rubio, and #NeverTrump folks probably had about two-thirds of the weighted vote on Saturday. If there had been a direct election of national delegates—cutting the Nominations Committee out of the process—we would have seen a result much like we’ve seen in other states around the country, namely the election of an entire Cruz-backed slate. If the majority’s preferences were manifested in a head-to-head contest with the Trump supporters in attendance, Trump would have walked away with essentially nothing. (See, e.g., Arizona, Colorado, Maine and so forth).
Second, no one is disenfranchising anyone else, and no one is stealing Trump votes by electing pro-Cruz delegates. The March 1 primary binds delegates on the first ballot. That’s it. The election Saturday doesn’t change that fact. However, under Party rules that have been around for a very long time, there is a process in place by which the Party selects a nominee when no candidate is able to secure a majority on the first ballot. That’s what we’re doing now, and simply because the Trump campaign was late in recognizing the importance of this step in the process doesn’t mean it’s unfair or “rigged” anymore than Florida, to name but one example, was “rigged” when it awarded 100% of its delegate votes to Trump when he only won a minority of the primary vote.
The confusion among some voters about this unfamiliar process is understandable given the lack of transparency. It is particularly so when their lack of understanding is exploited by politicians seeking to capitalize on uninformed rage. The Party would do well to break down the information barriers for these folks at every opportunity. In Virginia, that starts with ending the Nominations Committee slate the next time we elect delegates to a national convention.
42 comments
[…] convention. We wrote about the need to end this establishment-inspired practice last summer (“End the Slate” and “End the Slate – Part […]
[…] April’s Republican Party of Virginia 2016 State Convention, I wrote a piece called “End the Slate.” In it, I decried the opaque and arcane manner in which Virginia Republicans select their […]
When Ken Cuccinelli stood up and said to Trump supporters “You’re lucky we gave you three. We didn’t have to give you ANY” I was done done done with him. Governor? Your ass will be lucky to be elected dog catcher. I will work very very hard to make sure you are not our governor. Don’t give me the transparent shit. The GOPe didn’t want us to know where the at large delegates were from nor who they were supporting., I was there on Friday also.
Don’t worry about it. There will be few Republicans left to go to the state convention. They can all be delegates to the National Convention – if there is one.
I don’t understand why the rules just don’t require the delegates to be allocated in proportion to the primary percentages. At least that way, the people who bothered to vote are not ignored past the first ballot. What’s worse, most of them don’t even understand their vote does not matter to RPV past the first ballot. I recognize this situation is rare, but to give any candidate 10 of 13 delegates, when they placed third in the primary, gives the appearance of a rigged system.
Or, just use the convention to elect party offices and allow the voters to nominate the public candidates. Personally, I think you would win far more public elections.
You could add a filing fee, then only those people that really want it will run. That will cut down the numbers substantially, enough so we can give them time to really give a speech and for people to get to know who they are.
Right or wrong, crazy or not, it just doesn’t matter at this point, because NO attempt was made by any group of party leaders to build any bridges to the Trump team or his supporters outside of vitriolic name calling, outright dismissal or behind closed doors strategy and money contributor sessions to stop his next primary state success (all of which failed miserably including in Indiana today). For an individual that is already predisposed to undertake direct actions as Trump has been throughout his adult personal and business life (i.e. he is the guy sitting in the cab of the wrecking ball device outside your front door when disputes arise not the friendly consensus moderator and is accustomed to getting his way to boot) this basic failure of common sense to establish even a minimal working relationship, if only to cover your political flanks, is amazing to me.
So yes you go right ahead and tweak those rules but just so the surprise is not total you might want to pop a few old 1970’s disaster movies like “The Poseidon Adventure” for example into the DVR. The kind where the captain is on the bridge shouting orders and flipping switches while assuring the young ship’s junior officer’s that all will be well just before the 150 foot tsunami wave flips the ship bottom up and promptly sends it to the ocean floor.
With Trump firmly ensconced atop the party’s organizational chart any pretense that the party as it has functioned will continue along with a few modifications here and adjustments there is a pipe dream. The only thing I’m fairly certain of is that what we have lived with since the Bush years will be swept aside for good along with a load of infrastructure baggage and party leadership, including activist, conservative, establishment or otherwise.. By the way and as an aside I believe you owe one of your readers a dinner bet on you.
While I agree with your frustration, there is no better use of a committee than to narrow down a hundred candidates to less (here, 13) before submission to a body of thousands. That’s why we have committees, after all.
The alternative, Colorado, was a nightmare. Candidates there literally had 10 seconds to tell the crowd why they should vote for them. It’s unworkable.
The best way to improve the current process is that the nominations committee (i) report it’s recommendation, along with candidate affiliations, a week in advance of a convention; and that (ii) campaigns may recommend an alternative slate upon X number of verified Republican signatures. That way the process is transparent, expedient, and the campaigns have a fair opportunity to recommend an alternative slate.
This is a good idea,Beau. I’m not saying Colorado is the solution necessarily…just that a solution is needed.
Without a committee, it is up to the delegate candidates to run for the seat. Meaning they have to campaign, they could team up as a slate with endorsements, run individually, any number of ways. I’m not even sure you have to provide all of them speaking time at a convention. The one on one vote is what is attractive to people, I get to pick my 13 and you yours and the delegate that gets the most votes wins.
As Judge Brandeis said,” sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants”
When a lobbyist for a large utility corporation is sitting on a naming committee for the Republican Convention in Va, you have very serious issues of ethics.
The fact that no one saw a problem with this is a much larger issue. The only way to get rid of a rigged process is to dismantle the organizational structure.
I don’t know who you mean but doesn’t that person have rights as a citizen and party member also in a personal capacity?
So, how did Colorado handle that many candidates, ballot wise?
Assigned each candidate a number on an optical scan ballot, next to an oval bubble. Pick 16. Scan the ballot. Print the tape and weight the results. Done.
You know, you can get a majority with that through single transferable vote. Just saying.
And that begs the question–why didn’t we have optical scan ballots?
Don’t forget that some delegates were listed more than once and others were “omitted”. Colorado Conventions had a little Chicago-Style flair.
Steve – Well said. I agree with you completely, in theory, although the logistics would certainly need to be worked out, but I am not sure about your projected outcome. We saw some of the Cruz delegation break ranks and vote against the slate. I expect that if you had an open election of all 80 delegates you would have some people that vote for various elected officials because of name recognition or “hometown hero” syndrome, etc…. I am speaking specifically of Jim Gilmore, John Hager, Jerry Kilgore, etc…. I would argue that those candidates are more likely to be included if it was on open vote, particularly if we did away with the 50 + 1 rule, of which I am not in favor. If we are going to elect them direct the Rules will need to be crafted as such to knock 50%, then 25%, etc…. based off of some threshold of total candidates being met and once any candidate receives 50 + 1 they are elected and removed from the ballot, reducing everyone’s votes on the next ballot. Like I said, logistically difficult, but not impossible. Good post!
As I’ve repeated several times this week, and expect to for a while…..
Single Transferrable Vote
Can you explain how that works?
Mr. Albertson are you reading my mind…..
I agree the Trump team was not prepared for what happened nor did it do anything to motivate the Trump supporters. The Cruz team didn’t do much more. So what happened? How was it that more Cruz supporters arrived?
Simple, folks were encouraged to come by supporters in the chairman’s race. For-instance, when Vince Haley re-entered the race supporter of their chosen chair of RPV started moving folks to attend. Now the committee woman’s race did that as well but the real fight was on Friday not Saturday. No Roberts Rules followed there. But I digress.
You and I both know how this game of chest is won. If you have your person chair the convention then you pick the committees. If the Vince Haley supporters had won on Friday there would have been all new committees. Hence what happened on Saturday would not have happened quite the way it did. The Nomination Committee would have been a group of folks more friendly to all campaigns and not loaded with the #NeverTrump or #NeverCoreyStewart crowd. I’m not carrying either of these folks water. Just exposing what folks didn’t see. If Corey Stewart has enemies I’m sure he earned them. Corey can clean it up or just live with it.
As far as the grassroots goes, WE are tired of the shenanigans of this party! What I knew to be true made my decision not to support that “slate”. I will not betray the very people that this Party prays on for support! “Come on in we’re a big tent”. “The waters fine, as long as you do what we want”. I WILL NEVER BETRAY THE PEOPLE THAT FIGHT EVERYDAY TO RESTORE THIS COUNTRY, not for Cruz or you. I’ll be damned if I will sit by ideally and watch them be lied to or played a fool.
O they say they play by the rules and they did this past weekend, after deals were made attempting to get everyone at ease. But that’s not all is it. The rules were loaded to accommodate any last minute changes should the “controllers” have the room.
See Albertson, I know you play fair as do I. We don’t slate back even if we control the room. It’s #PrinciplesOverPolitics. We set the example of fair play and expose the tyrants that have less integrity. That’s not what the grassroots got this weekend.
As I walked around the convention floor visiting with the very grassroots allies attending, I happen to have this conversation with many there. It just so happens when I stopped by Chesapeake Senator John Cosgrove interjected himself into my conversation regarding Corey Stewart. Senator Cosgrove doesn’t realize that when I moved from one side of Virginia Beach to the other he became my senator. DeSteph just took a sigh of relief. He made a snarky comment toward Corey Stewart (state chair for Trump) being on that slate over the VFRW chair.
Senator Cosgroves remarks made it clear this Nominations Committee was not going to play nice. His look on his face made it even more clear he had less regard for the people that attended and wanted to be apart of the process. This is the leadership that needs to go. HE IS ON NOTICE! His tone and body language were the most transparent aspect of this whole event.
Let’s not pretend these committees, set by RPV chair and the FACT that Cuccinelli has a bone to pick with Stewart didn’t have more to do with this than anything else. If any of them want a piece of Corey Stewart, have at it. Just don’t think I will watch our people be used for personality conflicts.
There actually would not be all new committees if Vince Haley had not lost 70-30 on Friday. Referring to the Party Plan:
Article VIII, SECTION I. State Convention Committees
The State Central Committee shall establish committees for each State Convention. The State Chairman shall appoint the Chairman and one member of each committee. The Congressional District Chairmen shall additionally appoint one member to each committee. Appointments are not subject to approval by the State Convention.
Than you for that correction. Even more needed would be a chair of the convention that would expose such a committee and force fair play to the mob.
Love that screen name BTW.
Thank you for pointing out what the rules actually say. Some people like to call foul after the fact…oh well. That’s the thing about Jack Wilson…Great chairman with strong opposing opinions 🙂
Didn’t the Cruzin delegate selection begin at the locals?
Can we get an Amen for Waverly? I think she deserves one.
I was there and I don’t think the process was unworkably opaque. Yes we did not know until the last minute what the slate from the nominations committee would but we were free to vote that slate down if we chose. I do think Colorado’s process would work here too (in an electronic form preferably as paper ballots with that many names would be a nightmare to tabulate).
The one thing I don’t agree with is the notion that Jim Gilmore (just as an example… I have nothing against our former Governor:-P) has any more right to a delegate spot than anyone else who threw there name into consideration.
I was there too and totally agree AmyH!
I like the idea of voting and the top 13 get the slots. no 50 +1. Having a filing fee concept is nice but it also needs to not be too high so that hardworking people can file and run. I was an alternate in 2012 and thought about going for full delegate this year, but too many chefs in the kitchen this year. Maybe 2020 will be my year……….Stefl with 2020 vision for National Delegate. May be my slogan 🙂
But if you have 80 candidates the difference between #13 and #14 could be one vote. I think each one has to have more support.
This really is a tough nut to crack when the Republican Party leaders feel one way and the Republican Party voters think something completely different. Bad system, but here we are.
I could have told you this week’s ago (and I did). There needs to be all prefiled candidates on ballots with delegates able to select up to 13 and a requirement that ni delegate is selected until he/she receives 50%+1 of the Convention attendees. Multiple ballots held dropping off bottom half of vote getters (or some other percentage) until 13 eventually get majority support from Convention. Transparent and gives the delegates at the Convention more power to choose each delegate to send, instead of the nominations committee wielding so much power and offering a hand-picked slate up to us for an up or down vote. Had we done this, Cruz would have probably won 13 delegates and we’d walk away united. The Trump folks would not be able to complain about the lack of transparency and they’d be able to see they had a shot and they didn’t have the numbers. Now everyone’s pissed on all sides.
I also think it would make sense to have a delegate filing fee, maybe $100-$300 or so to keep the number of people prefiling lower to make the election easier + raise money for the party.
That would be against current RNC rules.
Wasn’t there a $250 RNC delegate candidate filing fee? And, I believe there is financial aid if hardship is demonstrated, no?
Rule 16 (d) 10- No delegate or alternate delegate, or candidate for delegate or alternate delegate, to the national convention shall be required to pay an assessment or fee in excess of that provided by the law of the state in which his or her election or selection occurs as a condition of standing for election or serving as a delegate or alternate delegate to the national
convention.
I need to look into VA law I guess but unless VA law allows it, the RPV can’t charge fees… maybe I can get my $200 back.
I would if ask for a refund if I were you.The product was not “as described”.
Actually I found out it is not but the “pay to play” doesn’t invite the big tent does it.
I hear you, sister!
Thanks for explaining the slate process, Steve.
The complete lack of transparency on RPV’s part is utterly appalling. It is wilful disdain of the delegates and is indicative of the party’s desire to keep us in the dark.
The non-transparency buck stops with Chairman John Whitbeck and he better clean up his act.
There can be no unity until there’s much more transparency and we all have a true say.
Many of us delegates left the Convention angry and disillusioned. Our party is deeply fractured.
You’ve started a necessary dialog. It’s past time to take a look at how we do things in our party!
By all means, let’s get rid of the slates; return power to the delegates rather than treating them as just rubberstamps.
Maybe we should do away with the idea of delegates being unbound after the first ballot – some other states’ delegates are permanently bound until their candidate is eliminated. Going this route would reduce the opportunity for corruption and bribes.
It’s not going to be easy; party leaders won’t want to let go of their power.
We’ll have to MAKE them. Let’s all start talking.
At some point you have to un-bind them if no one has a majority or you will never get to a majority. Pluralities lead to a tyranny of the minority over the majority. Usually we worry about the reverse but in voting for a candidate or office holder you need a majority. So the delegate process becomes a runoff.
Very good post.
Thanks, Danielle!