A lot has been written recently about RPV’s decision to require voters to sign a Statement of Affiliation during the 2016 Republican Presidential Primary. Many people are questioning the wisdom of it, and others are outright attacking it as an infringement on people’s right to vote.
Well I say keep the Statement of Affiliation, and here’s why:
1. Republicans have the right to freely associate, even in primaries.
The Republican Party is a private organization, and the First Amendment gives people the right to freely associate with people they choose to. That means a private organization, like a political party, may set its own requirements for membership or participation in its activities. There is nothing that says a party must allow non-members to participate, even if they are availing themselves of government services like a primary. Simply asking someone to state that they are a Republican is not an undue burden to place on people if they want to vote in the Republican primary.
Ask yourself this simple question: if someone is unable, or unwilling, to state that they are a Republican, do you really want them voting to select the Republican nominee for the Republican party? Isn’t that what we are always complaining about with state-run primaries? How many times have we watched a moderate or liberal candidate make blatant appeals to Democrats to come out and vote in the Republican primary in order to defeat a more conservative candidate?
Let’s face it. There is no real Democrat contest this year. Hillary Clinton has all but sewn up the nomination. She is beating her closest challenger, Bernie Sanders, by double digits. Hillary already has over half of the Democrat Superdelegates publicly in her pocket, so she already has at least 25% of the delegates she needs to win the convention before the first vote has been cast. By the time Virginia has its primary the race will be over. Do we really want Democrats coming into our primary to help pick the weakest candidate?
Asking people to sign a statement saying they are a Republican won’t stop all Democrats from corrupting our process, but it will stop a lot of them.
2. Other States close their primaries, and some even require their own Statements of Affiliation.
According to Ballotpedia, there are 12 states that have strictly closed primaries, and another 21 states that are mixed, with most allowing parties to restrict access to their primaries to only members of their party. Some states, like Iowa and New Hampshire, allow independents to vote in the party primaries but they must register as a Republican or Democrat at that time in order to vote. In other states, like Idaho and Indiana, voters are bound by the choices they have made in the past. If they voted in a Democrat primary in the previous election, they may not get a Republican ballot this year.
Other states have statements of affiliation like the one proposed to be used in Virginia this year:
Colorado (Title 1, Article 7, Section 201): If unaffiliated, the eligible elector shall openly declare to the election judges the name of the political party with which the elector wishes to affiliate, complete the approved form for voter registration information changes, and initial the registration list in the space provided. Declaration of affiliation with a political party shall be separately dated and signed or dated and initialed by the eligible elector in such manner that the elector clearly acknowledges that the affiliation has been properly recorded.
Texas (Section 172.086: PLEDGE ON BALLOT): The following pledge shall be placed on the primary election ballot above the listing of candidates’ names: “I am a (insert appropriate political party) and understand that I am ineligible to vote or participate in another political party’s primary election or convention during this voting year.”
Mississippi (23-15-575.- Participation in primary election): No person shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends to support the nominations made in the primary in which he participates.
The majority of States limit participation to only members of a political party, or require some form of Statement of Affiliation. The Statement approved by RPV is not unique and we shouldn’t treat it as some something strange and obtrusive.
3. Our pledge for a Party run process is even more strict.
One of the things I have found most striking about this current issue is the number of people who say they support party-run processes (convention, party canvass, mass meeting) objecting to this simple Statement of Affiliation, which just asks people to say they are a Republican. When we have a party-run process, the requirements are much more restrictive. Potential voters must not only sign a statement saying they are a Republican, but must also pledge to support the eventual nominee selected at the convention or party canvass or mass meeting.
In addition, in a party run process a voter’s participation may be challenged, and the issue is decided by a Credentials committee. If the challenged voter has previously voted in Democrat primaries, or is shown to have donated money to Democrat candidates, the voter may be asked to publicly renounce their previous Democrat support, or may simply be denied a ballot.
I am having a hard time seeing the logic behind supporting a closed primary process where ballot access is much more strictly controlled, and opposing a simple statement saying “I am a Republican” for this presidential primary. It just doesn’t add up. It basically boils down to people saying, “we should have had a convention where we could limit participation to only Republicans, but since we voted for this bad choice of a state-run primary, we should make sure it is as bad as possible, so all the Democrats who want to can come in and choose are nominee.
Sorry, folks. That doesn’t make sense to me.
I am a Republican. I have always been a Republican. I ran for office as a Republican. I want Republicans to pick the Republican nominee in the Republican primary. If someone is unable to bring themselves to simply state that they are a Republican, I DO NOT want them to vote in the Republican primary.
I believe the best way to win the General Election is to provide the voters with a strong candidate who is a solid, dependable Conservative that can present a bold vision of America’s greatness and how we can all achieve the American dream. I don’t see how we are able to achieve that if we are more concerned with allowing people who don’t share our values to vote in our primary and choose our candidate for us.
87 comments
Mick Staton, I would agree with you 100% if the “Republican Primary” was not funded by tax dollars from Independents, Democrats and Republicans. But since the primary is tax payer funded, then you have no right to exclude non-Republicans. If the Republican Party wants to have a closed primary, then it needs to fund it 100%.
[…] It’s exactly what it says it is…a statement that the person signing it is a Republican. Mick Staton is right that the Virginia GOP is constitutionally allowed, pursuant to its First Amendment right of free […]
The Big Tent. Open the tent. Always talking about a tent. Then you
have your annual gala at some overpriced hotel only the rich can afford.
The party process: Try to oust the locals. Kill off any initiative to
improve the party. Sign stupid oaths. Are you serious? This isn’t a
party, it’s a country club. And most of us aren’t invited.
The Occupy movement and the Don’t Mess With My Medicare Tea Party geezers
have more in common than they do with the GOP or Dems. Maybe that’s why
they all turned into Independents.
I always thought the big tent a good metaphor because the GOP is so like a circus and our mascot an elephant. Throw in the Great and Powerful Whitbeck as the Ringmaster, the SCC as the clown car, and as many rings as we have elective districts.
We have lots of galas, they are targeted for all manner of demographics and constituencies — we have one that fits you EXACTLY!
We do try to oust the locals, it’s the centralization and nationalization of the looming bureaucracy that cuts across our culture (Red Cross, volunteer groups, fire and rescue departments) it’s part of the RNC/RPV way of securing party resources — what do you need grassroots for other than to panhandle for money, door-knocking for voter ID, and making crowds look bigger. Everything we do at the local level gets translated into email addresses for fundraising dunning, phone numbers for Robocallers and paid phonebank fundraising, targeting for direct mail hit pieces. We’re all witting or unwitting drones for the candidate consulting class that gets elected, gets what they want, and gets us screwed.
Nobody turns independent, it’s the result of simultaneously being not-Republican and not-democrat. It gives one the illusion that ‘my tendency to not support one party or the other makes me a better discriminator and I can pretend to be superior.’
In our case, and for the purposes of this blog and comments, either you’re a Republican or you’re a non-Republican. If you aren’t in there pulling the lever and doing your damnedest to arrange the lever so that pulling it matches your conservative priorities, you are on the other side and need to be thwarted.
Yeah, it’s not the strongest of wires, but we’re 200 feet up, and there’s no net, but what a show we shall put on!
Call and oppose the letter of intent!
Call RPV: 804-780-0111…
Email INFO@Virginia.GOP
You’ll have better luck bugging your SCC Reps.
I’m Independent and strange as it may seem Conservative I vote Republican because the Democrats don’t share my beliefs . Now you want me to sign a pledge what a crock of crap . The Republican party is trying to weed out the Conservative base . As far as I’m concerned the Democrats are right about one thing The Republican party is the party of rich old white men ! They claim they want to be inclusive they say one thing and do another . Just look they promised if we gave them the House and the Senate they’d stop Obama instead they goose stepped right beside him . Right now I am one step away from thumbing my nose at both parties !
While I am white, I am definitely not rich and not old (well, not yet). I am not trying to weed out the Conservative base. Far from it. I am trying to weed out the moderates and Democrats who will vote for a liberal Republican or the weakest candidate in order to help the Democrats win the general election.
It is a proven fact that party run processes where we are better able to limit participation to mainly Republican voters produce a more Conservative candidate. Since we didn’t choose a party run process, the pledge is the best we can do.
If you want to effect change in the Republican Party, then become a Republican and work for that change. If all the Conservatives quit the party or refuse to join, then the only ones left with be the liberals, and the Republican party will slide into oblivion and Democrats will win all the elections.
if you really want to limit what you call moderate Republicans, have a convention, exclude all but 10,000-12,000 of Virginia voters & nominate winners!
That’s true, the party has been hijacked by special interests — but that has little to do with the Statement.
This is a primary, meaning firstish. This is where Republicans try to come up with the best nominee. Asking the public is a stupid way to go about it, but it’s what slightly over half of RPV leadership decided was a good idea. That same body thought that including a requirement for a statement made it suck less — that is debatable.
I think you should get involved in the local party and give them a piece of your mind.
I personally believe that giving any VA voter the ability to vote for our nominee yet refusing to affirm to being a Republican does not go towards building the party.
Bottom line, the party hierarchy is scared to death of Donald J Trumph BECAUSE HE CANNOT BE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR. I smell a civil rights lawsuit brewing.
Of course. The best the party can do in terms of conservatives are the ineligibles and our standard go-to RINO’s are in the tank. Both Bush and Kasich have said they won’t support the nominee if it’s Trump.
Trump needs to fumigate the party top to bottom or they’ll stab him in the back. Oh wait, that’s what they’re doing now.
We gotta quit enabling the law-talking stuff, nothing good usually comes from that.
If Comstock and Ryan are republicans then I am not. I get to choose who I vote for by their actions not their party affiliation. Crossover, and just ask Buona about party pledges!
They are Republicans by accident and can be corrected. Because they are willing to claim being a Republican, they will get a vote. Because you are not, you will not.
You will get to vote for who we Republicans choose, hopefully we choose wisely.
Crossover candidate is T-rump. No more insiders and as for you choosing wisely I am sure you can count the numbers of times that happened on one hand.
Call and let the RPV know you oppose the letter of intent!
Call RPV: 804-780-0111…
Email INFO@Virginia.GOP
It’s hard to drag the party right when so many right-thinking conservatives have abandoned ship. Come back, sign the Statement and let’s deem the RINO’s out into the street.
The Republican Party may be a “private organization” as you say. However, the primary is being financed by a “public party”, the taxpayer.
As an Independent, I should be able to vote in any taxpayer financed election that includes my district.
Now, if the party wants to pay for their primary, that is a different story.
As an independent you can vote, the GOP requires you to sign a statement saying you are a Republican if you want to vote to elect a Republican nominee.
But fret not, there should be another primary along shortly you’ve bought where you can vote for a Republican without signing a statement — thanks to the 10th GOP.
State law says we can have a primary, and make you do tricks if you want to vote for our guys. And you wonder why people are choosing non-Traditional Republicans.
Don’t like it? Change the law.
Why on earth would I sign a paper saying that I am a tax and spend Republican, who supports things like the Republcane’s HB 2313, the largest tax increase in Virginia history, and the Republicane Omnibus?
Who is stupid enough to sign up for more of that?
You must have a different draft of the statement than I.
We need a law requiring registration by party affiliation. That would solve the problem
So many falisies.. Where to begin? How about at the very start. In no way does Hillaey have the nomination sewn uo – Bernie is nipping at her heals. Yes, the party DOES have the rights to freedom of association, & self-deteminatiion – EXCEPT when the party CHOOSES to have THE STATE i.e. taxpayers pay for it!’ THEN the Republucan Party has NO right trying to EXCLUDE TAXPAYERS!
And that – is prime example how the GOPe really = the Dems.
Suck on it, Establishment – your hold on the Republican Party is OVER!! Now take Jeb! & Rubio – your FAILED candidates – and go home!!
Hillary leads in every national poll by an average of about 20 points. She leads in every state poll except a handful of polls in New Hampshire where it is neck and neck (and only because Bernie is camping out in NH and has represented neighboring Vermont for decades).
State law gives each party the power to set requirements for participation in their party’s presidential primary, including asking voters to sign a statement of affiliation.
The GOPe likes open primaries because it allows Democrats to cross over and select the Republican nominee. I prefer conventions or a party canvass instead because it helps insure that only Republicans pick our Republican nominees. Since RPV picked a primary, the Statement of Affiliation is the best we can do.
Also, Rubio is not my preferred candidate, nor is Jeb!.
i thought Russ Moulton was the darling of the tea party/susan stimpson wing of the party. he wanted it until he didn’t.
are the Dems this stupid?
They got their own wing? Maybe a cubby under the stairs. The only reason we do so well is that the dems are stupider — but it’s like a twisted contest, each competing for stupidest.
That is not accurate. Russ was never behind the pledge, never thought it was a good idea.
No Dems aren’t this stupid. In 2012 they had a convention that fewer than 500 people could attend. They like conventions. I wish we did.
there is an article on this very blog where he is quoted saying that he was.
I predict Mrs. Clinton won’t be dem nominee, prob not Bernie either. That’s why ¡Yeb!/RNC is so confident.
The state law says we do. Our GOP likes Primaries, it’s like the incumbent protection act for party politics.
Establishment/¡Yeb! Must remove Trump as an alternative so that an Establishment candidate is the only choice when Trump/Rubio are kneecapped around Convention time.
It’s a truism that sometimes appearances are more important than facts, and IMHO the Pledge and battle surrounding it give the overwhelming appearance that Virginia Republicans support and want to protect a Republican Congress and leadership which has lied to voters and surrendered control to the Chamber of Commerce on issues vital to the health of America.
While I have been a hard-working Republican activist for over 30 years, I think the party is at a critical juncture where it’s survival depends on expanding our by base by admitting shortcomings and extending a welcome to infuriated voters who have absolutely no reason to trust us at this point. This pledge will only increase their mistrust.
I disagree. The most common outcome of allowing non-Republicans to vote in our primaries is to nominate a more moderate candidate (John McCain, Mitt Romney). I don’t support keeping the Statement of Affiliation because I want to protect the Republican Leadership in Congress. I support the Statement because I want to make sure that the people voting for the Republican nominee in Virginia are Republicans who will vote for the strongest Conservative candidate.
While I can appreciate the comments and attitude of folks like Franklin Graham who declared he is no longer a Republican, the simple fact of the matter is that you can’t make the Republican party better by quitting. You make it better by staying in the party, standing up for what you believe in, and supporting candidates who will do what they’ve promised. If the only people left in the Republican party are moderates, then the party will nominate nothing but moderates, and create a moderate platform, and Democrats will rule the day.
Well, Mick, I don’t disagree with any of that other than your belief that a closed primary will result in conservative candidates; if that were true, we wouldn ‘t be having this conversation, but sharing our happiness over the performance of Virginia’s Congressional delegation.
Instead, we’re dealing with an electorate which sees our party as part of the problem — part of an entrenched uni-party which serves its own interests or our corporate masters.
That has to change. We need to show people we want to represent them in forcing that change. This pledge doesn’t strike that note. It does the opposite.
FWIW, Mick, you are coming across as lecturing these people, not listening to them. I think that’s a bad strategy& especially this year.
Cheers,
David, they just can’t see this logic nor how actions can send messages that while they may be unintended none the less can have unfortunate consequences. It’s an insularity that you often find in failing organizations that take on an us against them mindset while ceasing to listen and rely more and more on hectoring and instruments for loyalty enforcement. I believe it was Mark Twain that said “Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government (party) when it deserves it.
I don’t know who first said it, but I think also applicable is, “The beatings will continue until morale improves.”
I still don’t understand why you think the “establishment” or corporate Republicans, or GOPe, or whatever you want to call them, are behind the Statement of Affiliation. They are not. They don’t want it. They want more Democrats and more liberals to vote in our primaries.
The GOPe is also just fine and dandy with Conservatives who are upset with our party walking away and refusing to consider themselves Republicans. It makes it easier for them to maintain control of party leadership in Congress, and elect more moderate candidates, and generally run things the way they want.
The way you change things in the party, and return it to the principles it claims to stand for, is by fighting for it from the inside, not standing on the outside watching it burn to the ground.
Never said or implied any issue on who was or was not behind the paper statement although I’m fully aware who was largely in support and who actually authored it so please don’t misrepresent my position or read more carefully. To follow up on my comment I’m NOT one of those individuals who believes that the party “changes” or more accurately thrives on building barriers and impediments to interacting with the free association but rather by opening the doors and attracting in as many new and returning faces as possible to grow the process and infuse it with new and fresh ideas (that one may choose to accept or reject but at least you are hearing them). That you view that opinion as burning anything to the ground is a very telling and characteristic of the misunderstanding and inability to step outside of the us vs them paradigm. If you desired primary exclusivity that opportunity was available and not selected but my point was regarding inward focus vs external outreach that you apparently completely misunderstood.
“That you view that opinion as burning anything to the ground is a very telling and characteristic of the misunderstanding and inability to step outside of the us vs them paradigm.”
No, I view the opinion that has been expressed by numerous people both here and in other venues that they are conservative, but would rather not vote in the primary because they don’t consider themselves to be Republican as watching the party burn to the ground.
Contrary to the popular belief that the door to the party is closed, the door is open. It has always been open, and the people walking through the door and participating are turning it into Democrat lite, and they aren’t afraid to call themselves Republicans. I want conservatives to walk through the door and participate and fight to make our party something we can proud of again, and I don’t want them afraid to call themselves Republicans.
As far as the “us vs. them paradigm,” at what point HASN’T it been us vs. them? The entire point of an election is that you either vote for us, or you vote for them. If you want the “us” to stand for something, you have to participate.
You politely require a wake up call if your position is the Republican Party and it’s largely establishment leadership has served as any political opposition or counterpoint to Democratic policy since the end of the Reagan administration or in fact today functions as anything other then the de facto facilitators of Democratic policy and it’s passage through Congress. Their is NO “us vs them” in the halls of Congress today (just the uniparty), except in the case of individuals like Mitch McConnell, former Speaker John Boehner and Paul Ryan and their supporters whose primary desire is to suppress conservative ideology (the them) within the party but this is drifting far from the point of your article and the piece of paper it coalesces upon. If you believe that it will provide any assistance in triaging the leakage of Republican membership to independent political status in Virginia and across the country as the polls so completely represent or provide a better more “qualified” Republican primary candidate then by all means proceed. Regarding it assisting in enhancing the Republican brand that frankly is a pipe dream.
Yet here we are. It’s a bitter draught we take. We conservatives are in the trenches of the hustings trying to wrench back control. History teaches us what happens with other than two-party systems.
I’m not yet ready for the ‘let it break and then we can fix it’ school of thought.
It’s Apollo 13 time for the GOP and country, sure would be a lot easier if we had more help.
Take your best shot but I seriously doubt that you are going to accomplish what a significant portion of the base so clearly failed to do in the area of reform from 2010-2016 via the Tea Party Movement. This is going to require new thinking and new approaches to solve the party’s stagnation and direction. Pleading reformers has not seemed to have had much impact but I wouldn’t want to discourage your efforts.
The tea party failed because they didn’t infest the local parties, they became cults of personalities and tried to become a party parasite. They discovered it easier to participate and affect the party in opposition while carefully maintaining their ‘purity.’
Had the Tea Party stuck to their principles and infused them into the GOP, we wouldn’t suck so bad, but by the Tea Party serving as a Land of Disenchantment where tantrums serve no purpose, they have little residual effect upon the political landscape.
The establishment RINOs have been co-opting, dividing, conquering since we became a viable party. They loved the Tea Party being the RINOs on the right because they served a purpose of splintering and a cudgel target.
The Tea Party ‘wave’ in Congress have been picked off and marginalized because politics is a cooperative effort — you need a team machine, the TP members found GOP snuggle buddies to protect them from the harsh realities of Congress.
Ever see the movie Alien, the first one? We’re in the stomach of the GOP, growing quietly, springtime is coming.
Interesting image, unlikely outcome. Also by the way I believe the alien parasite killed the host.
You say that like its a bad thing. But it could be some twisted Conservative-Trump hybrid that is actually required to save the GOP.
Our party is part of the problem, for exactly the reasons you mention. And how do they stay in power? With crap like primaries, incumbent protection act, non-party registration — the establishment exists because the conservatives don’t stick around in numbers to fight. Look at the people on the SCC who voted for the primary — were they conservatives? Look at the 10th? How can it be Conservative let alone Republican when it votes to cost the taxpayers $250,000 for a separate primary for a single Congressional district (The last nomination cost less than $15,000 to the 10th GOP)
Mick doesn’t seem lecturing to me. I can think of 1.1 trillion reasons why the public should be pissed at Republicans and the statement doesn’t come close.
The bottom line is that there is a RINO segment of our GOP that usually participates in our nomination process yet has an integral part of their brand as non-Republican. These people don’t want to sign the statement. That’s what most of this is all about.
I disagree, this is not about Republicanism or non Republicanism of any kind this is about control, those that feel compelled to use it at each and every turn and those that have it applied to them. The current approach is rarely one in my opinion that builds any sense of co-operation, collective effort or spirit. People will sign the form and move forward with their vote regardless but the unnecessary residue left in it’s wake hardly justifies the value add it in truth provides the party. The fundamental source of real disagreement is not does a piece of paper have any meaning or consequence regardless of it’s author opinions or intent but does the state party define Republicanism or does the membership base by it’s free association. Which side of that question you find convincing explains the true source of the discontent and passion not the legalese and silliness relating to the actual process. It’s disheartening to me so many completely fail to grasp that simple fact.
You are absolutely right, and it’s a tragedy that we’ve gotten to this point. One could make the case is that the philosophy or Republicanism is antiquated and technology and mass media has rendered direct democracy practical and preferred. But I don’t think so. The RPV is changing on the inside, slowly, quietly, and far too tolerant for my liking, but we shall see if we can pull it off — look to the units for real evidence of this.
Well, yes and no. RINOs consider themselves to be the guardians of modern Conservatism, see Bearing Drift’s posse for emphasis. They will proudly declares themselves Republicans, but of course everybody who disagrees with them isn’t.
My concern is that this pledge will shoot us in the foot with people like the small “l” libertarians, who are a nice chunk of our party. As well as the Evangelical and Social Conservative voters who are a formidable, and reliable, part of our voting base. A number of them don’t consider themselves Republicans because the GOP is moving away from important Godly and social issues. And between a party of men and women that will compromise away their morals and potential victories, and the Word of God, God wins.
I think we won’t exclude the RINOs, but we may exclude a sizable portion of our own faction that we really want to vote in this primary.
If requiring Republicans who wish to choose the Republican nominee to state that they are Republicans are going to so offend voters and drive them out of the party then A) your expectation is misguided (and you’re wrong) and/or B) we are electorally doomed because these fickle voters will never support the ultimate nominee.
I refuse to allow my vote and my efforts in the party to be graft or payola to entice non-Republicans to ‘expand our base.’
Incorrect. The majority of the Christian, small “l” Libertarian, Conservative, and other such factions in-line with the Republican Creed that I’ve meet won’t get themselves involved within the party because they are sickened by the current condition of the party.
Asking them to swear allegiance to a faction they are trying to change precisely because they can’t stand its current form is jabbing a stick into their collective eye and will drive them out of participating. That will leave us with RINOs who think the problems of the day can be solved by being less Conservative and the end result is the opposite of what we want.
This is a half-measure, the pledge, and it’s being taken as such. The RPV is trying to have it both ways, a closed and open primary simultaneously, and it’s giving the appearance of being weak and demanding at the same time.
We’ve already agreed that it’s a half-measure, albeit one that has been done before and I believe by both parties. I really don’t think the dems bother anymore because they’re too busy in ours.
The folks that are sickened by the condition of our party (as I am as well) are not those targeted by this primary scheme.
We don’t want the nominee selected by those outside of the party (because by definition they are non-Republicans!)
This isn’t: an Open House, ride all night at the carnival, nor ‘Occupy GOP.’
This is: ‘Stick the taxpayers with the bill for our statewide election and make the ones that want to vote therein sign the petition.’
Nobody is arguing that it’s an ideal solution, far from it. But neither are we at Sky Fall 5 for the party.
Considering that most of the folks whining about this are not-Republicans or feel an incredible amount of butthurt for those that will be driven away by this signature kryptonite, I think we will suppress more non-Republicans than Republicans and many of those who are repelled and repulsed will get over it by the General.
This is the same logic that has inspired Mike Wade to run for the 7th congressional seat currently held by Dave Brat. Many people say that Cantor is behind this. HE thinks he knows what’s best for us better than we do. We are paying attention out here and want more of a voice. The republican establishment will declare victory of they get their version of the best candidate, but in the end, we will lose again. The people need and want to be heard. We no longer like the progressive version of our party – people we send to Washington who rule rather than listen and respond to their constituents.
Watch what the 7th District Congressional Committee does. If they support Dave Brat they will hold a convention or a party canvass to select the nominee. If they support Mike Wade they will call for a primary and, unlike the presidential primary, we cannot use a statement of affiliation.
The Eric Cantor types LOVE these open primaries because they can easily get Democrats and liberals to vote against the Conservative candidate. They hate conventions and party canvasses because we can restrict participation by using a pledge.
Or they just might want to force the taxpayers to pay for a $250,000 primary like we did in the 10th.
I’m still not sure it will be Wade.
Wade has filed, but not announced.
He is a placeholder no doubt.
It will all go down on Saturday, January 9. I will be there in support of Brat. What is sad to me is that Cantor would actually rather a democrat in his old seat that Brat. Sore loser for sure. Wade is a weak candidate, but the only one the Cantor people could find to run.
If the 7th can elect Brat yet not hold the district, they need to work harder. It’s not enough to win a single election — the establishment is exactly that because they are ‘established’ — we have to establish Conservatism as the dominant philosophy of the Party. Right now the dominant philosophy is “EEK! run away!” or “Thank you sir, may I have another!” Neither of which is good for long term success of our party and country.
I believe the establishment has really underestimated the strength and length of Brat’s support. I worked on his campaign in 2014 and will again this year. There are workers lined up and ready to go. It’s really rather astonishing, but Brat is one in a million to us. He’s the real deal and people know it. He hasn’t waived and stayed strong.
Although I maintain a list of folks who can make the party better if they quit, some have already done so yet there are so many others to deem the same.
Can’t seem to give a half upvote.
First paragraph you are totally right. Second paragraph wrong — we don’t expand the base by giving away your reason for being. Why bother having a party at all if you’re not going to choose nominees?
And how does allowing non-Republicans a greater influence to select the nominee expand the base and extend a welcome? “Hey, Joe Volunteer, thanks for working for the party and donating money n’such, but we need to expand the party, so we’re going to let all these random voters choose the nominee.” That will persuade them to get involved?
How does the party saying “Hey, we’ll let you help select our nominee, but you gotta sign this to admit you are actually a Republican.” Infuriate and reduce trust? How does this pandering soothe and increase trust?
Only non-Republicans are getting miffed and these are the very same people who should not be selecting our nominee. So the Statement may not be the best news for ¡Yeb! and the ineligibles, but every single Republican and Trump voter I talk to have no problem with the Statement.
I disagree that only non-Republicans are miffed about the pledge. Republicans in every district are miffed. Remember 30 people, out of 74, on SCC voted against the pledge. Those 30 represent many people across the state.
I think everyone is miffed about the pledge, even though those who are enduring it now (Like myself, Steve, et al.)
The SCC has a screwy makeup which makes calculating and divining difficult.
However, an even greater number on SCC voted in opposition to the primary than the Statement.
Part of being in a voting organization is sucking it up on votes that don’t go your way.
So even though HalfPlusJo of the 10th district GOP narrowly (with the current chair breaking the tie) voted to cost the taxpayers $250,000 to crown Sweet Babs Congressional Candidate, we don’t act as though we didn’t — we don’t have the magical ‘undo’ button for the votes we don’t like or don’t win.
Of course that doesn’t mean we can’t point out dumbass where it occurs, but it is the will of the 10th through their elected representatives.
I’m curious, and I mean that sincerely, what would you suggest? A truly open primary, a closed primary, or a convention? Which one do you think would provide the best mixture of inclusiveness and Republican ideology?
Joseph — for this unusual season, I’d be fine going ahead with the primary, but without the Pledge.
We are in an unusual situation presently where many of the people who normally lean our way — both party members and non-members — are fed up with our collaboration with Democrats. Likewise, many people who lean Democrat are fed up with the direction of the country. All of these people are looking for a challenge to, a change from what appears to be an Establishment which does does not have their best interests at heart. Rightly or wrongly, the Pledge sends a signal the RPV sides with the leaders and policies these people despise.
In a different time, I ‘d prefer registration by party and closed primaries. We have reached a point, however, –due to big donors and an entrenched uni-party leadership — where the only way to regain control of our party and country will be finding a way to welcome all of the disaffected groups I described. Or so I think. Also, read what Lawrence Wood wrote.
Roc and others, I gotta run.
Cheers,
This is true, definitely an anomaly — but isn’t the die cast? Would it be worse to retract the statement or to let it stand?
I’m thinking the hat is already over the fence.
I would be fine with the primary and pledge IF the Republican Party paid for the whole primary, NOT the tax payer. This would be more inclusive to all party members than a convention, but keep all non-party members out, and be the most conservative because RPV, not the tax payer pays for it.
Good piece. The misrepresentations and gnashing of teeth is wearing a little thin.
I’m a libertarian (small “l”). A quick check of VPAP will indicate I have supported only Republican candidates with my money. A check with the Chairman of the Prince William County Republican Comittee and the candidates who represent me will indicate that I have supported them with my time and labor (to include working the polls, and a turn as a poll watcher).
I want to vote for the Republican candidate of my choice; however, I am very uncomfortable signing a pledge saying “I am a Republican.”
Perhaps my time, labor and treasure has been misplaced all of these years. Advice?
If you donate to Republicans, and you work for Republican candidates, why are you uncomfortable stating that you are a Republican?
…because I am a libertarian. Yes, I am consideirng for the first time in my life actually joining the Libertarian Party of Virginia. That would resolve my issue.
Perhaps more people following suit might just be the answer?
http://alborn.net
Joining the Libertarian Party would resolve your issue if that is your choice. But if you are willing to support the candidates of the Republican party with your time and your money, you might want to consider joining the Republican Party instead. It sounds like you agree with Republican principles if you support our candidates.
I agree with most Republican principles (and that’s not a discussion I wish to explore on this blog). Every election is a compromise. As a libertarian, I am faced with the conundrum of voting for the candidate who offends me least. Since research indicates a good percentage of independent moderate Americans actually reflect libertarian values, I suspect I am not alone in that regard.
I can wait for the two parties to choose their candidates, or I can vote in the Republican primary for the candidate I would most like to see in the general election.
You can ask the broader right leaning electorate who we might vote for, or you can ask the party faithful, generally a group further to the right, who they would like to see run.
The former and the latter don’t necessarily correlate.
On the other hand, what exactly is a “Republican?” There are two definitions:
1. a person advocating or supporting Republican government.
2. a member or supporter of the Republican Party.
I do favor the Republican form of Government above all others. Perhaps that’s enough? 🙂
All you need to do is sign the statement, then you can help us select the nominee. If we choose wisely, our guy will prevail in November; if we don’t, I believe it’s game over.
Under no possible circumstances would the Libertarian candidate be a viable choice.
Neither will Donald Trump be a viable choice but he is likely to be the choice of our party.
We shall see — I’m currently thinking that the only chance the Country and the GOP has is Donald Trump — and as a Conservative Republican that is scary and sad. I don’t see how any of the others can pull it off, maybe someone can emerge out of the convention, but for now, he’s our last best hope.
Great, who is the Presidential nominee this time? Howard Stern? Jesse Ventura?
If we are waiting for the Republican Party to become so sucky that the Libertarian fringe is an acceptable alternative, it will be quite some time.
The Libertarian Party is a tactical political entity to reduce liberty by being a spoiler for the democrats.
There are two parties that matter, the rest are containment for political know-nothings. You may help move the GOP towards the direction you desire by being a Republican and showing the way by your actions, words, deeds. An airplane heads for and reaches its destination by hundreds or thousands of minute course corrections — The GOP needs a helluva lot more course correctors.
Because everyone can claim to be for a party-run process when they know the Establishment PTB will never allow it. Look no farther than the 10th. Fiscally responsible my Aunt Fanny! $250,000 worth of screw the Republicans.
PTB?
Powers That Be
I’d like to rebut several of the arguments made by this
op-ed.
1. “There is nothing that says a party must allow
non-members to participate, even if they are availing themselves of government
services like a primary.”
You are absolutely correct! Under Cal. Democratic Party v.
Jones, parties have the right to pick a candidate selection process that
excludes participation by supporters of the opposing party. For that reason,
the Republican Party of Virginia has four options at its disposal: (Open)
Primary, Caucus, Canvass, and Convention. It chose an Open Primary, which is counterintuitive
if the goal is excluding the participation of non-Republicans. (smirk)
2. “Ask yourself this simple question: if someone is unable, or unwilling, to state
that they are a Republican, do you really want them voting to select the
Republican nominee for the Republican party?”
Yes. Our party is more fractured today than it ever has
been. An increasing number of conservatives are unwilling to identify with the
party as a result. As a graduate student, the majority of my friends and
colleagues both in graduate school and undergraduate identify as politically
independent, regardless of which party they favor. A number have confided in me
that they are furious about having to sign this statement, and that it may
dissuade them from participating at all. The last thing we want is for the next
generation of conservatives (and likely future Republicans) to feel excluded
from the process, if the goal is building the party.
3. “According to Ballotpedia, there are 12 states
that have strictly closed primaries, and another 21 states that are mixed, with
most allowing parties to restrict access to their primaries to only members of
their party.”
Correct. However, in those states with Closed Primaries,
their legislatures have voted both to require party registration and to allow
the use of Closed Primaries. Here, the General Assembly has not done so. Until
they do, closed, tax-payer funded Primaries are not an option available to the
Republican Party of Virginia.
Notably, the pledges that you have cited from other states have
little in common with the RPV’s Statement of Affiliation. Specifically, the
Colorado and Texas pledges exists within the context of a Closed Primary
system, authorized by a vote of their state legislatures. That is not the case
here.
The Mississippi statement doesn’t exclude non-Republicans
from voting at all, it just attempts to bind them to supporting the candidate
that they crossed over to vote for.
At the end of the day, 2016 offers a tremendous opportunity
to grow our party. Closing our primary (via a mechanism whose compliance with
RNC and RPV bylaws is far from certain) to non-Republicans that may very well
intend to vote for our nominee but aren’t yet ready to identify as Republican
is by far one of the stupidest things we could do at a time when our party is
in decline.
It’s all but guaranteed that potential new Republicans (and existing
Independent conservatives) will be turned away by this statement of affiliation.
Let’s scrap this ridiculous experiment and at least attempt
to fulfill our obligation to grow this party for future generations.
Raise the voting age, limit lawyer participation to those who have exited the cocoon.
Great idea, let’s put this guy in charge and watch the party burn to the ground around him. C’est simple!
And you make a great case for raising the minimum comment value to something above $0.02.
You can disagree with somebody without being a douchebag about it.
I can’t, but you set the tone.
“It chose an Open Primary, which is counterintuitive to the stated goal of excluding the participation of non-Republicans. (smirk)”
The technical term is actually a primary, not open or otherwise, and VA state code 24.2-545 states:
“If the party has determined that it will hold a presidential primary, each registered voter of the Commonwealth shall be given an opportunity to participate in the presidential primary of the political party, as defined in § 24.2-101, subject to requirements determined by the political party for participation in its presidential primary. The requirements may include, but shall not be limited to, the signing of a pledge by the voter of his intention to support the party’s candidate when offering to vote in the primary.”
So VA state law says that we can do this and more if we so choose.
BTW, when you do something like write “(smirk)”, you have already destroyed your own credibility.
“the majority of my friends and colleagues both in graduate school and undergraduate identify as politically independent, regardless of which party they favor. A number have confided in me that they are furious about having to sign this statement, and that it may dissuade them from participating at all.”
Then they shouldn’t vote. If declaring themselves to be Republican is such an offensive idea to them, then they should not be voting in the Republican Primary. It’s as simple as that.
Once the nominees of each party have been selected, your friends can then decide whether they will allow this country to slide farther towards Socialism by voting for Hillary Clinton or staying home, or supporting the Republican nominee. But if they want to get in the game of picking a party’s nominee, they need to stand up and pick a side.
“Specifically, the Colorado and Texas pledges exists within the context of a Closed Primary system, authorized by a vote of their state legislatures. That is not the case here.”
That is simply not true, and shows that you didn’t even bother to click on the link. Here is the text from Ballotpedia:
Colorado: The primary is considered closed, but unaffiliated voters may choose to affiliate with a party on Election Day in order to vote.
Texas: Voters do not have to register with a party. At the primary, they may choose which party primary ballot to vote on, but in order to vote they must sign a pledge declaring they will not vote in another party’s primary or convention that year
You can then follow the footnotes to find the statutes I cited.
“The Mississippi statement doesn’t exclude non-Republicans from voting at all, it just attempts to bind them to supporting the candidate that they crossed over to vote for.”
There is an actual statute on the books of Mississippi that says you can’t vote in a primary unless you are going to vote for that party’s nominee in the general election. Tell me how that is not more restrictive than a statement that says, “I am a Republican?”
The Presidential Primary is not a “party building” exercise. A fundraiser is a party building exercise. A rally is a party building exercise. Knocking on doors and making phone calls are party building exercises.
The Presidential Primary is solely about choosing our nominee for President of the United States. We will not lose the election by requiring people who vote in our primary to declare themselves a Republican. We will lose this election by nominating a candidate who cannot articulate a compelling argument for returning to the fiscally and socially conservative principles that made America the greatest place in the word to live. If we allow Democrats and others who don’t like the Republican party to vote in our primary, then we will not get the candidate that we need to win, and Hillary will become President.
Excellent points all!