Read from the bottom up:
6:00 PM Adjourned.
5:50 PM For the sake of clarity, the primary will be proportional per RNC rules. Separately, planning will proceed apace for holding the 2016 Quadrennial Convention…it just won’t be used to bind our delegates.
5:45 PM The motion to bind Virginia’s Republican delegation by primary has carried. Vote was 42 to 39 and 1 abstention. Congratulations to Chip, Mike, Dan, and all of my other pro-primary colleagues. We’ll get it next time!
5:32 PM In response to a question I got about the vote for a secret ballot, the tally was 41 for, 39 against. Two people abstained. When I get the roll call vote on that I’ll post here so that everyone knows how their representatives voted on that question, even if they won’t know how everyone voted on the main question.
5:27 PM Still in a recess to count secret ballot.
5:09 PM Secret balloting on the “Primary and a Promise” motion has begun.
5:07 PM At this point we’re just hearing back and forth arguments of the same type we always hear in the convention v. primary context.
Del. Jackson Miller (R-Prince William) makes the point that the majority of elected officials favor primaries. Makes the point that a primary gets a greater amount of data. That’s true, but from my perspective the marginal gain beyond the people we’ve already identified is outweighed by the fact that the data would be polluted by significant (not huge, but significant) participation by Democrats and the opportunity that, with centralized data collection for convention filings we could for the first time ever have a complete census of our activist base.
4:49 PM To great laughter, Del. Mark Berg (R-Winchester) urges SCC to reject the compromise (primary in 2016 in exchange for a convention in 2017), mocking it thus:
4:48 PM By my count, perhaps a third of people who are traditionally pro-convention are going to vote for a primary today. Note, we’ll have to vote to have a convention anyway, but unless I’m reading this all wrong, it won’t be used to bind our delegates.
4:39 PM Kevin Gentry, Eastern Regional Vice Chairman and long-time advocate of Conventions, takes to the floor advocating for a primary. Says party isn’t prepared to put on a convention of that magnitude. (As someone who has done a great deal of planning for that, I disagree, but respect Kevin greatly).
4:31 PM With a secret ballot, a primary will be selected. Some people who support conventions generally have cold feet…worried that things won’t work well, worried about the backlash if we choose a convention. Certain folks would love certain other folks to think they support a convention, when we know they’ve been working behind the scenes to torpedo a convention.
This kind of silly intrigue is exhausting.
4:29 PM Debate has commenced with all the usual arguments. Gary Byler (former 2nd District Chairman) makes a firey, intense speech for conventions. Makes the point that primaries are an air war (i.e., the campaign takes place on television).
Veterans on both sides make arguments about whether a convention does anything to “disenfranchise” active duty military.
4:24 PM Blackwell makes the point that Democrats will delight in coming out to vote for Donald Trump if we have a primary.
Dan Webb is making a motion for a primary which also recommends a 2017 convention.
4:16 PM The secret ballot passed. It was close. One member flipped his vote during the recess and that flipped the outcome, too.
I then gave my presentation (embedded below). Dan Webb, in lieu of Chip Muir, presented Chip’s compromise proposal. Both of us emphasized that we’re all on the same team, and that we can disagree without taking everything so personally. I hope that’s not too optimistic.
Morton Blackwell is now making the motion for a convention.
3:40 PM Went into recess while vote on secret ballot is being tallied. Not sure, but it looks like we’ll have a roll call vote on the nomination method, debate on which will begin as soon as we come out of recess.
3:17 PM I’ll give the presentation embedded below in a few minutes. If the apparent support for a secret ballot from certain quarters is any indication, the pro-convention side will have a tough time when the vote comes up.
3:13 PM Carl Anderson’s motion passed overwhelmingly. Now debating whether to vote on nomination method by secret ballot. Pro-primary people want to go secret ballot, led by 6th District Chairman Wendell Walker and 11th District Chairman Terry Wear. Their argument is that people have received threats if they vote a certain way. Pro-convention people, led by First District Chairman Eric Herr, 11th District Rep. David Ray, and Third District Chairman Chris Stearns, argue this is simply a method of escaping accountability.
We’re having a roll call vote on the motion to conduct nomination process vote by secret ballot.
2:52 PM I’m up next to make the Convention proposal. Gotta prepare for that, so won’t post on how the vote on the Incumbent Protection Act motion turns out until after I speak.
2:47 PM Carl Anderson makes motion to hire counsel to submit an amicus curiae brief on the Party’s behalf (at no cost to the Party) to make the point that the Party DOES NOT accede to the Incumbent Protection Act’s taking of the Party’s power to decide nomination methods and giving it to incumbents of our Party.
Coming into the meeting I expected broad support for this. Not so sure now.
2:43 PM Motion to table all the party plan amendment changes passes. Yet again, the Party fails to deal with slating. We’ll take up that amendment and others at the SCC September meeting.
On to the Incumbent Protection Act lawsuit.
2:36 PM Currently debating changes to the “ethical conduct” section of the rules.
2:34 PM Going through a process of deciding which amendments are not objectionable and that can be approved as a block. There are six of these that passed unanimously, mostly constituting ministerial changes.
2:15 PM Hearing report of the Party Plan Committee (i.e., to present amendments to the rules).
2:08 PM Coming out of executive session now. Chairman Whitbeck praising Pete Snyder for his tireless work as Finance Chairman. We’re on to new business now.
11th District Chairman Terry Wear makes a motion to vote by secret ballot on the nomination method. Discussion in opposition says that this is cowardly and an attempt to evade accountability. Whitbeck tables the motion until the nomination methods are on the floor.
1:54 PM Still in executive session talking strategy and mechanics of different programs. Should be back to open session shortly.
1:42 PM Can’t report details, but the Party is in a very improved position financially. John Whitbeck has worked very hard, and deserves praise for the results.
1:38 PM Went right into executive session to discuss finances and personnel. All non-SCC people have left the room.
1:30 PM Carl Anderson from the 2nd District is trying to add an item to the agenda to consider an amicus brief on behalf of the Party in the litigation involving the Incumbent Protection Act in the federal district court for the Western District of Virginia. Surprisingly, there is a large contingent that doesn’t even want to consider it. Motion to add to the agenda passes with 45 votes (a clear majority).
If this is how it’s going to go, today is going to be a long day.
1:17 PM Calling roll and conducting preliminary business. Will take a while before we get to the real business of the meeting.
1:12 PM Chairman Whitbeck drops the gavel, calls the meeting to order.
1:00 PM Made it to the meeting after arduous drive. Meeting starts at 1:00, not noon as some have suggested. Full house here. Pro-primary folks are sporting stickers, lots of press people here. My old friend Lynn Mitchell is here also live blogging.
Meeting will convene shortly.
9:37 AM On the road to Staunton now.
9:30 AM Below is a copy of the presentation on behalf of the pro-convention team, to be presented by yours truly. Wish me luck!
89 comments
[…] to all accounts (ours, Lynn Mitchell’s, and TBE’s), Nielsen defended the right of all Virginia College Republicans to vote for their candidate. […]
[…] the Republican State Central Committee chose a primary over party convention  as our method for choosing a Republican nominee for President next year.  Prior to the vote the […]
I look forward to Steve Albertson posting the roll call for the secret ballot when he can; but I bet those SCC members who voted FOR the secret ballot are definietly NOT! It was amusing to briefly watch some of the scaredy-cats want even the vote (on whether to have a secret ballot) be secret!
Meanwhile I can provide a small bit of the roll call. Since I’m in the 5th District – I paid attention to those reps. – here’s how they voted:
FOR transparency; i.e. against secret ballot – Chris Shores, Travis Witt, Peyton Knight, & Renee Maxey => Bravo and thanks!
AGAINST transparency; i.e. for secret ballot – proxy for Sen. Bryce Reeves, proxy for Lynn Tucker, & Clara Belle Wheeler => Tsk, tsk.
For shame, RPV: straightforwardness, integrity and transparency lost out today on this vote for the secret ballot.
All members of the 10th district voted against the closed ballot and for a convention. We’re very proud of them!
This compromise is a farce. The flunkies and establishment Acolytes are already gloating and openly talking about taking out SCC whose minds aren’t right on this issue. This compromise was voted on in bad faith by the primary side.
The compromise passed earlier today at the SCC mtg. is an insult to a moron’s intelligence! Steve Albertson aptly called it, “A primary and a promise”. Voices of reason emphasized that whatever this year’s SCC voted on – can in NO WAY bind next year’s SCC. It’s kind of like getting ready to watch a movie with the disclaimer, “None of these events actually occurred.” The only point to this whole waste-of-time-joke was the primary folks taking a page out of the liberals’ handbook of passing “feel good, do nothing” legislation. They got to laugh up their sleeves at the pro-Convention crowd while feeling superior.
As an additional sop to the pro-convention crowd, the compromise calls for this promise-convention to be set up with its own dedicated funding account — so gullible Republicans will be able to earmark their donations to RPV. (Heh, will this fund earn interest? Will the RPV go raiding it like our Virginian elected representatives constantly do the transportation fund? What happens to the money if there is no convention; will it be returned to the various donors? Inquiringly minds want to know..)
[…] http://thebullelephant.com/rpv-state-central-committee-live-coverage/ […]
The transparency just blinds me from its opaqueness. Reminds me of those police procedural shows where the suspect is waiting in the interrogation room with all the one way mirrors knowing something is happening on the other side but not having a clue what is really is or what is going on. A real advertisement for attracting voter participation. Point made.
If “large chunks” the activist base are willing to sit at home and are okay with Hillary becoming President, remind me again why we should consider them Republicans or conservatives?
Consider them what ever you want as you are the one always lamenting the lack of openness in today’s Republican party but after over forty years associated with Republicanism including several past elected family members in both Ohio and Florida, the rot that has set into the marrow of the organization seems almost irredeemable to me. If the Republican’s can’t defeat a candidate as flawed and with the long history of corruption and influence meddling as a Hillary Clinton and hubby Bill, it’s time to fold up the tents and become a formal lobbyist association for corporate America, which really appears to be the national organization and large portions of the establishment elected representatives real forte anyway. The ranks are shrinking, conservatives are disgusted with the continual lies and betrayals, independent political affiliation in the US has increased by 8% since 2008 to the 43% of Americans that identify with no party today. Denial is not a harmless state of being as your mandate and membership walks away from you in the middle of your self serving speeches. We will see who is right and who is wrong when 2016 brings to us yet another campaign season of retread messages from the Republican party to the American voter who is just not listening anymore.
Let’s cut down to it:
I want conservatives to govern. I want conservatives to set policy. I’m sick of shouting angrily at the sky (or on a blog–same difference) at liberals and Democrats in charge.
In order to win, we need to come together–conservatives and so-called “Democrat-lite” who have the gall to have different opinions than you and Jeanine Martin. I proudly voted for Ken Cuccinelli. I would’ve happily voted for David Brat had I lived in the 7th; instead, I proudly voted for Scholte and Gillespie.
People like you, who want to tear down the Republican Party when you don’t get your way, who advocate electing Hillary Clinton (!) because you can’t restrict people you don’t like from having a voice, are the people who are enabling liberals to win and preventing conservatives from governing.
It takes all of us. Stand with me, and I’ll stand with you.
Son, there is a big difference between tearing something down and rebuilding it perhaps with a few more years of experience under your belt you will understand the distinction. Change is often necessary to grow and survive, it is a part of life.
Calling me son is a right you haven’t earned. Take your condescension and your support for bigger government and shove off. I’ll be electing conservatives if you need me.
Sorry no intent to offend or condescend but anger is really debilitating
I realize how Democrat the 11th has become, but I still wish Scholte had won. She is a much better person and would have made a much better Representative.
Thanks for the great coverage Steve.
The primary in the 28th earlier this month answered a lot of questions about which way voters in this country want to move politically. Today, that was re-affirmed.
Basically, it all boils down to “creating” money to spend. Money that a country does not have. At least not until it creates it.
Some believe it cannot be done without penalty. However, the majority says that the vine will always yield grapes. Even after the water is turned off.
Majority rules.
I look forward to evaluating Morton Blackwell’s prediction of “Democrats will delight in coming out to vote for Donald Trump if we have a primary.”
If that turns out to be false (and it will), it’s “Go to bed, Uncle Mortie” time.
Thank you for keeping us updated and later providing us with the votes of those who voted for a secret ballot so we can be sure to defeat them if they try to run again for State Central Committee. I want representatives who aren’t afraid to make their votes known when they are representing me.
At 4:48 Steve said they would have to vote for a convention anyway but delegates will not be bound by it. I don’t understand. What does that mean?
It means that Hillary wins the republican primary.
No, it means with the Democrats’ help, Donald Trump wins the Republican primary.
I’ll bet you any amount of money that this will not happen.
Better yet, I’ll make a sweeter offer: if Trump is the Republican nominee, I’ll stop commenting forever: on here, on Bearing Drift, and all other political blogs.
If Trump is not the Republican nominee, you stop blogging forever. I’ll allow you to comment, since you provide such great fodder.
Do we have a deal?
We’re required to have a convention in 2016 to elect a State Chairman and other party offices, so he’s probably saying the SCC has to vote on that anyways if binding delegates to the RNC convention via a state convention fails today.
Interestingly, there’s no requirement delegates and alternates to the RNC convention be selected in a state convention. Of course, the only other option would be putting those nominees on the primary ballot itself, which I can’t imagine SCC would want to do.
It means that we must have a convention next year in any event. When the primary motion wins, we still need to vote to authorize steps to secure a venue and begin planning for the convention.
No secret ballot, vote was close, 2 votes determined it. Two people from the 11th district abstained.
Is it a recorded vote?
I was incorrect. That was a different vote. The vote for a convention will be done in secret. We do not get to know how our elected representatives voted on a convention vs primary.
It’s a pretty fair bet that the same folks who voted for a secret ballot also voted for a primary.
Yup. Can wait to see who they are so we can vote them off the island next year.
From another blog, at 3:25, they are now counting the votes on a “Roll call vote to vote on having a roll call vote for nomination method”.
What blog?
https://lynnrmitchell.wordpress.com/2015/06/27/live-blogging-rpv-state-central-committee-meeting-in-staunton-va/
Also, any news on the Incumbent Protection Act?
Yes, RPV will be filing an amicus in that suit. Passed overwhelmingly.
What an amazing waste of time. All RPV needs to do to deal with the Incumbent Protection Act is change its rules. Hiring lawyers to whine about it does nothing.
If the roll call vote prevails, I take it this is a better sign for the convention side?
It’s been reported the vote was 40-39 with two abstentions. I don’t believe either side of the primary/convention debate would be comforted by those numbers.
Oh crap. My gut tells me the Primary crowd’s gonna win this. I’m hoping Steve put on one hell of a show to help sway anyone on the fence.
It’s beginning to look that way. They have voted to have a secret ballot on the big vote. That’s just wrong, wrong, wrong. We elected those people to represent us, we should be able to see how they vote, especially on something this big.
This is bullshit. Do we have a roll call vote on how people voted on the secret ballot question? Or was that vote also by secret ballot?
There was a roll call vote on the roll call vote (that makes my head hurt), but the vote to have a secret ballot was apparently a stand-up vote.
I’m not sure, I think they were open votes but I could be wrong. In any event the vote for a convention will be by secret ballot which likely means a loss for pro convention people.
The vote on an open or closed ballot was a stand up vote. Convention folks lost.
Is there any video recording of this? I would like to know every coward who voted for secrecy.
I was told 41 to 39 with two abstentions in the 11th district. I guess those folks aren’t into the whole transparency thing.
You’re right, someone changed their vote.
yes.
If the secret ballot passes it will be very interesting when we learn who voted for it and who didn’t. Those with principle, those who aren’t looking for a favor or money from someone, those who are open and honest will be voting for an open process. Those who vote to do things in private are suspect.
Seem to recall a vote to remove a certain 5th District chair last SCC meeting where the fellowship members voted to have a secret ballot…so selective transparency is the name of the game huh?
Secret ballot?! We elected these people to represent us! We should know how they vote!
How can the local units make any sort of informed decision about how they are being represented if a secret ballot is allowed? Support for a secret vote is enough to disqualify someone from further service.
I agree. I am proud that all members of the 10th district voted for an open ballot. I could never support someone who voted for a closed primary.
There should be a roll call on the motion to have a secret ballot.
There was.
I suppose it didn’t even hit me until now: Convention proponents aren’t even trying to pretend to allow those who want a say in the process to have a vote. They want to limit the convention to 14,000 party insiders who paid for the privilege of having a voice, and chosen by party insiders who pre-filed in the dead of winter to attend a local meeting.
Man, I can’t wait for all these new activists to come streaming into our party!
Good luck on getting nine candidates to agree to participate in this ridiculousness.
Reading the proposal, I don’t see how you limit it to 14000 delegates to the state convention. Also, How do the state convention delegates vote for President (the binding of the national delegates on the first ballot)?
They want to have it at a place that only sits 14,000!
As I’ve said repeatedly, excluding people is not a bug, but a feature of conventions.
The fewer party insiders who have a voice, the happier they are.
In the past there has been a theoretical maximum of about 50,000. But in practice the largest conventions have been around 14,000. But if this is a hotly contested presidential election (which is seems it will be) then I can see a lot more that 14,000 people wanting showing up.
Well considering a primary would turn out hundreds of thousands of Republicans, I’d say yes, a lot more than 14,000 would *WANT* to have a vote for our nominee. But party insiders don’t trust the voice of voters, so limited to 14,000 it is.
Few points
1) I’m glad we’re having a primary
2) I think this argument you keep trying to make that somehow having a convention with delegates isn’t “Democratic” is wrong-headed. It is totally Democratic, it starts at the most grass roots level when delegates are chosen. It’s called “Representative Democracy” at the national level, its where people choose people to represent them and make decisions, a very American process that anybody can involve themselves in by just getting off the couch.
What if your argument was used for everything, wouldn’t it be better if instead of allowing a bunch of Congressional “insiders” decide what the laws are we just create a national computer voting system and everyone can vote on every bill, then everyone is involved, everyone gets a say! Obviously that wouldn’t work, because most people just don’t know enough about the details that go into lawmaking to even have a chance of contributing in the process. Most would end up being won over by whoever had the most money to run commercials trying to convince them to vote a certain way, and the legislative process would be owned by big money.
Sure, you can keep saying that people who want delegates and a convention are “cutting people out” of the process if you want, but its very disingenuous, this is a political party, the party does have delegates who know a lot more about the candidates, their agendas, voting records, etc, than your typical voter does, and it is much harder to win delegates over by spending money on advertising. This isn’t a case where more is necessarily better, not if you want to end up with a nominee that reflects Republican values instead of a nominee that has a pile of money to burn.
Is it elitist to have a smaller group of people deciding who the nominee is ? Yeah, I guess, … about as elitist as any group’s leadership making decisions instead of passing petitions in the community to see what random people think the group should do.
I think the people who made arguments for a primary had a lot of good points, I just don’t think this argument that somehow conventions aren’t Democratic is one of those good points.
The Republican Party isn’t the local rotary club. We’re nominating somebody for high public office. We deserve a nomination process that attracts more than 14,000 voters.
Representational democracy is fine for passing laws, not for voting for candidates.
Yeah, and like I said, we HAVE that process. Any Republican can be elected as a delegate to represent the Republicans in his/her unit, district, etc. That’s a process. Those representatives go and represent all the other Republicans and choose a candidate.
The Republican party’s problem isn’t that we “only” have 14000 people voting for candidates, because if that 14000 were representing 1000000 at the convention then we’d be doing great. The Republican party’s problem is that we can’t even get full delegations together, we can’t even get enough damn Republicans interested in the process to even attract them to the convention. People would rather just sit around and watch tv, especially when they know all they have to do to choose a candidate is wait until someone gets them on the primary ballot, wander over to the polls for an hour before or after work, then wait around to see how hard somebody else works to get the winner elected in November. Maybe the privilege of choosing a Republican candidate should be harder, not easier, maybe Republicans should have to get off their ass and fight for the privilege.
So your great plan for winning elections is to tell potential Republicans who are interested in supporting one of our candidates that they are lazy and stupid, and therefore they shouldn’t get a vote?
Are you sure it was Dale Carnegie and not you who wrote “How To Win Friends and Influence People”?
Like I said, I support a primary for this Presidential election, so … yeah, I guess I agree with you, in a way I must be telling potential Republicans that they are lazy. Where you get stupid from I don’t know, you seem to have inserted that word yourself.
“most people just don’t know enough”
“most would end up being won over by … “commercials
You don’t seem to have the highest esteem for voters.
You’re just being obtuse now.
First, ignorance is not the same thing as stupidity, nuff said.
Second, instead of cherry picking what I said to make it say what you’re accusing me of saying, why not keep it in context ? I said that people who are more involved are more likely to know what’s going on, what the hell is so controversial about that ? People who are more involved in ANYTHING are more likely to know what’s going on than people who aren’t paying as much attention to it. Are you actually about to make an argument that someone in the Republican party leadership is less likely to know what’s going on inside the Republican party than the rank and file who just show up for primary elections ?
If the binding for first ballot winner take all? Or proportional?
Will it be multiple ballots? Or plurality on first ballot?
All TBD I believe.
George, whether proportional or winner-take-all won’t be decided until next SCC meeting. My preference is that we do winner-take-all or a hybrid, where we can use an instant runoff process to ensure we have a consensus candidate (i.e., someone who can get 50% of the vote). Don’t know how my colleagues feel about that.
Stephen, What is your definition of an insider? And what is your standard for a convention attendee. I have gone to two conventions. In my opinion I am not an insider, nor am I rich or one of the wealthy elite. When I find out when a convention is being held, I mark the day on my calendar and start saving money so I will be able to pay for a room and food at a hotel if necessary. How is this different from blocking out time and saving money for a golf outing or a vacation? If you go to your Unit meetings especially when Delegates are elected why wouldn’t you let that person know who you support for the nomination and why? These Delegates are representatives from your District. As I see it, voters have fewer voices in Primaries. Primaries are where the Establishment and elected officials back and support their candidates not candidates the voters want necessarily. And as was seen in the slating of 2014, The Establishment encourages non Republican voters to vote in the Primaries to get the candidate they want.
I don’t think you understand what “slating” means if you think it happened during a primary, not a convention.
And simple math dispels the notion that there are fewer voices in a primary: hundreds of thousands of voters versus 14,000 people who paid to be there.
The Constitution of the United States is only worth a damn if there is an informed electorate. The Primary Electorate is not informed voters. Most primary voters get their information on who to vote for based on tv ads paid for by campaigns. Whoever has the most money will typically win. Period. And this is why the consultant class loves primaries. They make a lot of money on them.
At a convention, if you’re an uninformed voter, you are forced to become an informed voter. You literally have to sit there for hours listening to speeches from the candidates themselves and others. You sit with other delegates from your county and you can to them and engage and discuss policy etc. Conventions are primarily issues focused and that’s what matters in selecting a candidate. Where do they stand on the issues. You won’t find that out by a tv or radio ad.
Those who attend conventions are the grassroots. Sure there are some party insiders there, but that’s not the majority of attendees. They are the activists who will be knocking doors and working the ground game to get candidates elected. Do less participate in a convention vs a primary? Absolutely. There is a higher cost to attending a convention. But it is open to all (except Dems).
And if someone who would vote in a primary but refuses to attend a convention, maybe it’s not worth it enough for them. I’d prefer those who care enough to spend the time it takes to attend a convention to be those who select the nominee.
A few things:
1) I respect your opinion that voting is a privilege that should only be held by the few, even as I vehemently disagree with it. I am a strong supporter of democracy and giving a voice to all those who want one. You, and others, prefer consolidated power in the hands of those who pass a certain litmus test of your own design. Fortunately, given those two choices, most people find your approach to be unpalatable.
2) As an follow-up to #1, keep in mind that even if we greatly restrict the right to vote when choosing our nominee, there is no such restriction in the general election. Successful primary campaigns are the ones who reach voters, create a volunteer base, have a good message, and yes, raise a sufficient amount of money to be competitive. Those are skills we will need to win a general election. We do not have an ideatocracy, where the best ideas win (otherwise, Gary Johnson would be the 2012 Republican nominee). We have a democracy where the voters have the say. And the candidate able to successfully reach out to those voters in November is the one who gets to govern. I, for one, intend the winner to be a conservative.
3) There are a lot of reasons why someone couldn’t attend a convention–if they work on weekends, or own a business, or have a young family, or look after someone who is sick or infirm, or on deployment, or can’t afford a weekend trip, or is otherwise occupied that weekend. To denigrate those legitimate responsibilities as lacking conviction is exceedingly insulting and condescending. How can we call ourselves the party of free markets if we say business owners who operate on Saturdays are not worthy enough to have a vote? How can we call ourselves the pro-family party if we tell young mothers that we don’t want to hear their voice?
4) I’ll point out, since this is often overlooked, that a convention has no protocol for preventing Democrats to participate. We just assume they won’t since the requirement for participation is so arduous.
You certainly have valid points. But we’re just going to have to disagree on how much weight is put on all the circumstances involved. I think conventions typically generate more conservative candidates than primaries and that’s the main reason I support them. Towards your points:
1) The Republican nomination is up to the purview of Republicans. It should not be open up to all those who want to participate. It should be limited to Republicans. And this is not “consolidated power in the hands of those who pass a certain litmus test”. All delegates are voted on by each individual unit. This is the very definition of power residing at the lowest level.
2) This is a valid concern. It just seems that all too often money is the number 1 deciding factor in who wins the Primary. I prefer Issues to have at least an equal weight and I see conventions achieving that end. Remember, Ed Gillespie beat Shak Hill in a convention and I was there. Shak raised next to nothing and obviously wasn’t a serious candidate and he lost to a more prepared candidate for the general election. If your point about Gary Johnson were true, Shak would have won.
3) This is absolutely true. There are a lot reasons people can’t intend, but people on all sides of the spectrum can’t attend. It does not adversely affect one side or the other. It is unfortunate for those who are sick or infirm; there’s no way around that. But I don’t believe this is a sufficient reason to throw the whole process out. And I wasn’t attempting to insult anyone. I was referring to those who are able to attend and choose not to as not being as interested as those who choose to attend.
4) This is untrue. Local units can disqualify potential delegates based on publicly available data. If they’ve donated to a Democrat recently or voted in a Dem Primary recently they can be excluded, as they should.
And finally, I bet we could actually find a way to come up with a compromise that works for most. We could potentially use technology to allow for a hybrid situation. Say a convention with remote participation from your locality. For example, you could have mass meetings coincide with the convention and have people vote in real time from all over the commonwealth. Or you could also have people vote in advance during mass meetings, where they list their preferred candidates in order of preference. This data could all be collected locally and submitted to RPV where all the delegate votes by locality are accumulated into a system where there’s an automatic instant run-off to whittle it down with one candidate having 50% +1 support after lowest vote-getting candidates have been eliminated with their votes being reallocated to the second choices. etc.
As I said, we have to agree to disagree on participation. I think giving a voice to all those who want one is the best approach–not just because it’s more in the spirit of democracy–but because its the best way to get the most amount of people involved and invested in the Republican Party.
Consider a newly engaged voter who is sick of how Obama’s policies have hurt the country. Or perhaps they’re concerned about how McAuliffe has overseen Virginia’s drop in business rankings. They like what Scott Walker, or Rand Paul, or Ted Cruz, has to say.
We might–MIGHT–get a small handful of them involved at a local mass meeting with an indirect process where even the people they vote for aren’t bound to a particular candidate at a state convention. With a primary, there’s no question whether they can be involved. And more of them, as well. And if they vote Republican in the primary, that’s support we can count on in the general election.
On occasion, Democrats vote. But crossover voting won’t change the outcome of the election. It’s a myth.
When you combine the fact that the winner of the primary is best suited to compete in a general election, it’s a no-brainer decision. The only reason valid reason to be opposed (that is, the only reason based on subjective preference rather than a myth) is the preference to have fewer, rather than more, people involved in the party. It’s a desire I understand, but a goal I will never agree with.
Stephen, nobody is talking about doing anything different than we’ve done before: voluntary filing fees for those who want to be elected as delegates. Anyone who wants a say in the process can run for delegate, or they can vote for their representatives.
You won’t have a vote at the National Convention. Are you disnfranchised or excluded because you can’t vote directly on the nomination? Of course not. Same holds true with using the Convention we’re already having to bind our delegates instead of a state-run open primary.
The national conventional has always been that way, but our delegates to it are bound by the outcome of the vote.
No such luck for picking which party insider goes to Charlottesville. But don’t worry, once people realize that they attended a three-hour meeting in the dead of winter to choose someone they’ve never heard of to hopefully vote the way they want (assuming they got their pre-file form filled out in time, and their candidate decided not to skip it entirely), I’m sure they’ll see all the joys of being a Republican and aspire to one day be an insider who gets to pay for the privilege of voting. We’ll have so many new activist volunteers we won’t know what do with them!
That’s right. Only those who are informed and care about who our nominee is will go to a convention. Since we don’t yet have 21,000 activists in the state a convention is a great way to find them.
It doesn’t matter how many candidates participate. RPV’s Party Plan specifically says candidate fees for a convention shall not exceed twice the primary filing fee, but four days ago SBE chose not to require any filing fee for 2016 presidential primary candidates.
Second page at the bottom: http://elections.virginia.gov/Files/BecomingACandidate/CandidateBulletins/2016PresidentialPrimary-CandidateBulletin.pdf
Since $0 times 2 equals $0…
14,000 might be wishful thinking
“Bottom line to conservatives” ?
Maybe they don’t have WiFi in Staunton ?
Update?
The meeting was set to start at 12. the SCC is not known for moving quickly. The convention v primary issue is supposed to come up fairly late in the agenda.
It may be a while.
any guess on whip count?
Very close.
What’s your best guess for the actual voting time?
Meeting starts at 1, not noon.
I stand corrected