Three things the Republican Party needs in its next presidential primary cycle.

By Phoenix Roberts

First, the GOP needs to end open primaries.

There’s been a lot of talk on the Internet and elsewhere about the 2008 Republican presidential race. Among other things, it is said that Mitt Romney won all the open primaries and John McCain won the closed primaries.  I have yet to verify this statement to my own satisfaction, but I believe the statement on its face.  Rush Limbaugh actually promoted “Operation Chaos,” a plan to prolong the Democratic primary.  He told fans that, if the GOP primary in your state is over or already decided, go vote in the Democratic primary for whoever is behind to prolong the fight between Clinton and Obama.  Chaos did not ensue, but Limbaugh’s operation probably did prolong the agony.

An open primary is one in which every voter is welcome to pick a party and vote in that party’s primary, no formal membership required.  A closed primary is one in which only registered party members can participate.  Obviously, in any open primary, the opposition and unaffiliated voters (who outnumber DEMs and GOPs combined) can join and affect, if not control, the outcome.  The result is obvious:  In an open primary, Party members may not choose their candidate.  I have two arguments against open primaries:

The first is Constitutional:  The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . or the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . . “  This has been interpreted to allow private organizations to set membership rules when those rules are core to the organization’s public expression.  For example, the Supreme Court recognized the right of the Boy Scouts of America to refuse membership to homosexuals (see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale 530 US 640 [2000]) because a homosexual does not abide the standards the BSA publicly espouses.

The second is practical:  There’s a lot of talk about buying and selling of votes in D.C., an argument not germaine to this discussion, but there is an analogy can be drawn that is very much to the point:  A republic is a business.  All candidates have a product to sell — their votes on the floor of Congress.  They buy their constituents’ votes by promising to vote in Congress the way that individual would vote, if America was a democracy.  In other words, when you vote for a candidate, you are buying that candidate’s loyalty to your opinions.  The candidate that does the most business wins the election, be it caucus, primary or general.

You have all seen the sign in some business: “The management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone.”  It’s a simple statement designed to protect the business by allowing them to decline commerce with persons that may harm the business.  It’s what allows bars to refuse service to those who seem to be intoxicated.  This is exactly what my proposal entails — the Republican Party is a private organization formed so that politically conservative voters can cooperate in the election of conservative candidates.  We have a right, indeed, we have an obligation, as Republicans, to exclude non-members from joining us in choosing the candidates who will represent our Party and our principles in elections.

Second, the GOP needs to end winner-take-all primaries.

In California, McCain won 43% of the popular vote to Romney’s 34%, but McCain got 158 delegates to Romney’s 12 (93% to 7%).  Does that even look fair to anyone?  In Florida, the numbers were even worse (36% to 31%, and 100% to 0%, respectively).

In Massachusetts, the delegate assignment was reasonable:  Romney took 51% of the vote and got 55% of the delegates to McCain’s 41% and 45%, respectively.  In Wyoming, Romney took 67% of the votes and got 8 delegates, while the runner up, former Senator Fred Dalton Thompson, took 25% and got 3 delegates.

Since Romney suspended his campaign when he saw the handwriting on the wall, it is impossible to guess what the ultimate outcome would’ve been.  He was being, at that point, routed in the delegate count. Despite a consistent series of win, place and show finishes, he has far fewer delegates than McCain because so many states had winner-take-all rules.  Had Romney, and the other also-rans, been given the proportion of delegates their popular vote counts warranted, McCain would have gained delegates more slowly, and may not have achieved a pre-convention win.  In fact, they might have gained enough delegates to ultimately keep McCain from winning at all.

Subtotal, or a provisional conclusion.

The careful reader has already realized the two major downsides of the current plan:  In open primaries, my vote is diluted by Democrats, Greens, independents and others who join my primary.  In winner-take-all primaries, my vote may not be counted at all; in fact 49.9% of the votes may not count at all when the candidates get to the convention, which is where candidates are formally chosen.

There’s a less obvious effect that will result from the changes I suggest:  It will be harder for a candidate to win.  That is my goal, to make it as hard as possible for any candidate to win the nomination. Also, to allow the Republican Party to field as many candidates as possible, for as long as possible, so the members can get to know its potential standard bearers better and choose the one who will best represent the conservatism that is the historical core of the Party.

Opponents may argue that, when the convention opens with no winner, Party leaders and also-rans will have the power to make deals, etc., some of which may not be in the party’s best interest, or the nation’s.  Always a possibility, but if the front-runner doesn’t win the nomination, and has to win support of other candidates, he can make deals that bring his opponents into his administration and give representation to those smaller segments of the Party.  Perhaps we should go so far as to stipulate that second highest delegate winner is the automatic vice presidential nominee.  Such was the case in the original Constitution.

Would a McCain/Romney ticket have faired better than McCain/Palin?  Given Romney’s financial expertise and the September-October financial crash, which shifted the focus of the campaign from the war to the economy, this is a possibility that cannot be ignored.  Suppose the delegate votes were genuinely spread out, with none having 50%.  Suppose that Romney announced that Fred Thompson would be his Attorney General, Michael Huckabee his Secretary of Agriculture and Ron Paul his Secretary of Homeland Security, and they had all put their voices and their delegates against McCain.  Do I actually propose a situation where the front-runner can be overwhelmed by the also-rans?  Remember, the point is to win elections with the best candidates available.  If the also-rans form a coalition that represents more of the Party principles than the front-runner, that coalition might be the best choice.  Do I actually believe this will happen? Rarely, if ever.  I do hope the “threat,” for lack of a better term, would push each candidate to run a better campaign to avoid just such a possibility.

Third, the GOP needs to go back to its base.

Before finally departing, a few words on “the best candidates” are in order.  The Federalists were right, the Constitution was needed because the Articles of confederation were a failure and everyone who cared to look at the facts knew it.  However, when the Federalists elected John Adams to the Executive Mansion and gave him a Congressional majority, they passed the Alien & Sedition Acts and other idiotic legislation.  They remained a force in Congress for two decades, but never again elected a president.  When Newt Gingrich and company put forward the Contract with America, Republicans won majorities to both chambers of Congress for the first time in decades.  They then proceeded to spend like Democrats, failed to rein in entitlements, failed to oversee agencies like the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and lost it all in 2008.

Those in the know have heard of the Battleground Poll, run by George Washington University.  It is a highly respected, truly bipartisan survey of American political opinion.  For nearly a decade, it has concluded that about 60% of likely American voters (not registered voters or the general populace) consider themselves conservative, with about 30% labeling themselves liberal and 10% moderates.

Why, then, all this talk of winning moderates?  Because the people who advocate this approach, including a large segment of the Republican Party leadership, are moderates.  They believe that “getting along,” “bipartisanship,” and other foolish notions will work, that is, will win them elections.  History stands against this conclusion.  Ronald Reagan, the last great conservative candidate, won 49 states — twice!  If you doubt the history, you are free to withhold judgment until November 3, 2010, and see how the chips fall.

Grand total, or the final conclusion.

The intelligent reader sees this is not a perfect plan; it can be finessed, but there’s no perfect system, every system can be finessed. If adopted, this plan may trade existing problems for new problems.  To be blunt, the future must take care of its own. We need to address the problems that face us today.  All my experience and research says a closed/take-what-you-win primary system is the best chance that the Republican Party has to allow the Republican Party members to put the best candidates on the ballot.

I say that because, nationally, Republicans always win when they run as conservatives, and those who serve as conservatives always get re-elected.  It’s simple arithmetic — tell the people what they want to hear (principled conservatism); then do what they hire you to do (limit government to its enumerated powers) — you will be one of those “best candidates” Republicans keep looking for, and the American people keep electing.

Read More of Phoenix’s writings at:

http://baronphoenix.com