A Blueprint for a Brokered Convention?
I don't think it's a huge secret that a large swath of the GOP electorate isn't terribly thrilled with the remaining crop of Republican candidates. Which is not to say that they won't ultimately find one of the remaining candidates acceptable and happily support them, but there's a lot of good candidates that didn't run. With all the ups and downs of this primary a lot of people have talked up the possibility of a brokered convention and, while that's a real possibility, it's not a likely one. Unless...
Over at PJ Media, Zombie throws out an interesting idea--what if GOP voters cast their votes in such away as to ensure there is a brokered convention? He's calling this "Operation Equilibrium" and it would work something like this:
When the Republican presidential primary is held in your state, vote for whichever candidate has the fewest number of delegates up to that point. If the guy in last place is particularly distasteful to you, then vote for the guy in second-to-last place, or third-to-last. But whatever you do, vote against the current leader.
I'm skeptical that this would work, mainly because people are moved to go to the polls generally out of allegiance to a candidate. Getting primary voters to vote in lockstep for A Candidate to Be Determined seems difficult. Then again, there's some evidence that Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos in the 2008 Democratic primary may have actually caused some nontrivial amount of mischief. So I'm curious to see what everyone else thinks--is this a gimmick or a potential game changer?
- Comment (29)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Feb '12
Re: A Blueprint for a Brokered Convention?
Even if t could work, why would you want a contested convention? Ghat sounds like a ridiculous gamble with way more downside for the party than upside. Anyone who wants a contested convention shoul do us all a favor and go play a few rounds if Russian Roullette. It would be a less damaging for the country manner for them to get their thrills.
Dec '11
Re: A Blueprint for a Brokered Convention?
He's calling this "Operation Equilibrium" and it would work something like this:
In my judgment the best way of insuring a brokered convention would be for the Midwest to go for Santorum and the South to go for Gingrich. All voters who want a brokered convention should vote for the strongest non-Romney candidate in their state because the Republican establishment will try to force a Romney nomination by hook or crook. The more anti-Romney delegates the less likely this is possible. And, it would be more likely the anti-Romney delegates would choose Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio.
Mar '11
Re: A Blueprint for a Brokered Convention?
People may be salivating for a brokered convention, but I don't think its Daniels the people are salivating for.
Jun '10
Re: A Blueprint for a Brokered Convention?
I would like to see some polling data that suggests the base desires a brokered convention because I don't think this is the case. I suspect the idea comes from establishment Republicans who sense that Mitt Romney just can't close the deal. The base seems to want a genuinely conservative candidate while the establishment wants to make an end run and nominate one of their own.
Mark Levin made the case yesterday that we have an unholy alliance between Romney and Paul to deny the base a victory. He suggests that the time is right for an alliance between Santorum and Gingrich for the purpose of denying an establishment victory in favor of conservative principles. Well, who knows? It's all terribly Byzantine with much, no doubt, going on behind closed doors.
My preference is to wait for the results of Super Tuesday before we start talking about a brokered convention. If Rick Santorum should surprise again like he did with his trifecta of a few days ago, the question might be rendered moot.
Sep '10
Re: A Blueprint for a Brokered Convention?
It is an interesting idea, kind of a mechanism for printing a "none of the above" on the ballot without there having to be a line for that.
While it is an interesting idea, I don't think we are there. I think Gingrich and Paul are unelectable as president although well qualified and capable (please that is not a hi-jack just IMHO), but the other two are electable and eminently qualified (again IMHO). So a brokered convention sounds kind of undemocratic (small d). Maybe John McCain would win.
Oct '10
Re: A Blueprint for a Brokered Convention?
It's COMPLETELY undemocratic.
I agree with Congressman McCotter's stance. A brokered convention is a terrible idea that is contrary to our character as conservatives. So we're going to say that the voters don't know what's best for them, so we'll let high ranking party officials decide and then present their decision to the benighted masses? Really? So we're the British Tories now? Great. Just great.
If we're talking about a contested convention, where the people choose between Paul, Santorum, Romney, or Gingrich at the convention vote -- that's fine. If we're talking about "releasing" delegates from their duty to reflect the voters' choices, and allowing a new candidate to be selected at the convention, sight unseen to the GOP electorate -- that's a total disaster.
We aren't the party of governance by elitists. Good grief.
Dec '11
Re: A Blueprint for a Brokered Convention?
Blake
It's COMPLETELY undemocratic.
But is is quite republican, electing delegates who choose leader.
The problem ,though, is the process wasn't sold that way. Delegates were selected solely on the basis of their pledging to support a choosen candidate as opposed to being elected on the basis of their judgement/charecter or promises of qualities they would be looking for in choosing the nominee.
Dec '10
Re: A Blueprint for a Brokered Convention?
Let's all remember that the nominee is the party's nominee, not the nation's nominee.
Nov '11
Re: A Blueprint for a Brokered Convention?
Bluenoser
But is is quite republican, electing delegates who choose leader.
The problem ,though, is the process wasn't sold that way. Delegates were selected solely on the basis of their pledging to support a choosen candidate as opposed to being elected on the basis of their judgement/charecter or promises of qualities they would be looking for in choosing the nominee. · 1 minute ago
Exactly. It would be risky. If the "base" liked the new nominee better than Romney (assuming he was the delegate frontrunner), we'd probably be fine.
I think we'd be better off taking a step back from direct democracy. I'd rather choose delegates from my state who I trust and let them narrow down the choices and interrogate and vet these candidates. Even for those of us who take it seriously and invest the time to research them, we're playing a guessing game trying to figure these guys out from too far away.
Nov '11
Re: A Blueprint for a Brokered Convention?
Blake
A brokered convention is a terrible idea that is contrary to our character as conservatives. So we're going to say that the voters don't know what's best for them, so we'll let high ranking party officials decide and then present their decision to the benighted masses? Really? So we're the British Tories now? Great. Just great.
Depends on how we got there. If it's because the voters told the party "we don't like any of these people, try again" -- and the final choice was better -- it might work. I have a hard time seeing anyone staying home because the establishment forced Ryan or Daniels on them instead of Romney. More likely, though, we'd get Romney/Santorum, or some such thing.
Dec '10
Re: A Blueprint for a Brokered Convention?
Where does all this desire for direct democracy come from? The founders certainly did not advocate for direct democracy, and the Republican Party's method resembles the system the founders desired for the general election:
Sep '10
Re: A Blueprint for a Brokered Convention?
So now we're willing to let the party establishment pick a candidate? Didn't they already do that?
Nov '10
Re: A Blueprint for a Brokered Convention?
Then who? I agree, but IMHO, there is no one that large numbers of people are salivating for. The closest would be Sarah Palin, but I think she's done a pretty good job of taking herself off of the list.
EDIT: Based on comments from a similar post on the member feed, I have the following list of potentials:
Anyone else to add to the list? If you could get one of these people nominated, would you go for a brokered convention?
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 5:01pmDec '10
Re: A Blueprint for a Brokered Convention?
This could be the party rank and file telling the establishment to pack sand. It all comes down to who engineers the brokering and if the delegates are made up of us or them.
May '11
Re: A Blueprint for a Brokered Convention?
To quote that notable pundit, Charlie Brown, "Oh, Good Grief!"
Say, here's an idea. Why don't we skip the primaries, and just put Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul and Palin all on the ballot in the general? Then Obama can with with a plurality of 45% to 15% /10% /10% /10% /10%, instead of losing 45% to 55%. On top of that, Obama can claim a mandate by winning the largest margin in electoral history. The country crashes and burns, but the "base" can feel good because they all got to vote for the candidate they believe is the "real" conservative. Oh, Good Grief!
Oct '10
Re: A Blueprint for a Brokered Convention?
Wow. This is a shocking statement to me.
You need to listen to Daniel Hannan talk about the centrality of American open primaries to the preservation of our Republic. British parties see themselves as separate from their electorate -- and that is why the people they put in office seldom reflect the values or priorities of the British people.
Granted, open primaries are less critical when you're choosing a single executive candidate rather than a slew of representative legislators, but a brokered convention would still put us in the position of saying to the nation: "We don't trust our own voters to make a good decision." It is the opposite of the central conservative tenet of devolving power.
This is madness. We shouldn't throw away our conservative principles in order to have a slightly better shot (arguably) at winning an election.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 8:02pmMay '10
Re: A Blueprint for a Brokered Convention?
O, please! This is The Plan I've been telling you all about for months!
Oct '10
Re: A Blueprint for a Brokered Convention?
The King Prawn: .... the Republican Party's method resembles the system the founders desired for the general election:
1 hour ago
Nope. Hamilton's vision doesn't work in this context.
Hamilton was talking about voters sending people whose judgment they trusted, so the eventual nominee would have popular legitimacy and would feel obligated to the general public, not just the party leaders. But if we have a brokered convention, GOP voters would already have expressed their preferences for the nomination. By selecting a new candidate the delegates would be undermining their representative legitimacy.
You're arguing for delegates to ignore the expressed will of GOP voters, and you think that act will somehow make them good representatives?
Look, few of us are totally satisfied with the current candidates, but let's not lose our heads here.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 5:59pmDec '10
Re: A Blueprint for a Brokered Convention?
Blake, the situation I'm outlining is the backup plan for when the will of the voters in the open primaries fails to produce a majority nominee. Each state still has a role in the process, but ultimately it is the party who puts forward a nominee. If you think the parties should have nothing to do with the process you're starting to cross the freedom of association guaranteed in the Constitution. I'm talking "is" you seem to be talking "ought."
I've heard Hannan on the subject. The key difference is that the British parties see themselves as seperate from the electorate while in the U.S. the parties are made entirely of the electorate. Those who choose to not play in the game should not complain about the way it is played. Just casting a vote every few years is not full participation in the game.
Sep '10
Re: A Blueprint for a Brokered Convention?
My understanding (please correct me if wrong) is that a brokered convention would be a result of none of the candidates receiving more than 50% of the delegates via the primary/caucus process.
In my opinion, it would put us in the position of saying to the nation: "Our voters decided that none of these people are good enough."
If no one gets more than 50% of the delegates, are you saying we should accept the candidate with the biggest plurality, in order to preserve the sanctity of the democratic process?