Massachusetts Republican State Committee adopts proportional representation
Jan Kok
Date: Sep 12, 2007 6:02 PM
Subject: [GOP4IRV] Massachusetts Republican State Committee adopts
proportional representation
To: GOP...@yahoogroups.com
State Republican Committee dumps winner-take-all policy
By Stephanie Ebbert
Published July 13th 2007 in Boston Globe
Rebuffing efforts by Mitt Romney loyalists, the Republican State
Committee this week changed its policy of committing all the state's
delegates to the winner of the presidential primary.
The winner-take-all policy had been championed by Romney backers --
including national committeeman Ron Kaufman -- when it came before a
committee established to determine convention rules, according to
other committee members. The rules committee approved the policy, 9 to 3.
But the broader state committee -- some of whose members are
supporting Senator John McCain and Rudy Giuliani in the presidential
primary -- rejected it, 31 to 17, this week, saying it was unfair and
that delegates should be apportioned based on the share of the vote
each candidate wins. And the committeeman who led the revolt said it
could spare the former governor embarrassment if he fails to win his
home state.
"If Mitt Romney loses the primary next March in Massachusetts -- which
could happen -- under the system that his supporters wanted, he would
walk away with nothing," said Stephen Zykofsky of Lynn. "At least with
the system that I've proposed, he would salvage some delegates."
While several Romney supporters on the committee pushed for the
winner-take-all policy, party chairman Peter Torkildsen said that the
Romney campaign was not directing them, and that at least two members
backing Romney voted against it. Torkildsen, who was viewed by some
party insiders to be a Romney ally when he was elected chairman this
year, voted for the rule at the committee meeting. However, he said
that as party chairman, he was neutral on the vote this week and will
remain neutral in the presidential race.
Kaufman could not immediately be reached for comment.
The vote on convention delegate rules was no small matter for the
state GOP because it determined how many of the state's 43 delegates
will be committed to each presidential candidate. With a thick field
of 11 contenders, candidates could split votes narrowly, Zykofsky
argued, and should not be able to reap the entire crop of delegates.
"I believe strongly we have to use proportional representation," said
Zykofsky, who favors Giuliani. "We'll have more competition,
presidential candidates coming to Massachusetts to campaign. If they
think it's hopeless for them to win the whole prize, they won't come
here and we'll end up a political backwater."
Instead, Massachusetts Republicans will sprinkle delegates to
candidates who win at least 15 percent of the primary vote, based on
their proportionate share. The party used the same method for many
years, beginning in the 1970s.
That tradition changed in 1995, when then-governor William Weld
persuaded the state committee to adopt a winner-take-all policy in the
hopes of boosting the candidacy of former California governor Pete
Wilson. As it turned out, Wilson dropped out of the race well before
the primary.
The party stuck with the winner-take-all approach in the following
election, but found itself embarrassed then, as well. Massachusetts
voted for John McCain, rendering delegates irrelevant as George W.
Bush marched to the convention nomination. McCain's campaign
ultimately agreed to release some delegates to vote for Bush.
Still, the policy prevailed again in 2004.
Each state party must approve its convention rules every four years --
about a year before the national convention.
New Jersey's Republican party recently switched to a winner-take-all
arrangement, which is expected to greatly benefit Giuliani, who
governed neighboring New York City and enjoys broad support there.
The Massachusetts vote pointed out the difficulty Romney has had on
his own turf. Romney was never chummy with members of the state
committee and the state Republican party shrank under his leadership.
Some party leaders believe his increasingly conservative positions as
he approached a presidential campaign turned off Massachusetts'
more-moderate brand of Republicans.
Yesterday, the state Democratic Party attacked Romney for statements
he made in years past, in which he seemed to distance himself from the
GOP as he campaigned in moderate Massachusetts. He made the comments
after leading the Salt Lake Winter Olympics in Utah, GOP territory.
"I'm not convinced that the state would be better off with all
Republicans. As a matter of fact, I've been in a state like that for
the last three years. It's not a good thing," Romney said in 2002,
according to the party's montage of clips.
Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said the attack showed Romney's
viability. "The Democratic Party brass target Mitt Romney because they
see him as the greatest threat to them in 2008," Madden said. "They
direct a lot of anger towards Governor Romney because he has the most
impressive record of any Republican and he has the best resume of
bringing conservative change to Washington, and it's in their interest
to protect the status quo there."
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
>Rebuffing efforts by Mitt Romney loyalists, the Republican State
>Committee this week changed its policy of committing all the state's
>delegates to the winner of the presidential primary.
If we look at the history of winner-take-all selection of delegates,
we can see that it was always designed for immediate political
advantage, not for the long-term benefit to the nation. Combine
winner-take-all delegation with rules that automatically determine
the nominee from such process, and we can have seriously warped
Presidential nominations, with one of two undesirable outcomes.
Either a candidate is nominated who represents the more extreme wing
of the party (which can be more highly motivated to turn out in
primaries and maybe in the general election), and then who wins the
election through voter inertia (many voters dislike voting against
their own party), or a candidate is nominated who legitimately
represents the party itself, but who can't win the national election.
Selecting nominees through fixed primaries turns what should be a
deliberative process, including complex judgements by political
experts but also broad representation, into a popularity contest, and
not only a popularity contest that is segmented (it does not measure
overall electability, necessarily, or only to a limited -- and,
indeed, harmful) extent), but that takes place long before the actual
election. Time passes, circumstances change. But rigidly assigned
delegates don't. They must vote, in the first ballot, as they
promised, unless released by their candidate.
The desire to take nominee selection out of the proverbial
smoke-filled rooms was noble; but missed in the process was the fact
that, in addition to smoke, those rooms contained some of the most
politically astute people in the country. We would benefit from their
expertise at Conventions that are open and that actually have the
power to determine the nominee.
From my point of view, the whole concept of dedicated,
candidate-assigned delegates is flawed. Delegates should be chosen to
represent the party members, not candidates. And then the *party*,
through the delegates, should make the ultimate choices, not the
candidates with the most money or the most effective political consultants.
Early primaries cause funds that could be used in the final campaign
to be wasted trying to beat the other candidates within their own
party. What should really be debated in the pre-Convention period is
*policy*, platform.
We could get truly representative delegates through Asset Voting.
Asset allows the *voters* to choose what they want: dedicated
rubber-stamps for a candidate, or free delegates chosen because they
are trusted to make good decisions. You could run for *delegate*. Any
votes given to you would not be wasted, because, if you don't get
enough votes, you can negotiate with others who received votes to
create a delegate assignment. It could be you, it could be someone
you agree to give your votes to. Asset is really worth looking at
when what we want is representation, rather than single-winner on a
narrow question. It's better than Range (though there is a very good
proportional representation Range method, Reweighted Range Voting).
Asset is simple, flexible, and takes us closer to direct democracy,
while still retaining the privacy of secret ballot and the
concentration of representation that made representative democracy necessary.
Asset Voting could also be applied to the assignment of Presidential
electors. The original concept, incorporated in the Constitution, was
of free electors! The party system hijacked this, through the
loophole left in the Constitution that electors were chosen according
to whatever method each state adopted, which then became "according
to the majority party in each state." I don't think that was the
intention at all! Electors were to represent the *state*. Not one
party within the state, even if it was in the majority.
Free electors are an alternative to the commonly-suggested but
impractical proportional assignment of electors. Free electors would
not be bound to either party or candidate, though they might
certainly have their strong preferences. So, for example, a Nader
elector (i.e, a free elector selected and trusted by the Nader
constituency), could have then voted for Gore, perhaps, if the Nader
candidacy were seen to be, in the end, irrelevant.
And this fix will work, state-by-state, unlike the proportional
assignment of electors. And the Presidential election would not then,
perhaps, be a determined matter until the electors vote. (And we
really should have the College meet! -- but that is, I think, a
Constitutional question). Deliberative process, what a concept!
It's the foundation of functional democracy, and when we don't have
it, we become vulnerable to manipulations of public images by special
interests. Should I say, "We *became* vulnerable?"