G.O.P. Weighs Limiting Clout of Right Wing - NY Times

[Eric Sanders]

I think we have a unique opportunity right now to approach Republicans about using Approval Voting in their primaries: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/07/us/politics/gop-weighs-limiting-clout-of-right-wing.html?_r=1&

This is something I wrote about here: http://bigthink.com/action-in-action/why-the-republicans-lost

If anyone has any ideas for people, states, organizations, advocates, etc. to approach, please post here. 

[Eric Sanders]

The article I wrote -- in a slightly revised form -- is also posted on the CES site at http://www.electology.org/why-the-republicans-lost-no-approval-voting.

[Eric Sanders]

And, lastly, a video reply I made to the NY Times article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qBzAc6Rdqs

[Jameson Quinn]

Great work, Eric.

I'm going to be a bit of a skeptic here. Hopefully, this is useful insofar as others can prove me wrong in order to sharpen the argument here. If you can't prove me wrong, but have something to add, go ahead and reply to me off-the-list, because I don't want to distract from the actual advocacy purpose of this list.

I would like to be able to embrace this argument — that approval voting would help Republicans nominate better candidates. And clearly I do think that it would help them in the long term. But I'm not sure I can see how it could have helped them in the previous election. The dynamics I saw on the R side last time were a series of flash-in-the-pan "not Romney" candidates coming to the fore and then burning out due to clear negatives. I forget the order, but I can remember at least Perry, Cain, Bachman, Gingrich... With approval, the "not Romneys" wouldn't have had to take turns so much, but how would that have helped overall? The only answer to that question which makes any sense to me is "Hunstman".... and honestly, while I personally see Hunstman as not as bad as Romney, I see no a priori reason to think that the former would have done better than the latter against Obama. In particular, if you go back in time to 2011, why would I believe that Huntsman is "more centrist" than Romney?

Jameson

2013/11/13 Eric Sanders <er...@electology.org>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to electionscien...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Clay Shentrup]

I love this. You're a great speaker.

[Bruce Gilson]

 

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameso...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

I'm not sure I can see how it could have helped them in the previous election. The dynamics I saw on the R side last time were a series of flash-in-the-pan "not Romney" candidates coming to the fore and then burning out due to clear negatives. I forget the order, but I can remember at least Perry, Cain, Bachman, Gingrich... With approval, the "not Romneys" wouldn't have had to take turns so much, but how would that have helped overall? The only answer to that question which makes any sense to me is "Hunstman".... and honestly, while I personally see Hunstman as not as bad as Romney, I see no a priori reason to think that the former would have done better than the latter against Obama. In particular, if you go back in time to 2011, why would I believe that Huntsman is "more centrist" than Romney?

 

In fact, in 2012 there is no way anyone could have done better. The African American vote was 93% for Obama. ercentages like that make it clear they were voting for him based on race alone. When 93% of a group that constitutes over 10% of the population goes for one candidate, AND their turnout is greater than normal (also because one of their own is running) the GOP had an impossible task. (Colin Powell, a fairly conservative Republican, found it necessary to support Obama!)

 

Unless Deval Patrick or Cory Booker gets the nomination in 2016, the Democrats are going to lose this effect in 2016.

 

Mitt Romney actually would have won the presidency in 2012 if (1) African Americans divided more like their normal 85-15 Democratic division, and (2) they had a more normal turnout.

 

So the Republicans actually have a decent shot at the presidency if they nominate someone who doesn't chase away a lot of votes (another Bachmann/Perry/Santorum).