Are Colorado Republican Caucuses Now Irrelevant?

[Bailey Guns]

I'm not sure yet what to make of this other than the RNC and the state republican committee doesn't trust voters. Maybe someone can shed some light on why this might be a good thing?

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28700919/colorado-republicans-cancel-2016-presidential-caucus-vote

[Ah Pook]

My guess is that they have made themselves irrelevant.

Too lazy to search but the rep. that posts here, I would vote for in a heart beat.

[Gman]

Have we ever mattered? The delegates get selected by the first few states which have open primaries that allow Dems to vote for the GOP candidates. What a mess.

[Alpha2]

When we went to a caucus a while back, I learned that there was nothing binding about them, so yeah, an exercise in futility.
My trophy wife was a delegate and said that was almost the same.

[Zundfolge]

I don't remember the last time that a winner of the Colorado primary caucuses was even in the race by the time the convention came around.

This is one of my biggest problems with the GOP. Our candidates get picked by a bunch of Democrats voting in New Hampshire's open primary.

I would like to see the current primary/caucus/convention system completely scrapped and move to a national, one day CLOSED primary election held exactly one year before election day.

[TFOGGER]

In some ways, I like Israeli election laws better than ours: No announced candidacy until 90 days before the election, all political monies are pooled and distributed equally to all candidates, and the media is required to give equal time to any candidate that requests it. No third party political ads on the media.

As long as we're reforming our electoral system, we need to scrap the "winner take all" policy when it comes to electoral delegates. With our current system, a candidate that wins by a fraction of a percent in just 11 key states can be elected President, even if they lose in all 39 other states. This doesn't encourage the candidates to consider the needs of say, Wyoming voters. There should not be a situation where a candidate can lose the popular vote by more than 2 percent, yes still end up with 270 electoral votes by pandering to CA, NY, FL, and OH.

As far as the primary system, the Republican Caucus in CO has been irrelevant pretty much since its inception. A closed primary would be a much better choice.

[Bailey Guns]

^^ Completely agree with the closed primary idea. Completely disagree with abolishing the electoral college. If you think some states are inconsequential now, wait til that happens.

[Zundfolge]

Agree on the first point, but the electoral college serves a purpose and that is States rights. You run a presidential election first in your State, and then (unless your residents are a moron), the State throws the entire weight of its influence behind the winning candidate. It's not a perfect system, but it strengthens the sovereignty of the States. I'd prefer to see it abolished in favor of something that better serves that purpose (States rights). Don't have any suggestion, but simple majority vote is not exactly it.

I agree, the Electoral College is grossly misunderstood. Also we need to repeal the 17th Amendment and return the Senate to the states the way the Founders intended.

While we're at it, repeal every gun control law passed in the 20th century ... and issue unicorns to all school aged children.

[TFOGGER]

Agree on the first point, but the electoral college serves a purpose and that is States rights. You run a presidential election first in your State, and then (unless your residents are a moron), the State throws the entire weight of its influence behind the winning candidate. It's not a perfect system, but it strengthens the sovereignty of the States. I'd prefer to see it abolished in favor of something that better serves that purpose (States rights). Don't have any suggestion, but simple majority vote is not exactly it.

I'm just not satisfied with the existing system, whereby the vote I cast is largely irrelevant. Electors aren't even bound by the popular vote in the states they represent, i.e., if 54% of a state's voters vote Republican, there is absolutely nothing preventing that state's electors from casting their votes for the Democrat, other than tradition. I realize that we are not a democracy, and that democracy is in reality a tyranny of the mob, but the current system is too easy to exploit. I'm not sure what the answer is, but the reasoning behind the Electoral College doesn't really hold up in this day and age. Maybe we should vote at the end of a president's single 4 year term: Lifelong pension, or execution. Only taxpayers as defined above are allowed to vote.

[Bailey Guns]

The vote you cast is not "largely irrelevant". When you cast your vote you may not be voting for candidate X directly but you're still casting a vote that supports that candidate.

Also, in many states, electors are required to vote for the candidate that receives the most votes. As a matter of fact, so called "faithless electors" (those that buck the system) are very rare (total of 8 since 1900) and have never influenced the outcome of a presidential election:

From History.com (http://www.history.com/topics/electoral-college):


Presidential electors in contemporary elections are expected, and, in many cases pledged, to vote for the candidates of the party that nominated them. While there is evidence that the founders assumed the electors would be independent actors, weighing the merits of competing presidential candidates, they have been regarded as agents of the public will since the first decade under the Constitution. They are expected to vote for the presidential and vice presidential candidates of the party that nominated them. Notwithstanding this expectation, individual electors have sometimes not honored their commitment, voting for a different candidate or candidates than the ones to whom they were pledged; they are known as “faithless” or “unfaithful” electors. In fact, the balance of opinion by constitutional scholars is that, once electors have been chosen, they remain constitutionally free agents, able to vote for any candidate who meets the requirements for President and Vice President. Faithless electors have, however, been few in number (in the 20 century, one each in 1948, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, and 2000), and have never influenced the outcome of a presidential election.

Honestly, it sounds like you're not really clear on how the system works and that's leading to some confusion on your part.

If it helps make up your mind, just about every die-hard liberal in the land is all for replacing the electoral college with a popular vote. If that doesn't sway your opinion, nothing will.

Here's another little tidbit that's very interesting and should completely put to rest any thoughts of eliminating the electoral college:


Barack Obama received 3.3 million more votes than Mitt Romney in the Nov. 6 election, but won 3.6 million more votes than Romney in just four cities — Chicago, Philadelphia, New York and Los Angeles. He won those margins without much of a campaign. Now, imagine an Obama candidacy free of the need to appeal to Ohio factory workers, Colorado cattlemen, Iowa hog farmers and Virginia police officers, and you start to get the picture.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/keep-electoral-college-for-fair-presidential-votes-084651#ixzz3qqhWeJQx