Point - Counter Point

Point.

Counter Point.

For the record, I tend to agree with Sam.  Exclusion is not a good political tactic, and it isn't good policy either.  Yet the MT GOP tends to be really good at exclusion.

Comments

[Montana Headlines]

Exclusion is already a done deal for Montana Presidential primary voters -- it's all over before we ever get a chance to cast a vote.

Add to that the fact that the Montana GOP primary has always been a non-binding one, this is a positive change. Also, by making it winner-take-all, there is more chance that it will attract attention from the candidates.

It would be very unlikely that this would be a long-term GOP solution. Just something to get the ball rolling this year, get the base more involved, and after this trial run, apply the lessons learned to a broader caucus in the future.

Just an educated surmise.

Given a choice between a meaningless and nonbinding primary, a untested large-scale caucus that could turn into an embarrassing and confusing goat-rope, and a well-run limited caucus like this -- the latter seems preferable.

But a lot of people will be weighing in on this -- we'll see what the rank-and-file GOP thinks.

[colby natale]

Forgive my ignorance, but whose decision is this? It seems like it cannot just be the Montana GOP's decision to make, because (as Sam points out) non-Republicans can choose to take part in their current primary. I don't see how they have the authority to change a voter-centric system on their own.

[moorcat]

I, too, would have to agree with Sarpy Sam. I have been fighting our local City Government on the same issue for over 6 months. Exclusionary tactics are simply wrong and they infringe on our Constitutional right to express our opinion by voting. Personally, I can't even see how this would be constitutional, let alone accepted by the Republicans of Montana...

Moorcat

[Sarpy Sam]

I find it interesting that Montana Headlines choose to bring this discussion here instead of on my site where the original opinion was.

Montana Headlines can try to spin this any way he wants but that's not how people are going to see it. It looks like Republicans are disenfranchising over 110,000 people. That's the perception that people get and will stick with them. It doesn't matter what reality is, it's the perception that people take away from an issue that will live on.

[Montana Headlines]

Um, Sam, no offense was intended. If you will check the dates, the first post on this subject was July 30 on Montana Headlines.

You posted on July 31st without referring to my post (not that I would have thought you would -- just pointing out the fact that there was no apparent reason to respond on your site.)

Wulfgar listed the MH post as the "point," and yours as the "counterpoint."

So I responded here, since it was the only website responding to my post -- which was the first on the subject.

I'm not spinning anything, just expressing an opinion that I think it would be a good idea. And as I pointed out, the rank-and-file GOP may have a lot to say about this, and if you are right, then the plan will get nixed.

[Montana Headlines]

For anyone interested, there is another post on MH addressing some of the above comments.