It is common knowledge that splitting the opposition vote is a bad idea if you wish to unseat an incumbent or get a certain candidate selected in a primary. The results of such an effort are never positive. Being as all agree that this is a revolutionary election that demands revolutionary ideas, the historic manner in which the Republican primaries are conducted just may not have been the best way to go.
That brings us to the theory GE&P would like to put forward:
What would have been the result if the Conservative (and not so Conservative) candidates had met for a long weekend well BEFORE time for the caucuses, primaries AND FILINGS. This meeting would have included Santorum, Gingrich, Bachman, Cain, Perry and, yes, Paul. Since each of these candidates have certain strengths and weaknesses, egos should have been checked at the door and intelligent, rational thought should have been allowed to take control of the process.
Right out of the chute, it would have been agreed upon that Paul should be designated Secretary of Constitutional Government. Advising him would be a panel of twelve Constitutional scholars headed by, say, Dr. Peter Johnson, Jr. This panel would review existing Federal Laws and determine which violate the Constitution, especially the 10th Amendment. Documents would, then, be drafted and presented to the Congress for repeal of said law. This suggestion would surely prompt Paul to jump on board.
Next, it would be agreed upon that Gingrich would be appointed Secretary of State. His knowledge of Foreign Policy would put him in the position of being an excellent advisor to the administration on all associated issues.
Now the changes become a bit more complicated. Since, in Texas, Perry has demonstrated talent for creating jobs, he should be determined to be the Secretary of Labor. This Labor Department would not be the existing department. It would be a combination of all the existing departments that handle labor issues, including but not limited to the NLRB and Department of Commerce. All of the existing departments, bureaus, commissions, etc that pertain to labor issues would be abolished. The motto for the new department would be: "Our goal is to keep the nose of government out of business's business."
Since Santorum consistently demonstrates that his moral compass is unshakable, he could be trusted to head the new Department of Common Sense. This new department would oversee and suggest policy for all things government giveaway from grants to welfare programs. All existing Federal agencies involved in these activities would be abolished, including but not limited to DHHS and the Department of Education.
Cain would be the nominee to run for President. Since dependable polls indicate that, among the voting public, admitted Conservatives outnumber admitted Liberals 2 to 1, with the addition of 50% of the Liberal minority vote that Mr. Cain would attract, his election should be assured. This assessment in no way should be interpreted as demeaning Mr. Cain's talents and abilities or his qualifications to hold office. The numbers are just icing on the cake.
Bachman would be the choice for VP for much of the same reasons as stated above except we must replace "Liberal minorities" with "Liberal women". Again, this stated advantage in no way demeans or diminishes her accepted qualifications to hold this office.
After these initial determination are made, the whole group would decide which talent could be tapped to head the new Department of Finance, possibly Cantor. This department, with advice and consent of the original 6, would address abolishing the IRS and formulating a new tax system. (This would be yet another carrot dangled in the face of Paul) Additionally, the "TICKET" could add other co-runners to address additional problems plaguing existing government. Abolishing the EPA and starting the process to repeal Obamacare would be the first actions taken by the new administration.
Considering the fact that, so far in the process, Romney has been able to garner an average of only 30% of the vote, it is more than possible that this newly created "TICKET" would be alarmingly successful. But ultimate success would hinge on the unlikely probability that the candidates, as well as the voting public, would put the good of the Republic ahead of their individual ambitions and egos.
GE&P does not suggest that this "TICKET" would be the only way to go. The 6 could have possibly arranged the assignments in a different order. We have only suggested ONE possibility. If the original candidates had adopted some form of this option, the "LEFT" would not have accumulated the amount of ammunition for the general election that is now the case. With the existing system, each candidate has done a very good job of discrediting the others.
Now, we are ready to hear all the reasons why such a system would be unworkable. Also, if you agree with the idea, we would like to hear your suggestions for additions to the "TICKET". Have at it.
3 comments:
Doesn't this create an oligarchy?
Sensible and effective approach, however, "the machine", both Democrate and Republican would not support probably because they believe "big money" dictates!! As we know, and proven by Sara Palin, they want to "control" their favorite candidates!
To answer the question, "Doesn't this create an oligarchy?" we would have to answer,"No."
Since the goal of a contested primary or a contested general election is to give We the People a choice between different approaches to solving the same problem, the process, as a whole, would be unchanged with our theory.
This Republican contest should give the voters a choice between a Conservative candidate and a Moderate candidate. As it is now, the voters have a choice between one Moderate and four Conservatives. With the Conservative vote split four ways, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out the Moderate stands a better chance of success.
The point we attempted to make was that it is counterproductive to a successful end when, in a contest, we have a competition with a 20% chance of having a Conservative garner a majority of the overall vote.
The system as it is could be compared to a general election in which we have one Liberal, one Republican, and one Tea Party candidate running for the same seat. Since the Conservative vote is split, the Liberal is almost sure to win.
Post a Comment