Change GOP primary voting
Many reasons have been proposed to explain Mitt Romney's loss. Some believe that he didn't represent the views of a majority of the Republican Party, so there was not sufficient enthusiasm for him.
There were several more conservative candidates in the primaries, but Romney was easily the most popular moderate. While those wanting a more conservative candidate split their votes, moderates and liberals went with Romney, guaranteeing him a plurality of the Republican electorate. There have been similar results in the past several GOP presidential primaries.
One way to avoid this in the future is for the GOP state primaries to adopt “preference” voting, where voters prioritize their choices. It is currently used in Australia and in some areas of this country. When the top vote-getter achieves less than 50 percent of the first-place votes cast, the rankings of all candidates are considered to determine the winner. There are several methods of making this determination, but they all avoid the outcome of a winner who is unpopular with a majority of voters.
For more information, go to wordiq.com/definition/Preference_voting or do a web search for “preference voting.” If you think it makes sense, contact your local or state GOP committee member and push the idea.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.