AUGUSTA, Maine — A last-minute bill has been submitted to the Legislature to shift Maine from a presidential caucus state to a presidential primary state by 2016.

LD 1882 comes on the heels of the Maine Republican Party’s caucuses in February that many believe were mishandled.

“I think for many people the caucuses this year crystallized support for a presidential primary,” the bill’s sponsor, Senate President Kevin Raye, R-Perry, said in an interview Thursday. “I have long expressed a preference [for a primary] because I believe it encourages wider participation of Maine voters and I believe it increases the likelihood of Maine being considered relevant in the process.”

The Maine GOP declared Mitt Romney the winner of a presidential preference poll on Feb. 11 before all local caucuses were held, a move that angered supporters of Ron Paul, who finished a close second. It also was later revealed that some votes were mistakenly not counted during the process, a revelation that led to further criticism.

Rep. Michael Carey, D-Lewiston, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, agreed that the change makes sense in light of what happened last month.

“I think we saw from the challenges that the Republicans had counting votes and making sure the right votes were counted … that it really raises the issue that everyone in the party needs to have a say, not just party leaders who set the rules,” he said.

Carey said Maine people are busy and a caucus requires a much bigger commitment, usually an entire Saturday.

“That’s a lot to ask,” he said. “A primary would allow people to vote absentee, to vote before or after work. It would dramatically increase participation.”

The bill has been sent to the Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee, which is scheduled hold a public hearing on Monday.

When candidates from each major party are vying for the nomination to run for president, they compete in each state either in a caucus or a primary. Caucuses are relatively informal but sometimes technical events that usually feature less participation. Primaries mimic an election in the sense that people vote for their choice.

Maine has been a caucus state for many years but has held primaries in the past. Presidential primaries were held in 2000 and 2004.

The new bill calls for Maine’s 2016 presidential primary to be held the first Tuesday after the New Hampshire primary, historically the first primary in the election cycle.

Michael Quatrano, executive director of Maine GOP, said his party would support moving to a primary system if that’s what people want.

He said some of the criticism directed at the party in the last month has been valid but he attributed some of the problems to growing pains.

“We would still need to caucus because you have to select state delegates and election clerks,” Quatrano said.

Raye said he did not discuss his bill with Maine GOP Chairman Charlie Webster or other party officials.

A Maine Democratic Party representative said the party is open-minded about the change.

“On our side, we actually had a really successful caucus this year and of course we had an incredible caucus in 2008,” Executive Director Mary Erin Casale said. “We’re happy to go along with whatever the Legislature decides but this would never have been needed if not for what happened to the Republicans. I think it’s a bit of a knee-jerk reaction in response to their mishandling of their caucuses.”

Casale did agree with Quatrano that caucuses have benefits that primaries do not.

“They are a great organizing tool,” she said. “They give people the opportunity to meet candidates and talk about what they’re interested in.”

Primaries also likely would cost more money, although Raye said his bill stipulates that those costs would be absorbed by the state.

“My perspective is it’s very difficult to put a price tag on democracy,” he said. “There’s nothing more central to a democracy than voting.”

Adrienne Bennett, spokeswoman for Gov. Paul LePage, said the governor supports moving to a primary system but he would take it one step further by making it an open primary. That means anyone could vote, not just registered Democrats and Republicans.

Not everyone was convinced a change is needed, especially this late in the session, since the next presidential election season wouldn’t be until 2016.

Asked about the timing, Raye said: “There would not be an opportunity for me to do it in the next session. I preferred to introduce it and advocate for it.”

Sen. John Patrick, D-Oxford, was among the skeptics.

“I’m more of a traditionalist,” he said. “In caucuses, there is personal engagement of voters and opportunities to give reasons why people support one candidate over another.

“The bigger question, I think, is that in the waning days of the short emergency session, why are we getting all these bills that would be normally be heard in a regular session?”

Join the Conversation

98 Comments

        1. I don’t think that it is fair for either party to be allowed
          to participate in the process of the other in deciding who their opponents
          candidate will be. It is fairly obvious that the Dems/GOP would cast their vote
          for who they see as the weakest candidate to challenge their party’s choice.

    1.  Bad idea, I would suggest. You should have to choose which Presidential Primary you want to participate in, just like we will have to in June. Independents can switch to D or R, but they can’t participate in both parties.

  1. How about if the Parties want to have a system to forward a candidate, they pay for it themselves???

  2. The math is simple here.
    We move to primaries and the FBI  and Diebold take complete control of our voting process.
    In case people did not notice  voters caught the shennanigans and brought the disinfectant called light to the issue even though the perps identified were not held accountable, eh?
    For people who are uneducated about taxpayer funded FBI  agents committing voter fraud
    just google  leonard gates bob draise fbi voter fraud landes report

      1. thanks dd for your support. If you tried googling the material at work in the Maine taxpayer funded FBI Fusion Center you probably have to remove the content filter first.
        If you do that this is what you will find:
        see link if unable to google
        http://www.thelandesreport.com/Donsanto.htm

        The following are excerpts from
        the Cincinnati Post of October, 30th, 1987:

        Cincinnati Bell security
        supervisors ordered wire-taps installed on county computers before elections
        in the late 1970s and early 1980s that could have allowed vote totals to be
        altered, a former Bell employee says in a sworn court document.

        Leonard Gates, a 23-year
        Cincinnati Bell employee until he was fired in 1986, claims in a deposition
        filed Thursday in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court to have installed the
        wire-taps. Cincinnati Bell officials denied Gates’ allegations that are part
        of a six-year-old civil suit that contends the elections computer is subject o
        manipulation and fraud.
        Gates claims a security
        supervisor for the telephone company told him in 1979 that the firm had
        obtained a computer program through the FBI that gave it access to the county
        computer used to count votes. [Emphasis added].

        The FBI refused comment and
        Cincinnati Bell spokesmen vehemently denied the allegations, claiming Gates was
        a “disgruntled ex-employee”, yet, according to Condit, the company ultimately
        admitted that one of its vans was involved in the wiretapping, although it
        claimed they were commandeered without the company’s knowledge. The Post
        continued:

        In the deposition, Gates
        claims he first installed a wire-tap on a telephone line to the county
        computers before the 1977 election at the instruction of James West, a Bell
        security supervisor.
        Gates contends both West and
        Peter Gabor, security director, told him to install wire-taps in subsequent
        elections. Both men declined comment Thursday.

        In the 1979 election, which
        is the focus of the deposition – Gates said he received instructions in the
        mail from West about installing wire-taps on county computers in the County
        Administration Building at Court and Main streets.

        The wire-taps were installed
        on the eve of the election at Cincinnati Bell’s switching control center at
        Seventh and Elm Streets and terminated in a conference room in the building,
        Gates alleges.
        In the deposition, Gates
        described in great technical detail installation of the wire-taps.

        At about 8:30 p.m. on
        election day – Nov. 6, 1979 – Gates said he was called by West and told
        something had gone wrong, causing the elections computer to malfunction. At
        West’s instructions, Gates said he removed the taps.

        The elections computer
        shutdown for two hours on election evening due to what was believed to be a
        power failure, Condit Sr. has said.
        Gates said West told him they
        “had the ability to actually alter what was being done with the votes.”

        Gates said West told him the
        Board of elections did not know about the taps and that the computer program
        for the elections computer “was obtained out of California, and that the
        programming had been obtained through the FBI…”

        Shortly after the 1979
        election, Gates said he met with the late Richard Dugan, former Cincinnati
        Bell president, to express his concerns that the wire-taps were done without a
        court order.
        “Mr. Dugan said it was a very
        gray area… This was just small compared to what was going on. He told me
        just, if I had a problem, to talk to him and everything would be okay, but
        everything was under control,” Gates said [Emphasis added].

        [Editor’s Note: This scandal’s
        alleged FBI connection raises the possibility of U.S. law enforcement and/or
        intelligence involvement in electronic vote-rigging.]

    1. Are you a real sincere wacko, or an agent provocateur  ? 

      If the latter you are very good. 

      If the former, just say 1/2 of what you usually do, 
      because these is  some sense to what you are trying to say, 
      but you go way overboard.   

      I am being as supportive as is humanly possible.
      Remember, the battle is for the middle.

      1.  Not only that, but he uses the same copy & paste rant over and over.

        The minute I see his user ID, I immediately look for the little minus sign that shows up to the right of his user name when you hover your mouse pointer over it and click to collapse his posts.

        He is his own worst enemy.

  3. Let’s make it easy, sponsor a new bill called “Just ask Charlie” he decides everything without counting everyone’s vote, the vote that is supposed to matter. They can just pick up the phone “Charlie who won” and he can respond “With zero votes counted, the winner is…” and that’s it.

      1. What no gratuitous “Repugnant” comment from you … I thought it was your signature code word … Jay don’t disappoint us dude… 

  4. How about insisting the system we have work the way it’s supposed to and hold those in charge accountable?

    Come November, Maine will remember.

    Obama 2012

    1. God forbid we have 4 more years of “Hope and
      Change”. Hope and change has turned out to be me hoping Obama is a one
      term President while I count the change I have left at the end of the week.

        1. So let me ask you, are you better off now than you were 5 years ago? I don’t know about where you live, but gas and heating oil are a lot more expensive where I live than they were 3 to 4 years ago. the grocery bill seems to keep getting bigger by the week. I can’t seem to get by trying to feed my family or fill my gas tank with hope and change. Not to mention that the budget office now figures that Obamacare will actually cost twice what was estimated, not that is of any great surprise

          1. It surely cannot be because of the policies of the current
            administration. How you making out proportionately with income versus expenses from 4 to 5 years ago?

  5. If Raye is sponsoring this bill it’s because he, Webster and LePage have already figured out a way to manipulate the results.

    1.  I respectfully disagree, I talked to the governor on 3/3/12, and he agreed 100% that Webster needs to step down immediately…

  6. So the Republicans had a crooked caucus and now the cure for that is a primary? How about the Republicans get some honest people to run their party and we stick to the caucus system that won’t cost us a small fortune. 

    1.   

      Sure. Maybe they should try to emulate the Democrats, as
      everybody knows that all Democrats are honest upstanding people that would
      never do anything that is not 100% honest and above board.

      1. Had the Chairman of the Maine Democrats done the same thing “Crazy” Charlie did I would have said that the democrats should pick honest people to run their party. You are the one claiming that democrats would never do anything that is not 100% above board, not me. I’m against crooks no matter what party they belong to.

      1. You could be noble like democrat Joe Kennedy II… & take in over 900 large for your wife and yourself from the non profit Citizens Oil company, subsidized by the fine citizen’s of Massachusetts and make your first name part of the phone number 1-877-JOE-4-OIL (1-877-563-4645)… Did I mention he loeves giving the Marxist Chavez & Venesula a little  good press. El Hombre Amigo esta Guerrillero Heroico…  Now that’s the democrat way!  

  7. A start. To reduce the number of rings under the big top from fifty to one, next move to a national presidential primary, followed by a month-long campaign similar in length to other modern democracies.. Don’t count on the support of the campaign industry and campaign junkie media types, though. 

    1. A couple of years ago I tried to get the Democrats to do five primary months, a building crescendo if you will.  Take the current Census data, have the ten smallest States hold their process the first month, the next ten the second month, and so on.  Smaller States – smaller media market – less cost – greater one-on-one voter evaluation.  A good candidate without monetary support could get his/her appeal out and grow in public support (too many have the dollars behind them – but not the public support)  As the process moves forward into bigger States’ – bigger markets – costs go up. A candidate will need to start to show not only are they good candidates but can also grow support.  By the time you get to the fifth month, the largest 10 States would still represent more than half of the country – and candidates who grew in the process would/should prove to be the better for it.  After every census some States would move up or down the timeline based on size.   

      1. Five months ? 
        So will you be able to change your mind ? 
        Like for example, after the Newt promised $2.50/ gallon gas if he were POTUS ? 

      2. I completely understand what you are saying CP.    However,  I do hesitate agreeing with you regarding less costs, and a market strategy when it regards how our principle party’s choose our candidates for President.     I think we should start curtailing the business aspect, and the money exchanges,  the mass media efforts and the commercialization of our nation’s leader.   Abraham Lincoln never would have been elected if he would have to withstand today’s markets and strategies.   

        If it’s not broke,  and it’s not,    we ought not to fix it. It’s worked for a hundred and eighty some odd years now…..all of a sudden it’s broke?

    2. ” A start. To reduce the number of rings under the big top from fifty to one,”
      ROTFLOL 

      I have long said the Big Tent needs cleaning, and shovels might not be enough, 
      front loaders are more like it. 

      Your way of saying it is more polite.
      I love it.

  8. Maine went from Caucuses to primary before, then back to Caucuses due to the cost of having municipalities hold them for 10% of the population to select a “party” candidate.  Un-enrolled and un-registered voter can participate, they just have to enroll or register into a party, vote, and can later un-enroll.

    The issue is cost.  You can not “charge” voters on participation, even those in a political party – the “poll tax” has already been ruled unconstitutional. 

    So, here’s a proposal for consideration, have a five day period of extended voting by each political party, by municipality, and have each party caucus on one day to tally the expression of their identified party enrollees. Prohibit early counting (the “Webster Clause”). Require Independent candidates to file by the caucus date expressing they are seeking office with an appropriate number of signatures of registered voters to show support of the electorate at large.   

    Balloting would allow greater participation and multiple days would make it easier to participate without having to sit through an hour or two normal caucusing.

    1. How about we just make a law saying that party chairs are not allowed to cheat the people they purport to lead?

      Oh. Wait. You don’t think they’d follow such a law?

  9. Great idea, especially if it is allowed to work by the same rules that the Congressional, Legislative, Gubernatorial Primary is run on. However, I hope the Presidential Primary will be earlier than the other Primary. In my view, it should be no later than ‘Super Tuesday’.

  10. Every photo of Kevin Raye ….looking more and more like  ” The Penguin “… . Weight Watchers Wanna be’s  … hilarious … and pathetic.

  11. Raye: “There’s nothing more central to a democracy than voting.”

    Meanwhile, his party is trying to pass  voter ID legislation that would make it more difficult for a person to vote.

    The game goes on…………

    1. Oh the horror … you need an ID to do everything, sign a check, get a prescription, get your car inspected… why … so there isn’t theft or fraud… so why is this concept so repulsive to you, unless of course that is working in your favor.

      1. Actually I don’t need to show an ID to do any of the things you seem to need them for.

        You need an ID to get your car inspected?

        And if you don’t see the difference between getting your car inspected and voting –  a fundamental right guaranteed to you by the constitution – then you’re so far to the right there’s no hope for you.

        Show us your papers comrade!

        1. Well, I have a right to keep and bear arms.

          Using your logic, I would not have to show an ID to buy guns. Right?

          1.  You don’t need to for a private sale.

            Hmmm.

            You keep posting false equivalencies.

            Got relevance?

          2. Firstly, I own guns.

            I am (sadly) old enough to remember when you did not need an ID to purchase a gun. (I first bought a gun in the mid sixties.)

            When they changed the law to requiring IDs, the gun lobby and EVERY conservative group opposed the idea of ID being required to purchase a weapon. (So did I).

            Now, EVERY conservative group supports the idea of requiring IDs to vote. Myself, being consistent and not hypocritical still do not support it, just as I did not support gun IDs.
            But why this about face by conservatives?

            There are millions of your fellow citizens who do not have a drivers license, credit card, or even a checking account. Most of these people are poor and/or elderly.

            Yet they are just as much a citizen of this great country as you or I.

            Requiring them to have an ID to vote, in many, many cases simply prevents them from exercising the most important right granted us by the constitution.

            Of course this is the true reason that the “new” conservatism wants voter IDs – to keep people from voting.

            I know you and I disagree on this, but I believe making it more difficult, or in some cases impossible to vote is simply UNAMERICAN.

            A  TRUE conservative would be against this government intrusion and infringement of individual  liberty.

            A TRUE conservative would be against voter ID!

      2.  I pick up a relatives prescriptions and have never had to show an ID, even at out of town pharmacies.

        I have not had to show an ID to cash a check for several years.

        I used to volunteer at a local nursing home where none of the folks had current valid photo IDs.

        It should be universally repulsive to make it more difficult for those folks to vote. In fact it is extremely repulsive that you obviously do not find it so!

    2.  yeah it would be more difficult… if you were an illegal alien…we need to secure our voter integrity, and the best way to do that is with voter ID i think, but you must have a better plan right???? care to share?

      1.  It would be more difficult if you were old enough that you had stopped driving, or so poor you could not afford a car, or had a disability like epilepsy that meant you could not drive.

        1. no, not accurate Tyke, with all due respect, have you heard of absentee voting…they send you a ballot right in the mail, and so you can vote, save money and time on a trip to a ballot box, and it is much safer instead of our citizens traveling out in, perhaps, dangerous weather on voting day. You should check it out, and pass the info onto people who you may have concerns with, they will really appreciate it I bet, and I’m not normally a “betting man!”

          1. So you are saying that no ID is required to vote absentee?

            Wouldn’t that immediately and completely eliminate the “fraud” argument as an issue then, since there is a way around needing an ID?

            ps: I do help these folks with absentee voting. My objection is that they would have to travel to a DMV office to get an ID under the proposed voter ID laws.

      2. Voter “integrity” is not and has never been a problem in this country.

        Please site an example of just one (1) documented case of voter fraud.

        A true conservative would never support this government imposed attack on individual liberty.

        You must not be a true conservative.

        1.  stringah…you are kidding right???…got to your computer and search “Acorn voter fraud”….we need to protect the integrity of our voting so people will trust the outcome…

          1. Carter – you are kidding right? 

            There’s been no successful prosecution in the Acorn issue.
            There hasn’t even been a trial, to my knowledge.

            It’s just one side accusing the other with the media controlling the spin.
            It’s just you saying it’s fraud.
            Is that the best you got Carter?

            In the recent Maine caucus the Republican party declared the winners before everyone voted. I guess we could call that voter fraud to right? In fact I’m calling it that right now. VOTER FRAUD BY THE REPUBLICANS!!

            So What?

            One side accusing the other.
            That the best you got?

            Please document one voter fraud case that has been successfully prosecuted.

            Good luck with your search.

          2. Carter, are you deliberately not getting it?

            Stop throwing Acorn at me.
            As far as I’m concerned that’s just Right Wing BS.
            If a jury finds Acorn guilty of something,
            please let me know as that would be a totally different story.

            Show me a successful prosecution of a voter fraud case.

            The reason you’re having trouble finding one is because there are none,
            which is why there’s no threat to “election integrity”
            and no reason for  voter ID.

            Which was my original point.

            OK?

      1.  My ID is in the back of my wallet and I haven’t had to pull it out for over 2 years.

        You must look very untrustworthy to have to use yours “for everything you do”.

      2. My point, that I guess you missed, is the hypocrisy of Kevin Raye.

        On one hand he talks about how the ability to vote is “central to a democracy”.

        On the other hand he supports legislation that makes it more difficult to vote.

        Pure hypocrisy.

    3.  Raye is very concerned about 2  things that will be used against him in his election:

      1) propping up the radical agenda of an incompetent arrogant buffoon of a governor

      and

      2) supporting a state Republican party leader who has had a gresat deal of bad press for his dumb comments and cheating ways.

      Raye hopes that this bill will distract people form the horrendous choices he himself has made in supporting these clowns and he does not care if he taxes and spends other people’s money to do it.

  12. Yeah lets change it again… and see how much more money we can waste.

    Primaries and primary voting  Or caucus and caucus voting costs should be funded COMPLETELY by the parties.  There is precedent for that.

  13. did anyone see this audio link yet of MGOP Chairman Charlie Webster by Cat Claws that is from the republican state committee meeting last Saturday? Webster is clearly being beyond disrespectful to a member who is raising bumps in the road by Webster. For the explanation as to why this, and more, audio clips are coming go to http://www.asmainegoes.com/content/wheres-thread and read comment #92 …part of an email just sent to BDN, Eric Russell,” This
    is better audio of Maine GOP Chairman Charlie Webster speaking, Mike
    Coleman is the one questioning with boldness, and I have been informed
    by an inside source the MGOP may not have had a budget for a year or better instead of what Websta said in the audio link, but i am working to confirm.
    This is the link http://www.mediafire.com/?h0rapedjcelfewb
    if you go to post #92 it explains almost everything, with the exception
    of this, Charlie Webster obviously made his decision not to call on me
    to speak, and I made my decision to do what I am doing…and there will
    be many more Cat Claws to come, including excepts from the tape of him
    proving he covered up the Abbott Campaign allegedly stealing the
    delegate list, to the wing nut rant on WVOM, to the Howie Carr
    interview. Plus there are people willing to look deep inside the
    republican party, and some allegations have been made of some very
    questionable dealing inside. Charlie Webster does not represent me as a
    republican, and it would be best for him to step down, and in my
    opinion, many in the state committee should now after supporting Charlie
    after the stunning display of disrespect and arrogance at the state
    committee meeting last Saturday. On a personal note, as you can
    imagine I am probably the most hated republican in Maine, but I have
    decided the integrity and honor I have had to restore for myself, after a
    many hard life lessons, will not fall because of someone who has
    apparently lost there’s in the struggle, and I can not just idly sit by
    and let CW hurt mine. or the many great people working hard for ALL the people of Maine in the republican Party…and he would if I were to remain silent, I hope
    you understand.
    Please get this information out to everyone, all media outlets, because
    the average person in Maine needs to understand this guy, and also
    understand there are still some in both parties, including the Independents in Maine, like my brother who served our great Country with Honor for 24 years, who care for decency, respect, and honor, among some needed
    things to have a great life in Maine, and the people will get it right
    in the republican party if all know about what is happening
    Carter JonesAurora, Maine
    I would like to remain anonymous, if possible, but understand.

    1. Wingnut = is code for conservative … What the heck does anyone do for a living in Aurora, besides the Mace family anyhow?  I bet they are Republicans… they work for a living.

  14. The Republicans screw up their caucus so now we must change the system? How about Republicans mend their own house and let Democrats take care of theirs. They should have gotten rid of the guy who caused the problem, Charlie Webster. Instead what did they do? The voted to keep him on as their party chair.

    For myself, I rather liked the caucus.  I am relatively new to the town in which I live and the caucus gave me an opportunity to meet others and get to know what issues concerned them; how the system here works; what legislators to keep an eye on, that sort of thing. We had refreshments and someone who was running for office came to talk about his candidacy. We also had the opportunity to sign petitions and give donations which might not have happened otherwise. People were notified about the when and where of the caucus and if they did not show up, I can only assume that they were not interested.

  15. Prior to my move to Maine I lived in a state in which you did not
    declare a party affiliation to register. Thus, you could vote in either
    primary, but only the one. We also  elected the  Secretary of State,
    Attorney General, State Auditor,  and Superintendent of Schools. And,
    court positions were elected on a non-partisan basis as well: the
    Supreme Court Justices, District Court Judges, and local justices of the
    peace. Electing such positions meant that they were not  subject to the
    governor or legislature.  I always thought it was a very good way to
    have responsive democratic governance.

    1. If you would rather sit at your work station,  remain anonymous and not participate and perhaps make a difference to someone else’s opinion,  vote, claim that you did your civic duty and continue on………I’ll show you the 21st century’s definition of apathy.   If people are not involved personally,  then no one takes anyone seriously and they get information provided to them by ……..commercials and headlines.

      You want to vote……..? but you just don’t want to actually go down and do it?

  16. “the issue that everyone in the party needs to have a say, not just party leaders who set the rules,” he said. ” 

    Well, if the Parties can’t do that for themselves, and the Party members don’t do something about it, 
    why should the tax payers waste tax payer’s money on solving the (BOTH) Party’s  undemocratic processes ? 

    This is the GOTea Party looking for a BIG Government solution to their own leadership problems. 

    But I bet they oppose open primaries, too, huh ? 
    Their argument on that is that everyone, except independents, are treated equally, I’ll bet.

    But why should the State put one penny towards paying for an election that every Maine voter
    can not take part in ?

  17. Moving from caucuses to a primary would take power away from the party establishment, who pressure caucus voters to vote their way. Primaries would put more power into the hands of the indvidual voter without the party line pressure. Sounds like a real good idea to me.

  18. Why do we need a last minute bill to end caucuses?………It’s worked for us since 1820,  and caucuses are non binding,  and allows those less influential to go to a state convention, where, such as this year,   another nominee may be chosen rather than what the party tool wants and indicates. And yes, I speaking of the only botched caucus I can think of……and only Webster could have done it to a point that there are such questionable results.

    Just because Charlie Webster screws it up for his party,   doesn’t mean that the rest of us want to change it.   It’s cheaper,  less political (signs) much less intrusive TV ads, and much more personable.   They can take their “super delegates” and shove em,   the caucus is more like a town meeting than those that our Governor holds now.   He seems to announce something, or get into an argument……..not all of us are like he and Czar Webster.

    Two things: First, each party should choose their nominee according to it’s own standards, it should not be mandated; secondly, If this is a mandation, which it will eventually be in my opinion, then it should be on a ballot on a referendum, not at the Legislature.

    Don’t you find it amusing that the Governor’s education proposal was mired in the Revisor’s office all session long? And now they have this? Reactionary politics, certainly!! One should not have be made to be, and the other just simply is!

  19. A little bit late, Raye, and very transparent. You should have stood up to Charlie Webster and his/your cronies when they decided that those of us (republicans) who dared vote for another republican that you didn’t approve of (!!) not only didn’t count as “real republicans”, but deserved to be bullied, disenfranchised, insulted and mocked. It was a caucus, not an election. You guys knew exactly what you were doing, then had the audacity to insult our intelligence by pretending to be surprised at the outcome. You wimped out and played both sides of the fence, and let lots of people in your own county down. You deserve to be run out of office with the rest of the  baby kissing phonies by those of us who voted for you and now regret it.

  20. After witnessing Maine’s recent GOP caucus, my inclination is to think that a primary might be a good idea, but I don’t know that we should be so quick to make a change. The problems with the GOP primary were the result of specific people within the state GOP committee, and of specific actions that were taken by the state committee, and I don’t know that this speaks to the caucus system in general.

    On the positive side of a primary, one person (such as the GOP state chairman) would not so easily be able to manipulate the perceived outcome of a primary, as was the case with the caucus this year.

    On the negative side, the rules for participation in the primary may result in un-enrolled voters being able to participate in the selection of a party nominee. Plus, there are no assurances that even an election will be honest. Perhaps the caucus scandals were the result of checks and balances that were able to expose the manipulations and dishonesties of the state GOP committee, even if they were unable to correct the reported outcome.

    While I can certainly see why someone might look to a primary as the logical solution to a manipulated caucus, I am thinking that it might be better to elect people to the state committees and offices of our political parties who could be trusted to conduct a fair and unbiased caucus, and who would serve as checks and balances rather than to rally around their guy, as in the current GOP good-old-boy system.

    Rather than being willing to acknowledge the problem when it came to light, and to take steps to correct it, state committee members rallied around their chairman to absolve him of any responsibility for his actions.

    That is wrong, but I don’t know that changing to a primary system is the necessary answer. I am a Republican but I can’t help but think that if we can’t even conduct our own primaries honestly, why would anyone elect our candidates?

    Certainly, there are honest Republicans. However, before I decide to vote for a Republican this year, I want to know where they stood during the past caucus. Many were not in positions to do anything about it, but I know that anyone who sat on the state committee, or held political office, and yet failed to do his or her part to provide the checks and balances that we needed this year, is not someone who will receive my vote, this year or any other.

    In other words, if they chose to stand by Charlie Webster rather than the integrity of the Republican Party, they shouldn’t hold office.

  21. Maine used to have primaries, but we decided that the high cost to taxpayers was not appropriate for a tiny minority turnout just to vote in  partisan political party selection of candidates. The caucus system worked fine. Caucuses are also paid for by each party themselves to select their own candidates whereas primaries, since they are public elections, must be paid for 100% by taxpayers,

    Then along comes Charlie Webster and he is so incompetent and so untrusted that his party gets reams and reams of very unflattering press and suddenly his party leaders (who claim to be fiscal conservatives) think Maine taxpayers should foot the bill to help them try to confuse and cover up the root cause of the problem.

    Here’s an idea: dump incompetent Charlie Webster and select a party leader capable of running caucuses (like leaders from both parties for many years).

    Do not tax and spend just in an attempt to get taxpayers to foot the bill for Charlie Webster’s gross incompetence.
     

  22. I would welcome this change.  I have never felt that my voice is fairly represented in the caucus system and this year’s was a joke.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *