History may be on the side of New Hampshire and South Carolina, but have you ever wondered why the first states to hold REPUBLICAN presidential primaries and give the winner almost insurmountable momentum allow independents to vote for the nominee?
This is an issue I would like to see SD GOP Chairman Tim Rave, National Committeeman Dana Randall and National Committeewoman Mary Jean Jensen raise with other RNC voting members from across this country. In my opinion, if New Hampshire wants to have the influence a first in the nation primary carries, then they should hold their primary exclusively with members of Republican party.
Why do we allow independent voters who may or may not hold Republican view points to have so much influence in our party’s early primaries? Why don’t we say to New Hampshire and South Carolina “you can be first, but then you have to hold a closed primary.” Otherwise as a party, let’s take offers from states with a closed primary to go first. Currently we’re penalizing states like Florida and Nevada with closed primaries for moving their primary up, while we reward early states with open primaries by protecting the traditional sequence.
Nothing would please me more than to know the Republican party nominee was chosen by Republicans in the earliest stages of the primary.