|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by Paul Dame
I was reluctant to write this response to the previous Vermont Daily Chronicle submission [Vermont Republicans: Your voice matters,” August 7] that came from two members of our Executive Committee. Generally speaking, I believe that internal affairs should be discussed internally. And the VTGOP Rules specifically say that that Republicans ought to resolve their differences privately instead of publicly where possible.
But when two of our members put out what most charitably would be called mischaracterizations (some others might call them lies) I feel the need to respond to restore confidence in the organization I lead and that many Vermonters want to be more successful. First, I want to make it clear that before penning and submitting this response, I gave to my detractors a courtesy which they did not extend to me, and tried to speak to them privately to better understand their concerns about proposed rule changes, some of which were first discussed back in February. It’s worth saying now that this article is considered inside baseball, it’s all contained to the internal operations of the party. So most casual observers may find little to no relevance to this entire discussion. But for those who have been alarmed – especially by talk of ranked choice voting – I will clarify some points which are now surrounded by confusion.
The detractors list two main bullet points, both of which I contend are at least misleading and at worst downright falsehoods. First they highlight:
“Rule changes affecting how we elect statewide party officers—possibly moving from our traditional voting method toward something like ranked-choice voting.”
The implied connection to ranked-choice voting is a gross and bald-faced lie. The changes we are making have nothing to do with ranked choice voting. We are not creating a ballot where we ask people to “rank” their votes. And there is no “instant runoff” component either. Not a single thing will be changing about the voting “method” in November, whether these rules pass or not. We will still be using paper ballots as we have for the past ten years or more. That part is objectively false. Like many interesting falsifications, there is a twinge of truth. The first part of the statement “Rule changes affecting how we elect statewide party officers” is true. But the change has nothing to do with ranked choice voting – which Republicans oppose for good reason.
For context, in the past delegates have come to the convention having no idea who is running and whether some offices are even contested. When voters don’t even know who is running until a minute or two before the vote – how are they supposed to make an informed decision? It’s a good point. The rule change proposed would ask candidates to submit nominations in writing up to 10 days before the meeting in order to have their name appear on the ballot. Just like any race, candidates are free to decide at the last minute to run, and can be written in or nominated. This rule will not prevent anyone from running for a seat, but it will make it clear to voters before the convention if a candidate was prepared to follow some basic at least 10 days ahead.
What the inflammatory language of the mentioned email obscured, I am happy to publish plainly so that each person can make up their own mind rather than being influenced by misleading descriptions. Here is the text that this bullet point is referring to:
“For a candidate to have their name pre-printed on the ballot for the election at the Organizational Meeting, a candidate must submit written notification to the State Chair and the State Secretary with their intention to be nominated no later than 10 days prior to the Organizational Meeting and shall include the support of at least two other State Committee members from different counties.
As you can see clearly there is absolutely nothing in that language that comes anywhere near close to being considered “something like ranked choice voting.” It is plainly trying to outline a process by which we clarify who wants to run. Now let’s move on to the second bullet point:
“A proposed shift in authority that would give the State Chair control over nominating Presidential Electors—removing that role from local towns.”
I would classify this more as “misleading” than the kind of outright lie from above. But there are several false components to this statement. First, it’s important to know that State Law requires our Presidential Electors to be selected at a Platform Convention. Local town committees do not have any authority to nominate electors currently – it happens at the Convention. Currently the party has no rules or guidelines at all on this process. What the proposed rule change would do is to clarify that a nomination process will be drafted, with approval of the Executive Committee, and that the nomination process has to be published when the notice of the meeting goes out. Currently, the state chair could make up whatever process they wanted the morning of the election. The proposed change would bring the election of our Presidential Electors in line with the way we elect our Delegates to the National Convention, which requires the process to be published well in advance. Once again, this is a rule that is being drafted not to consolidate power, but instead to give to likely voters clear information before the convention, so that they are not surprised, duped or caught off guard when the actual voting or nominating happens. So it is false to say that the rule would “give the State Chair control” because he or she would also need consent from the Executive Committee. If anything, it provides a new check on the power of the Chair by requiring the Executive Committee to consent to the rules ahead of time. Nothing would be taken away from the towns. Again, the language that is being considered is far more boring than the provocative bullet point in the email. You can read it for yourself here:
““e) Election of Presidential Electors
In accordance with 17 V.S.A. § 2721 delegates to the convention shall elect Presidential Electors. The State Chair, with consent of the Executive Committee, may set forth a process for nominations of candidate of Presidential Electors and publish the process with the Call for the Convention.”
Much ado about nothing, in my opinion. Both of these rules are trying to give voters more information, and put clearer guidelines on what should happen before an election to make the process more fair and transparent.
I also have to add that I am greatly disappointed that these two members chose to oppose the rules in this most public way. Until I saw the email published far and wide I had no indication they felt like we were moving “toward something like ranked-choice voting” despite the fact that they have been on our monthly executive committee meetings, where I even stated plainly “If you have any objections to the rules, let’s please discuss them.” This approach only further reenforces concerns I have heard from donors, volunteers and even legislators that the internal party operations have become too divisive, and it’s one of the reasons that many successful people are not getting – or staying – involved. When a new person comes to a meeting and watches an hour long discussion about obscure rules that ought to be simple and straightforward, while we neglect other important matters, it leaves them less interested in attending a second time. Regrettably, this has been a growing epidemic that has infected nearly every State Committee Meeting for some time.
I believe that if people have differences, they need to go directly to the person they have a beef with – and to do it privately. When one party to a disagreement starts the discussion with press, or social media, or some third party, the only thing that is accomplished is that the other party is diminished in the sight of others. For people who are supposedly trying to work together, it’s an unhelpful approach that tends to alienate the two parties rather than unifying them. This is a principle that many Christians find laid out plainly in Matthew 18. The concept that Jesus is trying to teach is very much counter to the culture and political environment we live in today. There is a great temptation to speak to the widest audience first, which sets ourselves in tension with personal relationships. By going to someone privately we have a better opportunity to win their support and build a coalition because we create space for humility (both for them and ourselves), and we starve pride of the larger audience it seeks.
The two members have asked for your input. Having heard both sides, I hope that you contact them and let them know what you think about this. Tell them you support these common sense changes. Let them know you oppose the unfair way that they withheld, then mischaracterized some pretty straightforward language when it was short enough to be included in the solicitation. Let them know you want them to work with me, the Governor and the House and Senate Leadership who won an unprecedented number of seats in the 2024 election. Because Democrats are already working to undermine the gains we made, and we need to go on offense starting now to recruit candidates and raise money to win the seats that could give us a majority this cycle or next. You have to let them know that this in an unhelpful distraction and that we need our focus, our energy and our public statements focused on defeating the Democrats who have made this state unaffordable for all of us. They asked for your input, let them have it.
Email then directly at:
joegervais@pm.me and augustmurray.vt@gmail.com.
If you ever have concerns or feedback, you can contact us through the state party’s website at vtgop.org, and you can even sign up to get more information about how to become involved in the party organization next month, or learn more about becoming a candidate for next year’s elections.
The author is the executive director of the Vermont Republican Party.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, politics
Dear Chair Paul Dame,
It appears that you left something out of the proposed rule change for election of state committee officers:
Rule 7 section a) organizational meeting
“All officers of the State Committee shall be elected by majority vote; if no candidate receives a majority on the first ballot, only those candidates receiving at least 30% of the vote shall be on the second ballot: if no candidate receives a majority on the second ballot, the candidate receiving the lowest number of votes shall be eliminated, and the two candidates with the highest number of votes shall proceed to a final ballot.”
How is this NOT unlike ranked-choice voting? Under the proposed rules change, a flood of candidates could result in the election of state officials who do not have the majority of support within the party. This is NOT good for the party.
I think you are mischaracterizing Murray’s and Gervais’ actions.
August Murray and Joe Gervais invited people to attend the meeting and get involved. They stated that they did not want to rule from the top but want to get people’s input on the rules changes.
I support transparency with the public. I do not consider their submission to VDC to be exposing any “dirty laundry.” Sharing one’s opinion of rules changes is not “inside baseball.”
We should be able to have open discussions about proposed rules changes within the GOP, and the public deserves to know what the GOP is doing, especially if you want to collect any money from them. I support Murray’s and Gervais’ public notice of GOP proposed rules changes.
P.S. I am the Addison County GOP Committeewoman.
Thank you Renee. I won’t add more comments because you nicely stated the concerns of many of us. My immediate reaction to Mr. Dame’s article is “thou does protest too much”. I suspect that the upcoming meeting will be very interesting.
Renee, as I mentioned to you in a private email, the language you are citing is NOT part of any proposed change. This is the current rule which was in force at the last election. Requiring a majority is not “ranked choice voting” and this principle is something that is part of the Vermont Constitution’s process for electing a Governor, and is also used at the RNC elections. The top position is required to have majority support. If a candidate fails to garner that – then we basically hold a new election until we have a candidate with majority support. There is absolutely no “ranking” of candidates or any instant runoff component.
I have no issue with these two gentleman asking for input. But I do take issue with them using false statements and characterizations that make ii sound to the average person that we are adopting a Progressive position when this is simply not true.
Chairman Dame,
The existing rule and the proposed rules change need to be assessed as a whole.
Amendment #7 a), as proposed, gives the sitting Chair and sitting Secretary exclusive early access to the names of the candidates running for State GOP positions, such as Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary, Treasurer, etc. This is problematic in combination with the existing Rule 7, which I shared in my original comment regarding procedures when no candidate receives a majority vote.
The existing rule, in combination with the proposed rule change, sets the stage for the Chair and/or Secretary to load the ballot with candidates for an outcome that is favorable to them and others running for office, as there is no language that keeps the confidentiality of the candidates from other State Executive Committee members.
We do not want ANY Chair, Secretary, or elected GOP official to have an unfair advantage.
Further, there is no language requiring the Chair or Secretary to announce the candidates to the delegates who will be voting by a specific date prior to the reorganization election.
If the purpose is to simply have a pre-printed ballot, with potential write-ins, then no. My vote will be no because of the potential for misuse of the rule to the advantage of any of the sitting Executive Committee members in any given reorganization year.
Renee, Thank you for posting your thoughts and willing to openly discuss what is going on within. This is no surprise, whatsoever. Hopefully others can understand and see your concern and elevate your ideas to fruition. We need fair and open people like yourself and others standing up for what is right. Kudo’s.
The proof is in the pudding and I’ve seen it in action, they are already picking the winners and losers….so no surprise, just more power and control .
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Current Rule 12 e) “Notice of Town Caucus” is about complying with Title 17 state law regarding public notice of a town caucus. Under rule 12, “Presidential Delegate Nominating Convention,” the purpose of the town caucus “regarding the biennial organizational Caucus” is unclear.
What is the purpose of the existing rule 12 e)?
The proposed rule change:
“Second Instance of Amendment:
Rule 12 e) shall be amended by striking the subsection and replacing it with the following:
e) Election of Presidential Electors
In accordance with 17 V.S.A. § 2721 delegates to the convention shall elect Presidential Electors. The State Chair, with consent of the Executive Committee, may set forth a process for nominations of candidate of Presidential Electors and publish the process with the Call for the Convention.”
It appears under the proposed rules change that the State Chair sets forth the nomination process, and no one within the GOP will know what the nomination process is until the Chair warns the Convention. Is this accurate? Is the nomination process subject to change at the desire of the seated Chair in any given Convention year?
Mr. Dame is part and parcel of the current division in the party. Yes, there was division before he took over. What some thought might be a cure for that, compliments of Dame, has actually been made considerably worse in my view. So now, we have new faces emerging that maybe would like to tackle this problem. And Dame becomes defensive, and OH< MY!! Dame and Scott, what a pair.
What a wonderful enlightening discussion, perhaps one of the best in many years. Thankfully the other people spoke up. Thankfully Renee has spoken up. Thank God we have a free speech zone at the Vermont Daily Chronicle, courtesy of Guy and Paul.
This is what Vermonters need to know and hear, both sides. I know what it sounds like to me……but on another note.
The division is actually wanted and fostered by both Paul Dame and Phil Scott. I’ve been to the meetings, I’ve seen what happens and doesn’t happen in the VTGOP. I witnessed firsthand how the VTGOP picks the candidate and doesn’t give tools to an opposing candidate, because….”it’s not good for the party”. When Keith Stern ran and is a good man, they didn’t even introduce him at the summer party. They wouldn’t give him any tools to run. It’s a fixed game.
It’s a fixed game, when John Klar ran and wanted to foster Agri-Republicans, he was denied at all attempts.
See with infighting, nothing can get done. When you have half the team playing soccer and the other half playing baseball, how the heck can you a football game!
If the VTGOP were truly about peace and stopping of infighting, they would allow and foster candidates to run under the VTGOP with a different flavor. Perhaps it could be as mild as not saying anything negative about our current president who in 200 days has so far had the best running office in the history of our nation. See that would be a big tent, but the current “big tent”, only fosters rinos and republicans, along with marxist and united nation supporting puppets.
We need more light shed on our little VTGOP. It’s a good ole boys club that picks the winners and loser before the primary even starts. It’s not an open or fair organization. It’s an organization that is living on hopes and dreams, working with tactics that haven’t brought ANY meaningful change in 40 years+
It’s wonderful to see open discussion, it’s healthy.
And no, successful people don’t come because there is “division”. they come to meetings and find out,
1) the county of the governnor and our capital doesn’t even have a current list of their members.
2) People are not trained.
3) There is no plan.
4_There is no platform.
5) They find there is no office in which to do business, nobody to answer the phone. 6) No good swag.
7) No team to support a run
8) No money
9) No Internet presence
10) No young people (Gen Z is more conservative than your grandfather)
11) No education
12) No readily available outline on what it takes to run and win.
13) They see people being used as cannon fodder.
14) They see people holding an office position in 2-6 offices, which can’t be taken seriously
Now the governor knows how to run a campaign, surely. He knows competition. He has had over a decade to shape the party in his own “winning” image. Why hasn’t he done so? If that’s the winning ticket……we should have 80% of the office positions!
NOBODY has worked on building the party, allowing others to build within the party and see who wins fair and square.
Nope, both you, the Lt. Gov and our Governor chose to support Biden of all candidates.
Honestly the three of you should be removed from the party and let them go their merry way. Or let a Maga team come in and see what happens/
If our President held a fundraiser in Vermont, or even an event, it would be the largest political event in our states entire history.
Everybody knows this is true.
What will you do? That shows whom you work for.
THANK YOU Neil!! I agree with what you have been willing to say here. Again, I will say that I am still a registered Republican because I am (usually) proud to call myself one. I have not been active with the VT GOP for quite a while now, esp. since 2014. I was NOT happy when those of us attending a County Meeting were told who NOT to vote for!! Following that some of us attempted to continue to attend meetings, but the “infighting” and back stabbing became unbearable. Then- the State GOP Chair sends the same message. That was it for me! What has happened to this (once) wonderful state I grew up in?! I am not saying that we all have to agree all of the time, but I do expect people in leadership positions to at least keep their opposing positions to themselves. that includes our Governor. At that particular meeting back in 2014 I raised my hand an stated-(something like) “This is a very personal decision for people to decide when they go to the voting booth”. There is more, but I will stop here.
PS- I am learning more and more varying opinions about the R meeting on Saturday, which is rather confusing, so I plan to be there.
Just think about this. If the greater GOP had their way, Donald Trump would have never been allowed to run for office.
This is what Dame is looking to do, prevent anyone from upsetting the rino apple cart of ineffectiveness and low energy candidate, they want Jeb Bush! or even worse our Governor told republicans and DEMS to vote for war monger Nikki Haley, just keep Trump from winning in Vermont.
So no, the division is clearly being played by those with the most power, instead of just being quiet, they get to publicly show whom they work for, how they think and where their allegiances lie……
so if you are wondering why your bank account has no money, here’s your sign.
And if we are quoting bible verses….here’s another.
Proverbs 24:30-34
New International Version
30 I went past the field of a sluggard,
past the vineyard of someone who has no sense;
31 thorns had come up everywhere,
the ground was covered with weeds,
and the stone wall was in ruins.
32 I applied my heart to what I observed
and learned a lesson from what I saw:
33 A little sleep, a little slumber,
a little folding of the hands to rest—
34 and poverty will come on you like a thief
and scarcity like an armed man.
You are put in office by my Lord Jesus Christ, I know not his plans and accept all of you being in control, but that doesn’t mean I have to vote for you or send you money. He’s in control, thank God for that.
And if you are wondering about internal strife…..here’s some proverb scripture to review, cheers.
3:30 Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm.
10:12 Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins.
13:10 Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom.
17:1 Better is a dry morsel, and quietness therewith, than an house full of sacrifices with strife.
17:14 The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water: therefore leave off contention, before it be meddled with.
20:3 It is an honour for a man to cease from strife: but every fool will be meddling.
25:8 Go not forth hastily to strive, lest thou know not what to do in the end thereof, when thy neighbour hath put thee to shame.
26:20 Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceaseth.
26:21 As coals are to burning coals, and wood to fire; so is a contentious man to kindle strife.
26:22 The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly.
28:25 He that is of a proud heart stirreth up strife: but he that putteth his trust in the LORD shall be made fat.
30:33 Surely the churning of milk bringeth forth butter, and the wringing of the nose bringeth forth blood: so the forcing of wrath bringeth forth strife.
Jesus is the only way, the only way for true peace. Without a changed heart we are hopeless. Lord Jesus hear our plea and pour forth your Holy Spirit, may we bear your fruit of Love, Joy and Peace, bringing a bit of heaven onto this darkened earth. I ask in your name, king of kings, ruler and creator of all Jesus Christ.
Dear Paul Dame, Truth Matters was the sign and theme of my last run for governor, in 2020, when the Covid bioweapon was being unleashed, and the (violation of all rights) vaccines were being promoted and mandates on children in schools. AS I recall, your voice was NO WHERE to be heard regarding the truth of our constitution and the rights that elected are here to uphold and serve. Let alone the truth about any element of Covid. The entire legislative body has violated their oath of office. So, clearly the Truth Matters NOT to you, it is being used as a second hand ploy to look more honorable than you are.
Does this mean that big open tent, all are welcome, is folded up and stored away? As time moves on, it is obvious how the good cop/bad cop script is flipped from side to side. The leaders of the controlled parties are very nervous – as they should be – their gaming, shaming, projecting, and deflecting is wearing thin and wearing out. There is only so long liars can lie and thieves run out of overflowing hog troughs because the Truth is – Americans are broke or far too leveraged to escape the debt noose affixed around their necks. Foreign money is betting against America and that is a bad sign for the liars and thieves. The only option left is to double down on the lies, double dog dare their opponents, with a wink and a nod, and ramp up the performance art. The rug pull isn’t quite ready yet – they need more time.
No worries though, the alien invasion is cued up with the appropriate predictive programming movie, a reboot of “war of the worlds” playing now. There is a new coof and travel advisaries in place. Along with a cornucopia (a goat’s horn?) of violent acts and Acts of enormity coast to coast. Everything is great though – America is the hottest country in the world – probably because it’s metaphorically burning from the inside out with wildfires blazing out of control for added dramatic effects.
Allegedly, a red heiffer was bbq’d over open flames – they say it was a test run – and the rest of the candidates rejected. I didn’t know ritualistic sacrifices were allowed test runs? I guess Satanists and Lucifarians aren’t as confident in their spririt cooking recipes to fullfill the Book as they once proclaimed….oh well, carry on!
The VTGOP was instrumental in working to recruit candidates last year and we WON 24 seats, held off the Clean Heat Standard that would have added up to $4 per gallon for fuel, and forced the Democrats to deal with Property Taxes and Education. We need more elected next year! Causing division now in the VTGOP is a stupid move and one the Democrats will take full advantage of. Agreed Vermont is a frustrating political environment for Republicans, but we gain more by working together on winning issues with voters than creating and exacerbating more factions inside the party. Murray’s soaring rhetoric sounds more like a pre-campaign speech for State Chair rather than any substantive content about the details of the rules he seeks to oppose.
The overall change in Vermont for the last 4 decades has been what?
Please demonstrate what wins, what tax reduction, what liberties were protected, what drug and crime were reduced, how we became more affordable, how our education was improved fiscally and content wise?
Everybody wants to save the entire thing, every election cycle because there was some small victory, “We won the governor’s seat” being the biggest. There are 112,702 people sitting on the side lines, commenting, which does nothing and waiting. The party has been and is free to continue on its current course, so don’t worry, nothing will change. There is the rub, nothing will change.
In order to get different results, you need to do different things. What if Murray wanted to be state chair, you say it like that’s a bad thing!
You bring up some fair points, but nothing has changed. Your taxes are going up for education, like it or not. Their agenda is closer to fruition despite the efforts; we are still headed in the same direction. They will rename the clean heat standard and getter done at a later date, under a different name.
If there is an outline on what objectives, plan, monies and time are set up to change these metrics, the public at large hasn’t seen any evidence or print of it, so why would people vote differently.
Whomever taps into the frustrations felt across our entire state, by all people, will get massive support, except from those pimping for the NWO.
A few comments about discontent on the internet mean nothing, they are keeping the leadership from doing what? It’s a cheap excuse for them not getting things done. You guys were given control; how can you blame us?
The same goes for the US Congress – Republicans gained more seats and the Resolute Desk. Leaders who hold the sacred House gavel and do what exactly? Paul Ryan, John Boehner, and Kevin McCarthy? They did succeed, with their Democrat brothern, to hold the lowest approval ratings in history – a decades long streak of sucessful failures yet to be unbroken. Since then – between McCarthy and Mike Johnson – what was witnessed in the well of the People’s House?
A parade and spectacle celebrating Ukraine – all waving that flag – doling out big money and big weapon prizes to an installed, cocaine saturated meat puppet.
The featured and celebrated guest, Bibi, who stood at the podium insulting, scolding and threatening the American people. Never did see a prime minister of a foreign State allowed to do that before – they all applauded and cheered – Yippee!
None of them were required to take the coof shot or restricted from going anywhere they pleased – gee, I wonder why?
A three ring circus sideshow of performers and portrayers is what we voted for and they haven’t failed to represent corporations and foreign countries. Let’s send in some new clowns to pretend “they will do something different”, “they will change things in DC or Montpelier” “they are not for sale.” They are bought off for the right price – or on a night they can’t remember what happened at the cocktail/dinner party.
Just ask Mark Coester or Gerald Malloy how much the VT GOP helped them get elected.
Right!! Malloy should have at least received far more votes than he did. We need him, esp. in DC.
Well spoken M. C. The truth is stranger than fiction. Comment from Richard Day.