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.