The idea of switching from primary elections to conventions to nominate Republican candidates in South Carolina is quite controversial. Much of the opposition comes from a place of fear or ignorance. Even the SCGOP has sent out email blasts urging people to reject the idea and calling supporters of the convention “disruptors” (one of those emails and text messages are shown below.) The GOP should instead have an open and honest discussion about the benefits this could bring for unifying the party, increasing party participation, and finding great candidates.
Let’s first understand the purpose political parties serve. They exist as tools for the public to assist in their decision-making in the general election. Whether advocating a single issue or full governing philosophy, their job is to craft a platform, sell it to voters, and find candidates who will support it based on past voting records, interviews, and party scrutiny. Then the voters decide in November if the candidates the parties put up speak to what matters most to them. That’s the deal. However, when party members control the platform but have zero say over who best represents it, we’re left with a broken system – and it shows.
Let’s also understand what South Carolina state law and the GOP rules say about nominating conventions.
Section 7-11-30 in the S.C. code of laws regulates the way in which a political party can nominate candidates for public office. If the Republican Party wanted to switch from the primary to the convention, the law states that three-fourths of the convention must vote for it, and the majority must vote for it in the next party primary. That makes it pretty tough to make a change, but it’s no surprise that the legislators elected by the primary method would want to make it hard for the party to change the rules that got them elected. The party has set itself up for failure since switching to primaries.
Rule 11 in the South Carolina Republican Party Rules also lists their own guidelines for nominating candidates. It acknowledges an acceptable method for nominating candidates is the convention. If the convention is used, state delegates elected by the county parties would vote to nominate candidates for federal and statewide offices such as State and U.S. House and Senate. County delegates chosen by each precinct would pick the Republican nominees for sheriff, county council, etc. The rules allow for elected representation at every level.
There are many objections to moving to the convention, so let’s address some of those now.
“It would disenfranchise over 750,000 Republican voters!”
Critics of the convention method assume every primary voter is a loyal Republican, but in South Carolina, anyone can vote in our primaries. The same people who cry that the problem with open primaries is that “Democrats are voting in our primaries” are the same ones insisting that we would be “stripping away Republicans’ voices” by switching to conventions. Well, are these Republicans voting in our primaries or not?
Was it “disenfranchisement” when the SCGOP voted to cancel the presidential preference primaries in 1984, 2004, and 2020? Republican leadership that now demonizes convention supporters for wanting to “silence” Republican voters is the very same leadership that proudly kept them from even casting a vote in 2020, saying it saved the taxpayers $1.2 million. The party sets these rules so that it can ultimately make the decision for their presidential nominee without requiring votes from the people. Maybe the party does not truly value the voters’ input as much as it says it does.
Speaking of the presidential primary, how important is it really?
In fact, the outcome of a presidential preference primary has been described as having “no more force or effect than the response to a telephone inquiry by a poll taker as to the Presidential choice of individuals” by former SC Attorney General Daniel McLeod in 1980, echoed by former A.G. and current Governor Henry McMaster in 2007. Although the state Republican Party rules currently bind the votes of its delegates to the outcome of a primary, the party can change those rules at any time.
The reality is that the party holds the power in deciding how important your vote is in a presidential primary. The precious presidential primary that must be preserved and protected is only a democratic illusion that leads voters to believe they’re participating in the legal, binding process to choose their party’s nominee.
“Switching to primaries is how Republicans started winning in South Carolina!”
The party leadership certainly has been successful with finding candidates to run and win as Republicans. With supermajorities in the state House and Senate and five of six congressional district seats, it’s understandable that the party fears any change that threatens its power.
The problem however is that legislators who say they represent the party of small government and fiscal conservatism do not legislate that way. Government spending and debt continues to grow at alarming rates under Republican control at the state and national level. TruthInAccounting.org reported in 2024 that the debt burden for each South Carolina taxpayer is $7,700 and gave our state a ‘D’ rating. This organization also reveals the truth that each American taxpayer’s share in the national debt is almost $1 million! A Republican-controlled SC House has passed a hate crimes bill and state law still allows exceptions for murdering babies in the womb, both violating equal protection clause in both the State and U.S. Constitution.
The party has failed to adequately hold these legislators accountable when they vote for laws that increase the size of government, put us further and further into debt, stealing our future, and violating constitutional rights. Primaries, closed or open, all across the country have allowed these politicians to evade being held accountable by the party they claim to represent.
“The people should be picking the candidates, not party insiders!”
These “party insiders” are delegates elected by Republicans from each level of party organization, many of whom are speaking out against this idea. Why wouldn’t duly elected delegates want to fully embrace the responsibility to represent Republicans in their neighborhood, county, and state? Delegates already make the decisions for county and state party leadership, rules, and the platform. Let’s empower them to affect real change when elected officials do not adhere to the Republican platform. That is how we ensure the public’s trust in a political party. After all, what is the point of having a party platform if the party does not have a real voice in selecting the candidates who will carry it forward?
“Conventions are not conservative or Republican.”
America is a constitutional republic, and nominating candidates by convention mirrors that system. Republicans proudly support this system of government, do they not? State law requires that party organization relies on a system of representation rather than direct democracy. The party does not allow all precinct officers to directly vote for state delegates, state chairman, party rules, etc., and nobody bats an eye.
Republicans who support the convention system want to solve the problem without government intervention and new laws. They support individuals’ freedom to choose where to spend their money instead of involuntarily providing it to private political parties. They support a system of representation over mob rule.
“True conservatives would lose in a nominating convention!”
It is no secret there is division within the Republican Party, most notably between S.C. House representatives in the Freedom Caucus and what their supporters call “RINO’s” in the House Republican Caucus. Nominating these candidates for public office by convention would help mitigate this internal party issue.
So, what if some Republicans elected by primary voters wouldn’t win under a convention system?
First, it could mean those candidates don’t truly back the platform. If party members – those who have volunteered their time and effort for the advancement of the party ideas, donated their own money to the party, and/or voted for the party representation that shapes the party platform – reject these “true conservatives”, it’s a sign that their voting records or ideas simply don’t reflect the party’s vision. That would be a win, ensuring our nominees aren’t just “talking the talk”.
Second, if they lose, it might suggest that party members don’t know how to spot candidates that align with the party platform. But if that’s true, why would we entrust a broader pool of average primary voters – many of whom aren’t even committed to the party – with the decision? Primaries dilute expertise, not enhance it; conventions concentrate it among those committed to the party platform.
Third, if neither of the above are true, then it might signal that the party platform needs revising. Conventions are also a time when the party members vote to modify the party platform and rules. The party may need to modify the platform and identify which planks are too broad or contradictory. The party would be forced to self-correct; we either get the right candidates or refine what we stand for.
Conventions are a better solution than primaries because they force candidate alignment with the party platform – something Republicans in office are clearly failing to do. The platform calls for closed primaries, yet the very legislators meant to promote it refuse to pass the legislation. The party cannot continue to rely on the government to solve this for us, so we must elect party delegates and leadership that will do what it takes to help the party succeed. Having representation simply with an ‘R’ next to the name is not enough. It is time the party recognizes that.
The post Fact vs. Fiction: Addressing Perceived Issues with Nominating Conventions appeared first on Palmetto State Watch Foundation.