Reality Check: What's the point of voting? Dirty dealings in an Ohio GOP race
(FOX19) - This case is a little "inside baseball" but when you look at how shady it appears to be, it's no wonder so many people are questioning our current political system.
Here's the background. On Jan. 31, early voting began for the state of Ohio, including for the state Republican party, and among those elections slots for the state central committee.
Each SCC has an elected male and female representative from each of Ohio's 33 state Senate districts for a total of 66 elected representatives. They are elected every two years in the Ohio primary.
Could this position be less interesting? Well, here's where a very unsexy election in Ohio gets really messy. On Jan. 31, the early voting in Ohio began, but on Feb. 3 a motion was made by state committee member, Charlie Knight, for a new rule. The rule he proposed was that in order to be seated as on the GOP state committee, candidates would have to have voted in the last three consecutive primaries.
Who cried foul? Candidates in the State Central Committee race in District 14.
There are three guys running - Scott Nichols, the founder of the Clermont County Tea Party, Curt Hartman and Gregory Simpson.
Under this new rule, two of the three candidates could not be seated, which means only one candidate - Gregory Simpson - could win the seat.
An amendment was offered to make that rule take effect in 2014 which would give everyone involved the chance to comply with this new rule but that amendment was defeated.
Then, it was brought up that GOP bylaws require that all rule suspension/changes must have a 2/3rds majority of all members, that according to Article VIII, Section 1.
But not so says GOP State Spokesman Chris Maloney, who says a simple majority is all that is need if written notice is given 10 days in advance.
So what happened? The motion passed by simple majority of 29 to 28.
But the big question, how can the GOP believe that it is appropriate to make a rule change after early voting has started that would keep 2 out of 3 candidates in a race from being seated?
"I think the timing could not be more appropriate seeing that the people are selecting candidates who will determine how 10's of millions of dollars are spent in the most important of our lifetime," said Maloney.
What Maloney said is technically untrue because allowing you to go to the ballot and vote for your candidate does not mean that you are selecting the candidate. If two of the three candidates will not be seated, then you are just going through the motions.
The bottom-line, Maloney says it is important that Republicans are leading Republicans and questions why these two candidates didn't vote in past primaries. Well, that may be a good question, but it doesn't change the fact that the rule was changed after early voting had already started.
The reality is this isn't about the candidates as much as its really about the voter it's not much of an race when only one candidate is allowed to win. In that case, what's the point of voting?