By Richard Engle

Many people asked me why I did not speak for the caucus at the recent Republican convention at which the proposal failed with support of about a third of the convention. After all, I favored the return to a caucus system for many years. I wrote articles and did interviews with numerous media outlets on the matter. I debated for it, traveled the state for it, and spent significant funds in its promotion.

In 2003, I took the show on the road and promoted the caucus to eighteen county conventions. The cause seemed clear enough at the time. I argued that the caucus system would increase the party's volunteer base and its small donor base. Using a caucus system would increase Oklahoma Republican's influence on the Presidential election. It would bring a horde of Republicans into the party conventions. Most importantly for me, the determination of how our Delegates to the National Convention should vote is a party function and not a proper function of state government.

To this day, most people don't understand that the Presidential Preference Primary is not like other primary elections. With other primaries the winner becomes the nominee in a fair, one-man-one-vote system. With other primaries, if one candidate does not garner a majority of the votes then we have a runoff election. The Presidential Preference Primary does very little. It is utilized by the party to bind most of our delegates as to how they are to vote at the convention. It is not used for any other purpose.

Many have complained that the Electoral College should be abandoned because we don't really vote for President in the General Election. The Presidential Preference Primary is even further removed from the concept of direct election. A candidate for President need not receive a majority of the vote in any state to win the nomination. We all figured that out when John McCain won nearly all our delegates with just over a third of the vote. On top of that, the number of delegates awarded has little to do with the population of the state. The Republican Party "rewards" additional delegates to states that are typically red and elect Republicans. This means that Oklahoma gets many more delegates voting for John McCain than does Oregon which has a nearly identical population.

On top of that, we have "Super Delegates." A "Super Delegate" is a delegate to the national convention on the basis of position rather than being elected. They are not bound to any candidate, which further removes the votes at the National Convention from the voters of the Presidential Preference Primary.

Having said all that, I have had a change of heart on the matter. Clearly I am not alone. Gary Jones supported the change to a caucus last time saying it would be good for the party. Also, National Committee members Lynn Windel and Bunny Chambers were active in supporting it six years ago. Along with them are a number of people who supported the caucus the last time on principle and changed out of fear of association with the former Ron Paul supporters who supported it this time.

I guess calling them "former" Ron Paul supporters refers to the fact that Ron Paul will not ever run for President again. However, Ron Paul is still a Republican member of the US House and will likely run for reelection in 2010. I am sure his national base of support will help him in reelection. On the flip side, it is doubtful that John McCain will ever be a candidate for anything again. The other candidates, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Tom Tancredo, Alan Keyes, Jim Gilmore and company are not in any public office at all. Being a "supporter" of Ron Paul is proper, but continued support for the other previous candidates is just silly.

Thus the reason for my change of heart. I am now a Ron Paul supporter. I didn't want him to be President and still don't. I do want him to stay in Congress and to grow in influence there. I also want his constitutional ideals to grow in influence in the party.

"Wait a minute," you might say, "Why would support for Ron Paul turn you off the caucus when most of his supporters favored it?"

One could suggest that the "Paulists" were disingenuous in their support for the caucus. Paul supporters made up about one third of the delegates to the state convention two times in a row. They are clearly not persuading the other delegates to the state convention to adopt their liberty loving constitutionalist views. They are here to stay and will end up dramatically changing the Oklahoma Republican Party. The first time there is any division among the establishment in the party, they will be king makers. It will happen, it always does.

That is, of course, unless the attendance at the Precinct Meetings, County Conventions, and the state Convention increases exponentially due to passage of the caucus proposal. The opportunity to impact the state party depends on keeping it small. Some have suggested that Ron Paul supporters favored the caucus to help it fail.

It could be that they were exactly that scheming. It could be their experience with black helicopters taught them how to conspire to get what they want.

It could also be that my tongue is planted firmly in my cheek. But who knows for sure. I can say that the Convention "after party" held by Paul supporters was a joyous celebration. One would think they were very pleased with the results.

Will the caucus come up again? Oh yes, again and again and again, until it passes.