It has to do with, natch, the presidential primary calendar.
Republican rules for the first time give the members of the Republican National Committee, by a 2/3 vote, the option of adopting a mandatory 2012 state primary election calendar.
States whose legislatures, which may be controlled by Democrats, refuse to schedule a primary that complies with RNC rules face a draconian choice.
Either their party gives up its presidential primary and instead holds (and pays for) a presidential preference caucus -- or the state suffers a loss of 1/2 of its delegates to the 2012 Convention.
Many party leaders, who, for ideological or personal reasons, prefer a low-participation caucus rather than a higher-participation primary, see this Rule as a great opportunity to transform the party. (It would become more conservative.)
And many party leaders in small states have long resented what they perceive as the excessive influence of the larger number of Republican voters in bigger states and would like to force bigger states toward the end of the primary calendar where their voters might have less influence
So -- the key factor in the RNC race is that the Rule must be presented to the RNC by a drafting committee largely appointed by the RNC Chairman and cannot be amended by the RNC membership.
Thus the new RNC Chairman could wield enormous power over the shape of the 2012 Presidential race and the composition of the 2012 convention which could adopt additional rules that would have even more impact on the future of the party.
My correspondent notes:
"Few have publicly discussed this element of the RNC race but some Chairman candidates are believed to have promised spots on the drafting committee in exchange for votes. And there is some discussion about which candidates are stalking horses for a particular presidential candidate. One question RNC candidates have not been asked, is, to whom have they promised drafting committee spots? Have any candidates promised more appointments to the committee than the number of available spots? And under what conditions would each candidate favor forcing a state to abandon its primary for a caucus, or cut its delegation in half?"
Either of these options could disenfranchise millions Republicans.
Think of this way: many voters, ranging from military personnel fighting overseas to mothers who must stay home to care for children, would likely be disenfranchised by a forced shift from primaries to caucuses, and millions more would be disenfranchised if state convention delegations were cut in half.
My correspondent concludes: "A more basic question might be: Why should the leaders of party which claims to favor federalism and local control want to exercise a power that gives 168 people (actually a 2/3 majority of 112) the right to disenfranchise millions of Republican voters around the country?"
| 
