As I catch back up on this thread from a couple of weeks ago, I see the following discussion questions:
1) Are Principal Nominees fair, since nationwide (or even on the same slate) apparently more competitive candidates can be found?
Response: "Fairness" is very subjective. Principals are allowed in the law, and as long as they are allowed - congressmen and senators will use them, if for no other reason than it gives them a power rush. Maybe the "principal" had to overcome significant circumstances to even be considered qualified. So what is more fair, a candidate with a 4.7GPA who lived in an upper middle class home with all the advantages which accompanied him, or a 3.9GPA who lived in a trailer park with divorced parents and who worked 25 hours a week (while going to school) so they could participate in EC's?
You always have to look at appointments from both a local and nationwide perspective. Congress has attempted to address the later by requiring offers of appointment to the highest ranking 150 qualified candidates who were not selected from their specific nominating slate.
2) Do MOC's play "favorites" by appointing principles for friends/relatives of political allies?
Response: Sure they can, but I don't think it happens very much. IMO, this is not due to the "high integrity" of our members of congress, but because the risk of loss of political capital is too high. Most MOC's use some kind of nominating board to interview candidates, and the board makes the recommendations and decisions which the MOC accepts and approves. This gives them shelter from the appearance of favoritism and accusation. MOCs want the the good press that comes with the appearance of helping their constituants, not to mention they would pay at the polls and in the press if it ever came out they were helping their friends and allies while punishing the children of others. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I am suggesting that I think it is rare, not commonplace. Not that it couldn't decay into such a state.
All that said, but I will add that U. S. Grant was a "principle" nominee to USMA and was appointed as "pay back" to a political rival (his biography makes interesting reading). While he was a Plebe, there were discussions in Congress about closing West Point (sound familiar?) and there is some evidence that he hoped it would happen. I don't know how competitive USMA appointments were in 1830, but I still think playing favorites with nominees is an exception not a rule.
3) Why is that NAVY seemed to not honor principle nominees this year?
Response: This appears to an anomoly this year and they seemed to have attempted to right that wrong by offering appointments to NAPS instead. Anything can still happen to those four candidates. I will also direct you to my post on that thread where I searched through the Code of Federal Regulations (
http://www.serviceacademyforums.com/showthread.php?p=369852#post369852). What I found was that there does not appear to be parallel language for the USNA as exists for West Point and AFA in the Federal Register (there is almost identical parallel language in the USC 10). Even though this may be the case, USNA has traditionally honored principal nominees; if they consistently had snubbed their noses at the will of the nominating Congressmen, I am confident that someone in power would have already corrected that wrong by now as appropriations for spending are not determined by the Navy.
4) Are Principal Nominees less qualified than unranked, competitive nominees? (kind of out of order as it goes with #1)
Response: You have to be kidding, right? When you consider the three distinct pillars that USNA, USMA, and USAFA use in 'scoring' candidates - everyone of these candidates is equally qualified, if only on different merits. If it was all academics (and academics are a big part) then just rank everyone by SAT or ACT score and take the top 1000. My National Merit son would have received appointment offers to all three. If was all leadership, give everyone a numerical rank of their activities and accomplishments and take the top 1000. Give lots of points for being so athletic they became 'captain' of a football team but less points for winning the state championship in Tennis (since it is not a 'team' sport). Or give more points for having started charity XYZ which is tutoring in the inner city, but less points for being actively engaged in JROTC. Or if it was all athletics, rank everyone by CFA score: highest scores get in...
My point is, when everything is taken in balance, there are no "less" qualified candidates, just candidates who didn't end up with as high of weighted candidate scores as others. Comparing candidates to others on the same slate is as close as one can get to being objective, but even then some subjectivity comes into play. That is why the top 150 not winning their specific slates are supposed to receive offers.
Long post, but my point is that I see no reason Principal Nominees will be or are in process of being eliminated unless the law itself changes, which I see as being highly unlikely. Further I don't think it should change. The process has worked for 100+ years. Let sleeping dogs lie.