djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,469
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 28, 2016 13:05:41 GMT -5
i am kinda saying "f*&k primaries". why do you think that primaries are important? MOST countries seem to do fine without them. Don't most countries have party organizations that select the person who will represent them in the election? We used to have that but decided in most places that we would allow the general population that identifies with the party decide who from a slate of candidates (if more than one person wishes to run for the office for that party) through a primary election system. The problem is that a growing number of our general population does not have a strong or any identification with one party but still have two main political parties. Moving away from a strict partisan primary makes sense (again see what we have done in Washington State). If we do away with any sort of primary election, what we would have is a large number of candidates on the general election ballot. It would lead to the real possibility that no one would get 50% plus one vote. Do we have the person who got the support of 1 out of 4 voters take office or do we have some sort of run off election? Personally, I see plurality office holders as a bad idea. And I don't see a significant difference between a top two primary before the general election and a top two run off election after the general. i can't comment on the first half of this. i don't know. for the second part, i clearly stated that we do runoffs for less than 50% +1, or use rank choice balloting, which eliminates the need for a runoff. and there are two significant differences between a GE w/runoff and a primary. the first is that a GE w/runoff is multiparty. and the second is that there is the possibility of no runoff.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,221
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 28, 2016 13:09:53 GMT -5
you run an election. if someone gets 50% of the vote +1, he wins. if he gets less than 50%, then you have some criteria for running off. rank choice voting gets you there without an additional election, but there are lots of other ways. that gives you very vibrant elections, where strippers and bus drivers can get into a runoff and potentially win. i like that. i want that. some people don't. like frumpy elitists and people that run this country from ivory towers. This seems so simple and right. Logistical question. For an election held the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November, when do you hold the run off election? You would need to give election officials time to get ballots printed, etc. Would you attempt to hold it before Thanksgiving? Between Turkey Day and Christmas? I personally would prefer to not extend the campaign season beyond the current calendar.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,221
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 28, 2016 13:14:01 GMT -5
Don't most countries have party organizations that select the person who will represent them in the election? We used to have that but decided in most places that we would allow the general population that identifies with the party decide who from a slate of candidates (if more than one person wishes to run for the office for that party) through a primary election system. The problem is that a growing number of our general population does not have a strong or any identification with one party but still have two main political parties. Moving away from a strict partisan primary makes sense (again see what we have done in Washington State). If we do away with any sort of primary election, what we would have is a large number of candidates on the general election ballot. It would lead to the real possibility that no one would get 50% plus one vote. Do we have the person who got the support of 1 out of 4 voters take office or do we have some sort of run off election? Personally, I see plurality office holders as a bad idea. And I don't see a significant difference between a top two primary before the general election and a top two run off election after the general. i can't comment on the first half of this. i don't know. for the second part, i clearly stated that we do runoffs for less than 50% +1, or use rank choice balloting, which eliminates the need for a runoff. and there are two significant differences between a GE w/runoff and a primary. the first is that a GE w/runoff is multiparty. and the second is that there is the possibility of no runoff. Washington State's top two primary is multiparty. And the fact that there is the possibility of no runoff is because of the ability of entrenched power/money to get a majority to go along with their choice.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Jan 28, 2016 13:23:17 GMT -5
I think in Wisconsin it's one ballot but you have to vote along party lines, so all Dem. or all Rep. candidates. Or possibly all 3rd party. If you try to mix and match parties, the ballot gets spit back out of the machine, I think.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jan 28, 2016 13:23:46 GMT -5
Just cut to the chase during the primary season. Stick every single name from every party on a single ballot. Each voter picks one person for each position. The top few candidates by percentage are the only ones that go to the general election. Whichever one of them gets 50% plus 1 vote in the general wins. Easy. Simple. No party controlled BS. Every single candidate that gets enough signatures to have their name on the ballot has their name on all the ballots during primary season.
You guys realize that with our current two party primary system there's already the possibility for needing runoff elections. Picture that after primary season you have a not very popular Dem and a not very popular Pub on the general election ballot. You also have a fairly popular third party candidate. They each split right around 33% of the vote in the general election. Which one takes office? Do you have somebody that didn't get a majority of votes take office? Do you hold a runoff?
To my knowledge it's never happened for a major position, but it theoretically could.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,469
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 28, 2016 13:29:07 GMT -5
This seems so simple and right. Logistical question. For an election held the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November, when do you hold the run off election? You would need to give election officials time to get ballots printed, etc. Would you attempt to hold it before Thanksgiving? Between Turkey Day and Christmas? I personally would prefer to not extend the campaign season beyond the current calendar. you can set the time frame. two weeks? four weeks? whatever. or, again, you could use rank choice, which automatically runs off, and produces a winner. or you could move the first election back a month or two. personally, i would like to not have any electioneering outside of election year. you announce no earlier than 1/1, no later than 4/1, GE held 10/4, and runoff 11/4. how about that?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 6:25:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2016 13:32:15 GMT -5
Just cut to the chase during the primary season. Stick every single name from every party on a single ballot. Each voter picks one person for each position. The top few candidates by percentage are the only ones that go to the general election. Whichever one of them gets 50% plus 1 vote in the general wins. Easy. Simple. No party controlled BS. Every single candidate that gets enough signatures to have their name on the ballot has their name on all the ballots during primary season. You guys realize that with our current two party primary system there's already the possibility for needing runoff elections. Picture that after primary season you have a not very popular Dem and a not very popular Pub on the general election ballot. You also have a fairly popular third party candidate. They each split right around 33% of the vote in the general election. Which one takes office? Do you have somebody that didn't get a majority of votes take office? Do you hold a runoff? To my knowledge it's never happened for a major position, but it theoretically could. What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House. www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#no270I believe it has happened, but I didn't look up when. ETA: It happened in 1824
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jan 28, 2016 13:37:29 GMT -5
For the presidency. Is there a similar provision in each state for how to settle a three way split in Senate races and whatnot?
Didn't Alaska almost have to do a runoff election a couple cycles ago due to a popular third party candidate?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,221
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 28, 2016 16:23:02 GMT -5
Just cut to the chase during the primary season. Stick every single name from every party on a single ballot. Each voter picks one person for each position. The top few candidates by percentage are the only ones that go to the general election. Whichever one of them gets 50% plus 1 vote in the general wins. Easy. Simple. No party controlled BS. Every single candidate that gets enough signatures to have their name on the ballot has their name on all the ballots during primary season. See Reply #7 for the Washington State system that does exactly that.You guys realize that with our current two party primary system there's already the possibility for needing runoff elections. Picture that after primary season you have a not very popular Dem and a not very popular Pub on the general election ballot. You also have a fairly popular third party candidate. They each split right around 33% of the vote in the general election. Which one takes office? Do you have somebody that didn't get a majority of votes take office? Do you hold a runoff? To my knowledge it's never happened for a major position, but it theoretically could. Here is a recent example selected because it came to mind: 2014 Maine Governor Election ResultsMr. LePage currently is the sitting governor of Maine based on these results. Here is general info on US House races: Plurality Wins in U.S. House of RepresentativesHere is an example where there was a run-off: (scan down to see election results) Bill Cassidy Louisiana has a unique non-partisan "jungle primary" electoral system, meaning that all candidates run on the same ballot on November 4 instead of holding separate party primaries in advance of the general election. The rules of the “jungle primary” dictate that if no one candidate receives over 50 percent of the vote in the general election, the two candidates with the most votes advance to a runoff election.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,221
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 28, 2016 16:26:37 GMT -5
... personally, i would like to not have any electioneering outside of election year. you announce no earlier than 1/1, no later than 4/1, GE held 10/4, and runoff 11/4. how about that? There is that pesky little First Amendment that creates a problem with the bolded.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,221
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 28, 2016 16:34:36 GMT -5
For the presidency. Is there a similar provision in each state for how to settle a three way split in Senate races and whatnot? Didn't Alaska almost have to do a runoff election a couple cycles ago due to a popular third party candidate? No. The 2014 race was won with a plurality of the votes and the person with 48.1% is now the governor. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_gubernatorial_election,_2014
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,221
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 28, 2016 16:37:59 GMT -5
For the presidency. Is there a similar provision in each state for how to settle a three way split in Senate races and whatnot? ... It is important to remember that in our federal system, all elections are at the state or lower level and are governed by state laws. There are some federal campaign finance laws. Even "presidential" elections are actually state elections for a slate of candidates to the Electoral College.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 28, 2016 20:40:45 GMT -5
Just cut to the chase during the primary season. Stick every single name from every party on a single ballot. Each voter picks one person for each position. The top few candidates by percentage are the only ones that go to the general election. Whichever one of them gets 50% plus 1 vote in the general wins. Easy. Simple. No party controlled BS. Every single candidate that gets enough signatures to have their name on the ballot has their name on all the ballots during primary season.
You guys realize that with our current two party primary system there's already the possibility for needing runoff elections. Picture that after primary season you have a not very popular Dem and a not very popular Pub on the general election ballot. You also have a fairly popular third party candidate. They each split right around 33% of the vote in the general election. Which one takes office? Do you have somebody that didn't get a majority of votes take office? Do you hold a runoff? To my knowledge it's never happened for a major position, but it theoretically could. Again, look at Washington. We DO have every name on the same ballot. The only difference with what you are suggesting is that only the top two from the primary go on to the general. That effectively IS your runoff.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jan 29, 2016 7:10:36 GMT -5
It's pretty simple. If you want to choose who the Democrats are going to run, then become a Democrat and get involved in the primary process. If you want to choose who the Republicans are going to run, do the same. If you want to start an Independent party, tea party, conservative party, libertarian party or socialist party, then do that.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jan 29, 2016 7:13:03 GMT -5
There is much more integrity in the process this way. We select our best, you select your best. If i could come in and vote on the Dem side, then obviously, i am going to vote for the one I think is easier to defeat in the general election. What is the point of that?
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,617
|
Post by swamp on Jan 29, 2016 9:13:54 GMT -5
NY has closed primaries. I did not realize other states had open primaries until recently
There is something to be said for allowing open primaries so you get candidates who don't pander to the base and the wingers.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jan 29, 2016 9:18:21 GMT -5
I posted some time back where one political candidate manager called up the opposing #2 political candidate,
giving the #2 guy polling info they had that allowed him to pull ahead of the #1 opposing candidate because,
they did not think their candidate could beat the one that was currently running first in the polls, but they were sure that they could beat the #2 candidate.
It worked, after giving the #2 candidate the info, he won the primary, lost the general election.
Yea, politics at its best.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,385
|
Post by movingforward on Jan 29, 2016 9:23:46 GMT -5
There is much more integrity in the process this way. We select our best, you select your best. If i could come in and vote on the Dem side, then obviously, i am going to vote for the one I think is easier to defeat in the general election. What is the point of that? Not necessarily. I think there are many people out there who just want the RIGHT person. They could give two craps about party affiliation. Essentially they are FORCED to pick a party if they want to vote in the primaries. It is just downright stupid.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jan 29, 2016 9:26:13 GMT -5
There is much more integrity in the process this way. We select our best, you select your best. If i could come in and vote on the Dem side, then obviously, i am going to vote for the one I think is easier to defeat in the general election. What is the point of that? Not necessarily. I think there are many people out there who just want the RIGHT person. They could give two craps about party affiliation. Essentially they are FORCED to pick a party if they want to vote in the primaries. It is just downright stupid. There is no "right" person in the Dem party. Sorry.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,617
|
Post by swamp on Jan 29, 2016 9:29:13 GMT -5
Not necessarily. I think there are many people out there who just want the RIGHT person. They could give two craps about party affiliation. Essentially they are FORCED to pick a party if they want to vote in the primaries. It is just downright stupid. There is no "right" person in the Dem party. Sorry. that is by far the stupidest thing you have ever posted.
Look at the person, not the party affiliation.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,385
|
Post by movingforward on Jan 29, 2016 9:43:45 GMT -5
Not necessarily. I think there are many people out there who just want the RIGHT person. They could give two craps about party affiliation. Essentially they are FORCED to pick a party if they want to vote in the primaries. It is just downright stupid. Pick another party. Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Communist. there are other choices, but unless people organize they won't become viable. I absolutely 100% agree with you but it doesn't seem to be happening and the two dominate parties are doing everything in their power to stop it from happening.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,469
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 29, 2016 12:06:26 GMT -5
Not necessarily. I think there are many people out there who just want the RIGHT person. They could give two craps about party affiliation. Essentially they are FORCED to pick a party if they want to vote in the primaries. It is just downright stupid. There is no "right" person in the Dem party. Sorry. for every person there is a right candidate.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jan 29, 2016 13:38:32 GMT -5
There is no "right" person in the Dem party. Sorry. that is by far the stupidest thing you have ever posted.
Look at the person, not the party affiliation.
Yeah, and any "person" that is going to align themselves with the Dem party of liberal socialism and the welfare state isn't going to be the right person in any way shape or form.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jan 29, 2016 13:40:04 GMT -5
People who are "independent' usually are people who are poorly schooled in the differences between the parties. Between socialism and capitalism. Between private ownership and property and govt control. Between personal responsibility and the social welfare state. So, yeah, sit on the fence and pretend. But then why should you vote in the primary if you can't even figure that out?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,469
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 29, 2016 13:43:37 GMT -5
People who are "independent' usually are people who are poorly schooled in the differences between the parties. Between socialism and capitalism. Between private ownership and property and govt control. Between personal responsibility and the social welfare state. So, yeah, sit on the fence and pretend. But then why should you vote in the primary if you can't even figure that out? that's not a difference between the parties. both parties are "mixed economy". both want to socialize certain aspects of the economy. the GOP wants to socialize policing and the military. the Democrats want to socialize social welfare. between the two of them, lots of things are socialized. there is no pretending. that is the reality. you can choose what you want socialized, but it is not a choice between "free market capitalism" and "socialism", it is a choice between different flavors of mixed economy. figure it out.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,385
|
Post by movingforward on Jan 29, 2016 14:02:02 GMT -5
People who are "independent' usually are people who are poorly schooled in the differences between the parties. Between socialism and capitalism. Between private ownership and property and govt control. Between personal responsibility and the social welfare state. So, yeah, sit on the fence and pretend. But then why should you vote in the primary if you can't even figure that out? No, most people who are independent are sick to death of BOTH parties. Some people are also capable of agreeing with certain aspects of both parties while not agreeing with other aspects. This why we need a viable third in this country. Some of us are capable of seeing outside the box. Also, I find it completely laughable when anyone thinks that EITHER party really gives a crap about anything other than lining their own pockets. People need to spend just ONE day observing a legislative session in their own state. Anyone who doesn't think that corporations run this country is the one who is "poorly schooled."
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jan 29, 2016 14:07:53 GMT -5
People who are "independent' usually are people who are poorly schooled in the differences between the parties. Between socialism and capitalism. Between private ownership and property and govt control. Between personal responsibility and the social welfare state. So, yeah, sit on the fence and pretend. But then why should you vote in the primary if you can't even figure that out? No, most people who are independent are sick to death of BOTH parties. Some people are also capable of agreeing with certain aspects of both parties while not agreeing with other aspects. This why we need a viable third in this country. Some of us are capable of seeing outside the box. Also, I find it completely laughable when anyone thinks that EITHER party really gives a crap about anything other than lining their own pockets. People need to spend just ONE day observing a legislative session in their own state. Anyone who doesn't think that corporations run this country is the one who is "poorly schooled." So, start a viable 3rd party. Develop principles and a platform. Or, take back your own party. Yeah, i am sick of a lot of things too. So, now i am only going to vote for candidates that I support. If they don't EARN my vote, they don't get it. If someone worse wins as a result, oh well. Until we ALL start doing that, nothing is going to change. If all of you keep voting for the lesser of two evils, then expect more of the same. If all of my candidates go down in flames year after year, at least i am trying. But, if you keep propping up the establishment candidates, then nothing will ever change.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,469
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 29, 2016 14:21:41 GMT -5
third parties BECOME viable when people start thinking independently and VOTING FOR THEM.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jan 31, 2016 21:25:12 GMT -5
The point is that you have the members (or those who self select to be) of that party choosing the person who will represent them on the general election ballot. Primaries were created to take that decision out of the hands of the party bosses.
I can see the potential for one party uniting to vote for an unelectable candidate for the opposing party's primary, but I don't recall it ever happening here.
I haven't seen it either but the potential is there. Especially in years with an incumbent running unopposed for President...or if one party wraps up who will be the rep earlier. It's definitely there....
|
|