|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 9, 2010 15:50:57 GMT -8
I voted for an open election and I like it.
1. When I voted yesterday the person in front of me asked for a Republican ballot and stated he always votes for the republican that has the least chance of winning.
2. Ross Perot sucked off 28% of the vote and changed the dynamics of the 1992 Election.
3. Voting for 3rd (or 4th) party candidates, is not only a wasted vote but due to opportunity costs, it is really a vote for whoever you don't like.
4. Recently a snubbed Republican candidate threatened to wage a 3rd party push if he loses in the primary.
Each of these issues is solved by an open primary. You can vote for whoever you like. If someone gets the majority of the votes, they win and therefore no general election for that office. If not, the top two are the only ones on the ballot in the general election. This insures that whoever wins gets the majority of the votes. It also increases the chances of a 3rd party candidate winning an office, because people are now free to vote for whomever they like in the primary. If a 3rd party candidate beats out one of the two other parties, they are in the general election instead of that party. That will swing a lot of votes their way from that excluded party. I could see an attractive Libertarian candidate beat a Republican or a Green Party candidate beat a Democrat. We could even have 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats all fall below a single Libertarian and a single Green Party candidate. That would make an interesting general election. This levels the playing field and takes away the builtin advantage of the parties.
Good idea. I am glad it will be law in California.
|
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jun 9, 2010 16:02:28 GMT -8
Exactly. What could be wrong with a system that gives the incumbent even a better chance of re-election?  |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 9, 2010 16:12:30 GMT -8
Exactly. What could be wrong with a system that gives the incumbent even a better chance of re-election? How so? |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jun 9, 2010 17:29:51 GMT -8
Exactly. What could be wrong with a system that gives the incumbent even a better chance of re-election? How so? Just to name a few reasons.... An incumbent often squares off with a gaggle of unknowns at a time when the political season is not in full swing (people not paying attention). Name recognition often trumps at this time and it could be final with the 51% rule. No time to develop adequate name recognition to overtake an incumbent. Also, the opponents of the incumbent have to fight many more people in this case (not just the other guy(s) in their party). They could loose both to their opponent within their party, any third party candidate and loose to the incumbent outright (if they should get 51% of the vote), thus it is harder for the opposition in general. The opposition does not get the benefit of "coat tails". The opposition party at the local, state and national levels are often not yet coherent during the primary season. The victors of the party's Governor primary, for example, would set the tone and key platform topics for lower office elections during the general election. Thus the opposition candidate could be more potent during the general election. But if their is no contest because of the 51% rule, who can say what would have happened? And then there is the intrigue when party loyalists (who are sure of the their incumbents' chances of at least getting into the general election with a second place finish) vote for the weaker of the two opposition candidates. That alone should be reason enough to hate this bill. I know they could do something like this if they went so far as to register in the opposition party but that would be somewhat extreme. Now it can be done without the hassle, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 9, 2010 21:15:14 GMT -8
Well, I voted NO, so I was on the losing side. I realize that there are arguments in favor of this, but I'm still not convinced. Frankly, I don't think we really know how this will work out in practice.
Is it not at least possible that the two candidates with the most votes in the primary could both be from the same party? I'm not sure that would be such a good thing.
It seems to me that this system tends to further weaken the established political parties. Yes, I know, many think that's a good idea. I'm not so sure. Right now a well financed unknown can be elected with virtually no input from the party organization. While many people disparage the party bosses, they do tend to reject candidates who seem attractive but really have no good qualifications. We really see that at the presidential level (which, I realize, may not be affected by this law). Those of us who bemoan our current Chief Executive believe that nobody so inexperienced and untried would ever have been nominated were the party influence over the system as strong as it was years ago. (And that theory has nothing to do with the color of a candidate.)
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by sdtosf on Jun 9, 2010 21:17:28 GMT -8
Adopted at their last convention, California's Republican Party now has the ability to bypass open primaries and move to a caucus system, which means a small committee can nominate someone instead of voters.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on Jun 10, 2010 12:12:12 GMT -8
Voting 3rd party is not a wasted vote, honestly I'd say voting either Republican or Democrat is.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 10, 2010 12:25:44 GMT -8
I voted against this measure, but I can see both sides. This could actually make third party folks more viable. so it has some merit.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 21, 2010 9:00:13 GMT -8
...Is it not at least possible that the two candidates with the most votes in the primary could both be from the same party? I'm not sure that would be such a good thing... AzWm I didn't think too deeply about that but now that I do, I like this change even more. Think about it. If two candidates from the same party win the primary, what would have happened in the old system? One of them would have won in the primary and easily won in the general election. This means the elected official is really chosen by only that party's majority. Under the new system a candidate more in the center has a much better chance. For instance: Suppose there is a district that is 80% democrat and 60% of the democrats are raving liberals and the rest are more middle of the road. Their representative will always be a raving liberal, even though 52% of the electorate is not. Under the new system two Democrats could be #1 and #2 and the middle of the road candidate could win with 20% of the opposition vote. GOODBYE MAXINE WATERS. Is the new law only not for President or is it not for all national elections? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 21, 2010 9:11:51 GMT -8
Just to name a few reasons.... An incumbent often squares off with a gaggle of unknowns at a time when the political season is not in full swing (people not paying attention). Name recognition often trumps at this time and it could be final with the 51% rule. No time to develop adequate name recognition to overtake an incumbent. People will pay attention because it is more important now. If an incumbent can get 51% of the vote they deserve to be reelected. Also, the opponents of the incumbent have to fight many more people in this case (not just the other guy(s) in their party). They could loose both to their opponent within their party, any third party candidate and loose to the incumbent outright (if they should get 51% of the vote), thus it is harder for the opposition in general. If the encumbent doesn't get over 50% someone has to be second. That person then has a chance to make a simple him or me campaign. If that is a third party candidate, I see no problem with that. In fact, I think that is great. The two parties have can no longer bank on just being somewhat better than the other party. They have to deliver. The opposition does not get the benefit of "coat tails". The opposition party at the local, state and national levels are often not yet coherent during the primary season. The victors of the party's Governor primary, for example, would set the tone and key platform topics for lower office elections during the general election. Thus the opposition candidate could be more potent during the general election. But if their is no contest because of the 51% rule, who can say what would have happened? If they can't stand on their own two feet, they don't deserve to be elected. A governor elect may have more power to sway the voters than a parties candidate. And then there is the intrigue when party loyalists (who are sure of the their incumbents' chances of at least getting into the general election with a second place finish) vote for the weaker of the two opposition candidates. That alone should be reason enough to hate this bill. I know they could do something like this if they went so far as to register in the opposition party but that would be somewhat extreme. Now it can be done without the hassle, etc. This happens now. (I think, McCain was the Republican candidate due to this) But it happens with no chance of screwing the pouch. Under the new system if enough of the "sure" party switch, they could "by accident" elect an opponent in the general. That is something they couldn't otherwise do. It will have a dampening effect. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 21, 2010 9:16:37 GMT -8
Voting 3rd party is not a wasted vote, honestly I'd say voting either Republican or Democrat is. Under the old system it is an exercise in futility. Under the old system if you had a second choice, it could be a wasted opportunity to help get your 2nd choice get elected over your 3rd choice. Under the new system you get another chance. Your vote is a vote for chance at naming your 2nd choice, if your candidate doesn't win or place but merely shows (a little horse racing lingo). |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jun 21, 2010 20:55:40 GMT -8
People will pay attention because it is more important now. If an incumbent can get 51% of the vote they deserve to be reelected. Until such time that the primary gets as much attention and scrutiny by the voters as in the general election (which will likely be never), the incumbent will be favored to win outright or always get to the general at a minimum. Advantage - Incumbent. If the incumbent doesn't get over 50% someone has to be second. That person then has a chance to make a simple him or me campaign. If that is a third party candidate, I see no problem with that. In fact, I think that is great. The two parties have can no longer bank on just being somewhat better than the other party. They have to deliver. The third party candidate is not the problem nor will it ever be (outside of some sort of scandal perhaps?). A third-party candidate running against a gerrymandered incumbent is at a greater disadvantage yet. Advantage - Incumbent. If they can't stand on their own two feet, they don't deserve to be elected. A governor elect may have more power to sway the voters than a parties candidate. Again, the incumbent is potentially protected by avoiding any coordinated campaigns from top to bottom by the opposition party. Standing on the advantage of the incumbency (and not necessarily their two feet) is what you get with this law. Advantage - Incumbent. This happens now. (I think, McCain was the Republican candidate due to this) But it happens with no chance of screwing the pouch. Under the new system if enough of the "sure" party switch, they could "by accident" elect an opponent in the general. That is something they couldn't otherwise do. It will have a dampening effect. Open primaries more easily allow tampering with the other party's nominee. And in the gerrymandered world of CA politics, the minority party candidates are most likely to be affected by this. Advantage - Majority party (most often the party of the Incumbent). You can see how this played out in 2008. Dems outnumber GOP in registration nationally and, as you said, McCain likely got the nomination for this reason. And as a result, the GOP, and subsequently the nation, could care less for him, and it showed. And as far as the 3rd party hope is concerned, people are dreaming if they think that 3rd parties candidates are doing anything other than finishing second in a general election (instead of the 3rd place they get now). Advantage - Incumbent. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jun 22, 2010 7:00:49 GMT -8
|
|
