Skip to main content

View Diary: Karl Rove runs out of ideas. Looks to keep getting paid by pushing Howard Dean's 50-state strategy (122 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Trust me, it is even worse to see a Republican's (11+ / 0-)

    name on both sides of the ballot as we did in California District 08. A Republican probably would have won, but under the Stupid CA law, we didn't even get a Democrat to oppose him.

    "I cannot live without books" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1815

    by Susan Grigsby on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 05:12:40 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  What district is that? (6+ / 0-)

      I'm not familiar with that law.

      Since when is the party that embraces all the top tenets of Satan allowed to call the God shots?--wyvern

      by voracious on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 05:37:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's the Top Two thing that went into effect here (11+ / 0-)

        The top two vote getters from the primaries go to the final election, regardless of party.  In most areas, you'll still end up with a Democrat and Republican (but much harder for third party candidate to make a showing).  In a heavily Democratic or Republican district, it's possible that both candidates will be from the same party.

        The theory was that it would potentially lead to more moderates getting a shot, but I don't see it.

      •  Top 2 primary vote getters (5+ / 0-)

        regardless of party, are the 2 candidates (for state offices) for the general.  Some cities have passed more complicated run off   procedures for the local elections (in Oakland if one is a candidate one can knock on doors and ask to be the people's number 2 choice (it is complicated)).

         In 2010 we got tired of the expense and the effort of run offs and voted for the initiative.  More info here (Debra Bowen, SoS, is better at explaining it than I am).

        "It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man." -- Thomas Paine

        by sailmaker on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 06:00:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for the link, I still think it sucks. I am (4+ / 0-)

          a Democrat and want my party to have a candidate running in all partisan elections. The way the law is now, I will probably never again see a Democratic candidate running below US Senator. That strikes me as being a pretty high price to pay to save a few bucks.

          "I cannot live without books" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1815

          by Susan Grigsby on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 06:56:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The June Primary (5+ / 0-)

            looked like this.  

            I am an election officer and it irks me that I didn't think of how bad  it might be in gerrymandered districts to never have a party choice.  I am sorry now that we fell for stuff like this. All I thought about were the election officers coming back as many as four times, the parties having to organize get out the vote time and again, the recounts, always the provisional ballot stinks, and so on.

            Food for thought.

            "It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man." -- Thomas Paine

            by sailmaker on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 07:30:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's a good idea... (0+ / 0-)

              For one California has non partisan redistricting so it takes some of the risk of gerrymandering out of the picture. However I'm not sure how local districts are drawn so that might be problematic. With that said, in a State like California the top two primary benefits us, by allowing us to elect more progressive democrats. The trade off is that we aren't competitive in some districts, which I'm ok with. We can't win every district, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site