Skip to main content

View Diary: Confirmed, Chuck Schumer couldn't be more wrong in his wrong attempt to break voting (117 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Depends on the purpose (0+ / 0-)

    If the purpose is to select a representative of the party, then let the parties run the primaries. They can pick the date, pay for the rental of state buildings for the elections or beg churches to let them use them, etc.

    But the purpose also seems to be simply to narrow the field. In the case of jungle primaries that is done completely without respect to party affiliation.

    •  Actually, I'd like to see primaries done by (0+ / 0-)

      some kind of online method, if it could be done such that people with little or no internet access could be accommodated.
      But primaries are run by the government to ensure that they are not corrupted, that the parties get an honest result and that is something worth supporting with our tax dollars, IMHO.
      Narrowing the field is a major benefit not only to the parties but to thirds and independents and to the election officials. Having 5 Democrats, 6 Republicans and 5 more assorted thirds running would be a h3ll of a mess to officiate and would end up with a winner that, conceivably could win with 10 percent or less of the votes cast. The way around that would be IRV but that would take a revision to the election laws that so far, hasn't been possible on a state level, nevermind National.

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 09:31:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Primaries are not to simply narrow the field (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CwV, underwriter505

      And for good reason - you don't want a mess like California.

      In addition it's waaaaay more efficient to have the parties field, and select, the candidates they feel is best to represent that party.

      Two candidates from the same party running against each other in a general election is a waste of money and time.

      •  "Party Leaders" still have the power to decide (0+ / 0-)

        who will get their support and resources in the primary.

        Two candidates from the same party in the general is not a bad result for democracy.  It tells the other party they need to change, and the two surviving candidates for the general will have the winner be the one that is closer to the center of voters (unless the other party does not show up to vote).  

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 11:01:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wrong in several ways (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Garthhh
          Party Leaders" still have the power to decide who will get their support and resources in the primary.
          So what? That's all meaningless if that party's candidate is eliminated from the ballot.
          Two candidates from the same party in the general is not a bad result for democracy.  It tells the other party they need to change,
          Again - so what? They get that message from losing in a general election too. And we don't have to go through this mess.
          and the two surviving candidates for the general will have the winner be the one that is closer to the center of voters
          Sez who? What makes you think that would be the case? That's just a fantasy you and Schumer have. And why would the "center" candidate be the better choice? Many of the problems we have stem from "center" candidates.

          Add to this the miserable turnout for primaries in California since this "jungle" system has been adopted.

          •  I did not say top 2 is good for Democrats on the (0+ / 0-)

            left, here and elsewhere I explicitly write that this change reduces the power of the left in the Democratic Party and the right in the Republican Party.  My comments were about analysis not advocating for or against.

            I have not reached any conclusions on whether in total this benefits Democrats or not.  I can see how it benefits Sen Schumer (D-Wall Street).

            Top 2 primaries would likely make a big change in US politics.

            The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

            by nextstep on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 03:29:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Top 2 Primaries (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bobcat41702, aratinga

              like we now have in California still seem to be just as polarized as before.  They just mean that in the main election no one gets a chance to vote for anyone in a smaller party.

              I looked at the state senate & representative lists of candidates before the Nov. 2012 election.  Most were one Dem & one GOP, but some were just one party (most of whom were 2 GOP with a few 2 Dem).  None of the other parties were even able to get on the ballot.  I am guessing that it will be the same in the Nov. 2014 election for those races that are covered by this law.

              Before today I had never heard them referred to as Jungle Primaries.

        •  Disagree (0+ / 0-)

          We were the party "leaders." Ordinary Democrats meeting with their neighbors every month.

          We produce more renewable energy than any other state - WA Gov. Jay Inslee

          by mrobinson on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 01:53:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  But The Problem (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Garthhh

      is that, in a divided district, the DISCIPLINED party will limit its candidates, so that votes are divided among a smaller group.  The freedom-believing party will allow more candidates, and the votes will thus be divided among a larger group, resulting in a smaller number of votes for each candidate. Thus CA has ended up with GOP vs GOP general elections in districts with large Democrat registration.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site