Parties and Primaries

[CycloWizard]

I was going to start a thread asking why anyone feels that they should join a political party, but the seemingly obvious answer is that you would otherwise be blocked from voting in that party's primary in some states. As someone who was disenfranchised by the system this year, I think that our primary system needs significant reform.

My proposal is very simple: rather than only allowing a person to only select from the members of one party, a person should just be able to select from the entire candidate list. The list should include R's, D's, independents, libertarians, and anyone else who wants to run (without, of course, any indication of party on the ballot). The top two vote-getters from this poll would then be the candidates on the final ballot in November. Winner take all in the final vote.

This seems like a good synthesis of the alternative election schemes that I've seen proposed over the last few years. It allows an (in my opinion) improved scheme for allowing people to pick their candidate. If their candidate doesn't win the initial voting, the vote isn't completely wasted and you can still pick your poison in the final vote. All this without splintering the final vote among many candidates, having a Perot or a Nader skew the results from what people really wanted, et cetera.

Would you support this? Why or why not?

 

[JJChicken]

Ehh, that's a bit out there - who's going to support the two top candidates in your system? The two-party system allows both candidates from both parties to utilise the political infrastructure and personnell of their respective parties.

One thing that worries me is that the current primary then election system ends up getting people from the far right/left becoming nominees by appealing to their base better then making the reknown "shift to the center".

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Barack Obama
Ehh, that's a bit out there - who's going to support the two top candidates in your system? The two-party system allows both candidates from both parties to utilise the political infrastructure and personnell of their respective parties.

One thing that worries me is that the current primary then election system ends up getting people from the far right/left becoming nominees by appealing to their base better then making the reknown "shift to the center".

What do you mean, "support?" Who will vote for them? Anyone that thinks they're better than the other guy. If you mean financially, I think that the public finance system should be enforced. This election was a textbook case of what happens when one guy gets to spend 3x as much as the other guy - it doesn't matter if he's a better product or not, since he has so much more marketing. This would eliminate the need for fundraising, which in turn eliminates (or significantly diminishes) the temptations of favoritism, nepotism, and corruption. In fact, I would be in favor of having each candidate fill out a survey of their stances on every issue, then giving each of them a specified amount of airtime a week before the election. That would be more than enough information for the voters and would eliminate the ridiculous trumpeting of talking points that has charaterized every election I've witnessed, particularly the most recent one.

 

[fskimospy]

Seems like a reasonable idea to me. It won't happen in a million years, but it seems reasonable.

 

[sandorski]

Your system is Bizarre and way too freakin drawn out. Your Political Parties seem more like Government mandated Institutions than what the rest of the Western World(AFAIK) views Political Parties. It seems to me that such non-changeable parties are part of the Political problem in the US, but could be wrong I suppose.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Your system is Bizarre and way too freakin drawn out. Your Political Parties seem more like Government mandated Institutions than what the rest of the Western World(AFAIK) views Political Parties. It seems to me that such non-changeable parties are part of the Political problem in the US, but could be wrong I suppose.

All valid points which would be addressed and alleviated, if not solved, by my proposal.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: sandorski
Your system is Bizarre and way too freakin drawn out. Your Political Parties seem more like Government mandated Institutions than what the rest of the Western World(AFAIK) views Political Parties. It seems to me that such non-changeable parties are part of the Political problem in the US, but could be wrong I suppose.

All valid points which would be addressed and alleviated, if not solved, by my proposal.

Your proposed system looks equally bizarre to my Canuck eyes!!

 

[CycloWizard]

Bump for the working neffers.

 

[fskimospy]

I really just think that by far the most unworkable element to it is the required legislative changes, which would need the two major political parties to vote themselves out of power.

 

[smack Down]

Wow I like you idea, you even made a wiki page for it and had it implemented in two states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...rtisan_blanket_primary

 

[techs]

I think we should just go ahead and make Sarah Palin the Republican nominee for 2012.
All in favor?

 

[daveshel]

I was similarly disenfranchised this year: I am registered Independent in Arizona. This meant that my participation in the Presidential primary was severely muted. At the time I was a bit upset. But if I had been able to participate, I might have been able to cast a vote for the weakest candidate in the party I least wanted to see win. I supported Omama, but I could have voted for Huckabee is an effort to dilute the McCain vote (Huckabee was pretty much out of it by then, and Obama was far enough ahead that he didn't need my vote). So the question is whether the goal of enfranchising everybody is worth the cost of enabling 'strategic' votes that indirectly affect the outcome. I have my doubts.

 

[OFFascist]

stupid idea.

I do however support open primaries like we have here in Texas. When primary season comes around you vote in whichever parties primary you want to.

 

[IronWing]

Nope, can't say I support that. I propose going in the opposite direction and ending primaries-as-public-institution entirely. Let card-carrying, dues-paying members of the political parties pick their own candidates by any method the parties choose. It is really none of my business how the Greens/Reps/Dem/Libs pick their candidates as I don't belong to those parties.

The benefits I see to leaving candidate picking to the parties without government involvement are three fold. First, it saves the taxpayers the expense of hosting primaries. Second, the candidates selected will better reflect the parties' values and ideas (the Bill Clintons and John McCains of the world won't end up fronting parties with whom they have fundamental disagreements). And third, general election voters will lose their false sense of party identification. Folks tend to say "I'm a Dem/Rep/Lib/Green" when, in fact, they are no such thing; they merely register as that for the purpose of voting in a particular party's primary. Breaking down this group identification among non-party member voters can pave the way for the emergence of new parties that might better reflect voter values and break the current stranglehold on power exercised by the two dominant parties.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
-snip-
Would you support this? Why or why not?

Well, all you've really done is describe a two-tierd election system, a first election with the second being a run-off between the two highest vote getters.

Of course, and many here will like this, you've completely obliterated the parties. You've given the parties NO opportunity to select their own candidates.

Our primaries are NOT (government) elections even though they appear that way. Rather, it is an opportunity for the various parties to chose who they want to run. Since parties are private entites, they can pick who they want pretty much any d@mn way they want. IMO, any attemp to limit that (beyond rasonable means) is an affront to our Constitutional rights under the 1st Amendment (especially "peaceably assembly) and an intrusion by the federal government (which BTW cannot interfer here IIRC, as elections are the domain of the states under the Constitution anyway).

I.e., bad idea. Unworkable idea. Unconstitutional idea.

Fern

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: techs
I think we should just go ahead and make Sarah Palin the Republican nominee for 2012.
All in favor?

Keep your turds in your own thread, troll.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: OFFascist
stupid idea.

Thanks for that wonderful insight.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Fern
Well, all you've really done is describe a two-tierd election system, a first election with the second being a run-off between the two highest vote getters.

Of course, and many here will like this, you've completely obliterated the parties. You've given the parties NO opportunity to select their own candidates.

Our primaries are NOT (government) elections even though they appear that way. Rather, it is an opportunity for the various parties to chose who they want to run. Since parties are private entites, they can pick who they want pretty much any d@mn way they want. IMO, any attemp to limit that (beyond rasonable means) is an affront to our Constitutional rights under the 1st Amendment (especially "peaceably assembly) and an intrusion by the federal government (which BTW cannot interfer here IIRC, as elections are the domain of the states under the Constitution anyway).

I.e., bad idea. Unworkable idea. Unconstitutional idea.

Fern

I agree that the way things are now, it's unconstitutional. That's why I said, "The way things should be" in the OP summary. It will never happen, but should it be the way things are?

 

[the unknown]

No. I can already vote bipartisan in the CA primaries, and I don't need to be registered to any one party. I can vote D or R without being registered to either. The top two vote-getters being the only two candidates on the ballot also limits my ability to vote, in case I decide that I do not like either and want to vote 3rd party or protest vote.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: the unknown
No. I can already vote bipartisan in the CA primaries, and I don't need to be registered to any one party. I can vote D or R without being registered to either. The top two vote-getters being the only two candidates on the ballot also limits my ability to vote, in case I decide that I do not like either and want to vote 3rd party or protest vote.

The whole point of the proposed system is to de-emphasize the role of the two major parties. It would make it much more likely that a non-major party candidate would have a real shot at getting elected.

 

[Stunt]

I like the idea...
Now the next step is getting rid of the 'super tuesday' primary. The primary process was intended to be a way for any American to become president; having a grassroots campaign of retail politics and slowly build money and media exposure...

 

[Infohawk]

Do you want more than two parties or not? If you do, you need to advocate for a proportional representation system like they have in Europe. It's very straightforward. You don't need to come up with something new. There are drawbacks to each system (i.e., Italians being unable to form a government because of too many parties), but you have to choose what you prefer.