RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:34 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:43 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17669
https://delaney.house.gov/

I heard Rep Delany today on the POTUS Channel and I agreed with everything he had to say. This gut is running for President and would make a great one. I believe he said he was the 3rd most moderate Rep in the House. He was in favor of offshore money returning to the US at a reduced tax rate but, opposed the Trump Tax Cuts because the revenue that will be raised by that money went to fund tax curs for the wealthy. He stated he wanted to use the money to fund infrastructure, fixing our roads and bridges etc.

The down side is he is so moderate that Iafraid primarty voters will consider him a DINO and he won't be able to pass the purity test so many hard core Dems seem to have. Even though I hope you all give him a serious look and consider how much better it is to have half a loaf as opposed to going hungry.

I am considering to change my registration to Dem so I can vote for him in the SC primary. I am also hoping since he has little chance at winning the nomination he gets tabbed as VP. In order to balance the ticket and attract voters like me who are becoming more and more disenfranchised by the hard core RW.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:46 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12326
Location: Sunny South Florida
[from Wiki]
On July 28, 2017, Delaney became the first major Democrat to announce he is running for president in 2020.

Ehhh, it's too soon. But then, with our elections, it's seeming like it's never too soon.

Don't know enough about him to judge. Looks like he's already collecting money. Never too soon to start collecting money. :D
https://www.johnkdelaney.com

There's this.
The Open Our Democracy Act is a bill introduced in the United States House of Representatives by U.S. Representative John Delaney. The bill would establish Election Day as a federal holiday, mandate open and top-two primary elections so that all eligible voters can participate in them, and end gerrymandering by requiring independent commissions to draw the districts in each state.

Yeah. There's that thing in the middle. Jungle primaries for every state in the U.S. ... ?

No f'n thank you.

They seem to be working fabulously in California, no way do I want to try this in all 49 other states.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:40 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:39 am
Posts: 2080
If he can defeat Donald Trump in 2020, I'll vote for him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:43 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12326
Location: Sunny South Florida
Won't be any serious polling until 2019. Won't mean much until 2020.

The good news is both Donald and him don't have to wait until then to collect money for their campaigns.

All ironies intended.

I think Zowie brings this up ... some countries don't let you declare your candidacy until six months before the election.

Oh what a world.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:41 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10977
https://delaney.house.gov/

I heard Rep Delany today on the POTUS Channel and I agreed with everything he had to say. This gut is running for President and would make a great one. I believe he said he was the 3rd most moderate Rep in the House. He was in favor of offshore money returning to the US at a reduced tax rate but, opposed the Trump Tax Cuts because the revenue that will be raised by that money went to fund tax curs for the wealthy. He stated he wanted to use the money to fund infrastructure, fixing our roads and bridges etc.

The down side is he is so moderate that Iafraid primarty voters will consider him a DINO and he won't be able to pass the purity test so many hard core Dems seem to have. Even though I hope you all give him a serious look and consider how much better it is to have half a loaf as opposed to going hungry.

I am considering to change my registration to Dem so I can vote for him in the SC primary. I am also hoping since he has little chance at winning the nomination he gets tabbed as VP. In order to balance the ticket and attract voters like me who are becoming more and more disenfranchised by the hard core RW.


That seems like a fine idea Glen. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:04 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10977
[from Wiki]
On July 28, 2017, Delaney became the first major Democrat to announce he is running for president in 2020.

Ehhh, it's too soon. But then, with our elections, it's seeming like it's never too soon.

Don't know enough about him to judge. Looks like he's already collecting money. Never too soon to start collecting money. :D
https://www.johnkdelaney.com

There's this.
The Open Our Democracy Act is a bill introduced in the United States House of Representatives by U.S. Representative John Delaney. The bill would establish Election Day as a federal holiday, mandate open and top-two primary elections so that all eligible voters can participate in them, and end gerrymandering by requiring independent commissions to draw the districts in each state.

Yeah. There's that thing in the middle. Jungle primaries for every state in the U.S. ... ?

No f'n thank you.

They seem to be working fabulously in California, no way do I want to try this in all 49 other states.


The top two primaries are working OK in California. I've decided that I like the system. That's my opinion.

What I see it doing is diluting the party effect where very liberal or very conservative party members since the opposing side is not voting choose a candidate who either can't win, or if they do win are hated by the opposing side.

I saw a positive effect of that in last nights results.

I suggest this reading. The median voter theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:03 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17669

The top two primaries are working OK in California. I've decided that I like the system. That's my opinion.

What I see it doing is diluting the party effect where very liberal or very conservative party members since the opposing side is not voting choose a candidate who either can't win, or if they do win are hated by the opposing side.

I saw a positive effect of that in last nights results.

I suggest this reading. The median voter theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem



California Democratic Party is trying to kill the two party system

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:10 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12326
Location: Sunny South Florida
Looks to me like both major parties avoided worst-case scenarios from the California "jungle primary" system on semi-uber Tuesday. All in all, neither party seems terribly dissatisfied with it.

That said -- I still see two flaws.

It will make it almost impossible for third parties to emerge from a primary into the general election. There's almost no scenario whatsoever in which the top two won't be either Dems or Repubs. Now, look, you and I both know third parties will almost always get defeated in the general, anyway. Just seems to me like it's moving the elimination round to an earlier time, that's all.

That means you'll never see a Green or Libertarian candidate at a general election debate ... won't even ever get to hear their voices. Not sure I like that.

Then there's this one described by 538. Just because it didn't happen Tuesday, doesn't mean it couldn't.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ca ... h-parties/

Let’s say you have a district that’s perfectly split — 50-50 — between Democratic and Republican voters, but 10 Democratic candidates run for the seat compared with only two Republicans. The two Republicans might get 25 percent of the vote apiece, while the Democrats each receive 5 percent. That would advance the two Republicans to the general election, locking up that district for the GOP.

[snip][end]

Under the jungle system, if one party runs only 2 candidates in the primary, but the other party has 9 or 10, this pretty much guarantees voters in the general will be looking at 2 candidates from the same party. It puts a penalty on having more candidates run on one side than the other.

Don't like that, either. :|

I'd like to see more data for a few more primary elections on how this is affecting California elections, before replicating it in other states.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:11 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10977
Looks to me like both major parties avoided worst-case scenarios from the California "jungle primary" system on semi-uber Tuesday. All in all, neither party seems terribly dissatisfied with it.

That said -- I still see two flaws.

It will make it almost impossible for third parties to emerge from a primary into the general election. There's almost no scenario whatsoever in which the top two won't be either Dems or Repubs. Now, look, you and I both know third parties will almost always get defeated in the general, anyway. Just seems to me like it's moving the elimination round to an earlier time, that's all.

That means you'll never see a Green or Libertarian candidate at a general election debate ... won't even ever get to hear their voices. Not sure I like that.

Then there's this one described by 538. Just because it didn't happen Tuesday, doesn't mean it couldn't.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ca ... h-parties/

Let’s say you have a district that’s perfectly split — 50-50 — between Democratic and Republican voters, but 10 Democratic candidates run for the seat compared with only two Republicans. The two Republicans might get 25 percent of the vote apiece, while the Democrats each receive 5 percent. That would advance the two Republicans to the general election, locking up that district for the GOP.

[snip][end]

Under the jungle system, if one party runs only 2 candidates in the primary, but the other party has 9 or 10, this pretty much guarantees voters in the general will be looking at 2 candidates from the same party. It puts a penalty on having more candidates run on one side than the other.

Don't like that, either. :|

I'd like to see more data for a few more primary elections on how this is affecting California elections, before replicating it in other states.


With regard to your criticism that you'll never see a Green or Libertarian candidate at a general election debate I would ask you to look at the US house primary election results: http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol- ... ults-2018/


1) Anthony Mills (Nonpartisan), advanced to the general election in District 5, North Bay, Napa, will be running against a Democrat.

2) Ronald Kabat (Independent), advanced to the general election in District 20, San Benito, Monterey, will be running against a Democrat.

3) Kenneth Mejia (Green), advanced to the general election in 34, Central L.A., will be running against a Democrat.

4) Rodolfo Barragan (Green), advanced to the general election in District 40, Central L.A. County, East L.A, will be running against a Democrat.

:|

Compare that to your state for US house elections.

With regard to 538 scenario, why not look at what actually has happened and not look at an implausible? There have been a case here and there where two Republicans, or two Democrats nuke it out. But this system is new and people are still learning to use it. In the case where the district is not 50/50, instead like 70/30 having two Republican or two Democrats actually gives the voters more choice not less.


And I'm getting tired about hearing about The Jungle primary. It's a put down not a description. It hearkens to another Jungle phrase used to put down Black people. Just start calling it California's primary system.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:29 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12326
Location: Sunny South Florida
1) Anthony Mills (Nonpartisan), advanced to the general election in District 5, North Bay, Napa, will be running against a Democrat.


In that primary, the three candidates were one Democrat and two independents/nonpartisans ... outcome for top 2 kinda inevitable.

Quote:
2) Ronald Kabat (Independent), advanced to the general election in District 20, San Benito, Monterey, will be running against a Democrat.


Don't know District 20. Obviously the other Democrat, Deitch, was unpopular. He only got 4% of the vote. BTW: once again no Republican in the primary race.

Quote:
3) Kenneth Mejia (Green), advanced to the general election in 34, Central L.A., will be running against a Democrat.


In District 34, the Democrat was running in the primary against him and a Libertarian. Once again: with no Republican in the primary, third party in the top two was inevitable.

Quote:
4) Rodolfo Barragan (Green), advanced to the general election in District 40, Central L.A. County, East L.A, will be running against a Democrat.


Ummm ... when there's only two candidates in the primary, which there were, a D and a Green, those two candidates automatically advance to the general. :roll:

Cool Sam. Got any examples of this happening when there WAS a Republican in the jungle primary at all? Yeah. You don't.

In fact, District 20 was the only case where there was a 2nd Democrat. Don't know anything about this Deitch. Could be bad breath.

Quote:
Compare that to your state for US house elections.


Several times I have seen an Independent, Libertarian, or Green candidate even in my own district on the general ballot though they have never won the general election.

That's because they either went through no primary or an uncontested primary or an inevitable primary in their own party. :mrgreen:

There have been many third parties that advanced to the general in House races in my state. They almost never win the general election, but remember we're discussing primaries.

Quote:
With regard to 538 scenario, why not look at what actually has happened and not look at an implausible?


What's so implausible about this? In the system you like so much, whichever major party has the least people running in the primary, has an advantage over the party that doesn't.

That isn't an implausibility, it's an intrinsic flaw.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:44 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12326
Location: Sunny South Florida
Here watch this. BTW, the technical term is "nonpartisan blanket primary". Also, California isn't the only state using it already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpartis ... #Criticism

This scenario is so plausible, it happened in the real world. ;)

August 2nd, 2016 Washington State Primary

Duane Davidson Republican 322,374 (25.09%) Runoff
Michael Waite Republican 299,766 (23.33%) Runoff
Marko Liias Democratic 261,633 (20.36%) Defeated
John Paul Comerford Democratic 230,904 (17.97%) Defeated
Alec Fisken Democratic 170,117 (13.24%) Defeated

Three Democrats running, two Republicans.

Together, the three Democrats got around 51% of the vote. But because they split it three ways ... the top two vote getters were the two Republicans, even though they shared together only 48% of the vote ... and a Republican won the general.

Got that, Sam? 51% of that district's voters wanted a Democrat to come out of their primary ... but they got two Republicans in the general, and obviously a Republican won.

Also, check this (admitted hypothetical:)
Under the nonpartisan blanket primary, a party with two candidates and only 41% popular support would beat a party with three candidates and 59% popular support if voters split their votes evenly among candidates for their own party.

That strikes me as downright unfair. About up there in unfairness with gerrymandering.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Last edited by ProfessorX on Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:56 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:34 pm
Posts: 4936
Given you history with political predictions, (hows President Romney working for you glen? And Jebbie, hows that Jebbie working out?) you would be better suited not to go out on a limb right now.

_________________
Glenfs posted about the Left's War On Women. Glenfs posted this after the Cosby Verdict "Gloria Allred is a media hound and an asshole. The most dangerous place to be is inbetween her and a microphone or camera". 04/27/2018.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:00 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12326
Location: Sunny South Florida
OK, I'm just trying to see if glen understands that if he doesn't like the California primary system, the Democratic presidential candidate he says he supports wants to pass a federal law to make that system national.

I like the other two parts of the bill, BTW ... but that middle part for me is a deal breaker.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:17 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:34 pm
Posts: 4936
The Top Two Vote Getter System we have in California is a one helluva hot mess. It basically shuts down the two party system for the General Elections.

In the California Senate Race, as it stands now two days after the Primary where Diane Feinstein (Incumbent) and Kevin De Leon, both Democrats advance to the November Election, there will be no Republican Challegner on the November Ballot for the U.S. Senate.

Congressionally, Democrats were not shut out of keys races in Southern Calfiornia and the Central Valley, and even heavily Republican Districts, a Democrat will be on the ballot.

Looking at local races, well in San Francisco Former California State Senator Mark Leno is in a neck and neck race with President of Board of Supervisers for the City and County of San Francisco London Breed to become next Mayor. Breed briefly served as Acting Mayor of San Francisco after unexpected death Mayor Ed Lee.

The Top Two sucks, plain and simple.

_________________
Glenfs posted about the Left's War On Women. Glenfs posted this after the Cosby Verdict "Gloria Allred is a media hound and an asshole. The most dangerous place to be is inbetween her and a microphone or camera". 04/27/2018.


Last edited by marindem on Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:39 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12326
Location: Sunny South Florida
Well, we agree, Marin. That's why I don't want your hot mess applied in all 50 states.

BTW, that crazy thing you had a while back where you let 8000 people run for governor, including the porn star and Gary Coleman, and then elected Conan the Barbarian ... Guvnerpalooza, or whatever it's called ... not bringing that here, either.

Weird thing ... I do remember Sam saying a while back he didn't like open primaries, because the Dem party (and any other) should get to choose their own nominee. See, I get why the burgeoning number of people called independents want that. It's just that in principle it seems wrong to me. If the Elks club is choosing its leaders, they poll members of the Elks ... they don't get additional opinions from the Moose Lodge or Loyal Order of Water Buffaloes. If you want to have a say in who the Elks pick, you become a member of the Elks. Basic logic.

Now, don't get it, California says this new top 2 system shouldn't be called an open primary, but it is. I mean - it is. Except just a larger clusterfuck than your usual open primary.

And therefore it strikes me as having the same flaw as all other open primary systems - where people engage in tactical and strategic voting (polite term) or ratfucking (not so polite) and vote in ways that are not expressing their own preferences, but simply trying to damage the other guys/other side.

Yeah: short summary: sucks ass.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 1:12 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:10 pm
Posts: 17730
Location: The blue parts of the map
California is ungovernable because the number of signatures to qualify an initiative is too low. I'd be interested to know whether other states make it this easy to legislate from the ballot box. The California voters, many of whom probably had trouble getting through high school, are routinely asked to pass judgment on whole lists of complex legal issues that even lawyers are split on. Many of these were dreamed up over coffee by the usual suspects. They sound sexy. Anyone outside the constitutional law field who reads the 85 pages of dense legalese and strikeout type and italics, printed on the world's cheapest paper, stands a maybe 50-50 chance at best of finding the legal bombs planted deep within. But nobody reads it.

IIRC, the jungle primary was approved in an initiative. The process is great for trying things that seem like great ideas at the time, then you can't get rid of them.

Then you have the chicken legislature, which routinely submits all the really controversial stuff for referendum. We're out of here, you people sort it out. Now, back to the budget.

_________________
We used to hang our traitors. Now we elect them to lead us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:28 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10977
Here watch this. BTW, the technical term is "nonpartisan blanket primary". Also, California isn't the only state using it already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpartis ... #Criticism

This scenario is so plausible, it happened in the real world. ;)

August 2nd, 2016 Washington State Primary

Duane Davidson Republican 322,374 (25.09%) Runoff
Michael Waite Republican 299,766 (23.33%) Runoff
Marko Liias Democratic 261,633 (20.36%) Defeated
John Paul Comerford Democratic 230,904 (17.97%) Defeated
Alec Fisken Democratic 170,117 (13.24%) Defeated

Three Democrats running, two Republicans.

Together, the three Democrats got around 51% of the vote. But because they split it three ways ... the top two vote getters were the two Republicans, even though they shared together only 48% of the vote ... and a Republican won the general.

Got that, Sam? 51% of that district's voters wanted a Democrat to come out of their primary ... but they got two Republicans in the general, and obviously a Republican won.

Also, check this (admitted hypothetical:)
Under the nonpartisan blanket primary, a party with two candidates and only 41% popular support would beat a party with three candidates and 59% popular support if voters split their votes evenly among candidates for their own party.

That strikes me as downright unfair. About up there in unfairness with gerrymandering.


Sure it has happened. It's happened in California too. It takes a few cycles for people to adapt to use it.

In California we've had a few cycles now. This scenario was painted by just about every media outlet in the days leading up to this election, how exciting, didn't happen!

:|

In another post you picked at the examples of 3ed party candidates advancing to the general election by discounting the makeup of the number of candidates and essentially said the outcomes were inevitable.

This system is in place and it effects who runs. That is part of what I'm saying when I say it takes a few cycles for people to adapt and get used to it. You cannot set aside elements of what happens in an argument like this. It's fallacious to do that. All that happened in California happened under the top two primary system.

:|

Did you read the median voter theorem?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:32 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10977
Well, we agree, Marin. That's why I don't want your hot mess applied in all 50 states.

BTW, that crazy thing you had a while back where you let 8000 people run for governor, including the porn star and Gary Coleman, and then elected Conan the Barbarian ... Guvnerpalooza, or whatever it's called ... not bringing that here, either.

Weird thing ... I do remember Sam saying a while back he didn't like open primaries, because the Dem party (and any other) should get to choose their own nominee. See, I get why the burgeoning number of people called independents want that. It's just that in principle it seems wrong to me. If the Elks club is choosing its leaders, they poll members of the Elks ... they don't get additional opinions from the Moose Lodge or Loyal Order of Water Buffaloes. If you want to have a say in who the Elks pick, you become a member of the Elks. Basic logic.

Now, don't get it, California says this new top 2 system shouldn't be called an open primary, but it is. I mean - it is. Except just a larger clusterfuck than your usual open primary.

And therefore it strikes me as having the same flaw as all other open primary systems - where people engage in tactical and strategic voting (polite term) or ratfucking (not so polite) and vote in ways that are not expressing their own preferences, but simply trying to damage the other guys/other side.

Yeah: short summary: sucks ass.


Yeah, I didn't like it at first, then I learned to adapt to it, saw how the parties and the voters are adapting to it. I now think it might be better than the old system.

It's not like that old primary system was anything to write home about.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:41 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10977
California is ungovernable because the number of signatures to qualify an initiative is too low. I'd be interested to know whether other states make it this easy to legislate from the ballot box. The California voters, many of whom probably had trouble getting through high school, are routinely asked to pass judgment on whole lists of complex legal issues that even lawyers are split on. Many of these were dreamed up over coffee by the usual suspects. They sound sexy. Anyone outside the constitutional law field who reads the 85 pages of dense legalese and strikeout type and italics, printed on the world's cheapest paper, stands a maybe 50-50 chance at best of finding the legal bombs planted deep within. But nobody reads it.

IIRC, the jungle primary was approved in an initiative. The process is great for trying things that seem like great ideas at the time, then you can't get rid of them.

Then you have the chicken legislature, which routinely submits all the really controversial stuff for referendum. We're out of here, you people sort it out. Now, back to the budget.


Yeah.

The ballot question abuse is a mess. I've taken to just about voting NO on all of them in protest. Just because someone asks a question does not mean I have to answer it. No can be an answer, but it also can be a means of not answering the question.

I still treat bond issues as being valid but the legislating from the ballot box is not a good way to govern.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:13 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12326
Location: Sunny South Florida
This system is in place and it effects who runs.


I accept that argument. I didn't touch on it. Thing is, I'm not certain your system encourages better candidates to run, or discourages worse ones. Of course, to even deal with that question, we have to define what we mean by "better" and "worse". I'll get to that below.

I did notice, because I touched on it, that a lot of your recent primary elections didn't have both a Democrat and a Republican in the open primary. That could have to do with California being California, the particular district being the district, or the effects of this system. Probably all three things interacting. Say, Sam, you did mention multivariate problems in social science before, right?

It's a bit odd when voters in an open primary don't even have at least 1, let alone 2-5 people, from the U.S.' two major political parties to choose from. Still, my point stands because maybe in most districts in this country 1 Dem and 1 Repub (at least) will run. You probably can find zero examples of your open primary system picking a third party to go on to the general when there is 1 Democrat and 1 Republican in the race. I stand by it, you didn't show me any.

Also, I'm not sure the phenomena of "who runs" under this system will work the same in states with different political environments than California. That's another issue.

Quote:
Did you read the median voter theorem?


Sam, don't you often discuss the difference between prescriptive and descriptive social phenomena ... is-ought problem?

[from Wiki]
The median voter theorem states that "a majority rule voting system will select the outcome most preferred by the median voter"

This is a description that most majoritian voting systems result in convergence toward the medians of a political spectrum. I have touched on it. Duverger's Law, I've mentioned it. Parliamentary systems, guess what, people can often choose between 20 different political parties, but the usual biggest vote getters are the big center left party and big center right party. And they often end up being the ones forming the parliamentary majority coalition, and their leaders getting PMship.

As a description of phenomena, I think it's got some accuracy to it.

However, it appears to happen whether someone is using a top 2 system like California's or not. The way I think you're referring to it, you're actually making a prescription.

You seem to like top 2 because it will result in more moderate, centrist candidates. BTW, AFAICT, this is the way it was sold to California voters as a ballot initiative.

IOW, you seem to be saying, "top 2 is better because it produces more moderate candidates in the general election".

a) that is not a prescription of the median voter theorem as to what voting system we SHOULD use. :D
b) I do not buy the argument that it is always better, once the primaries are over, to be picking between a moderate Republican and a Tea Party Republican, OR a moderate Democrat and a liberal Democrat, even if it means more often there will a moderate from at least one party as a final choice in the general election.

My point is, no I don't like this, just because it means it's more likely at least one candidate in the general will be a moderate, I don't view that as a necessarily "better" outcome.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 8:54 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36478
The California Primary system is very much prone to corruption and manipulation. The easiest way is for the Republicans to "flood the zone" - try to get as many Democrats as possible to run, then the Republicans can surreptitiously fund the fringe candidates so they can gather votes and spread the liberal vote out over many candidates, allowing the one or two Republicans to be on the top of the ballot with a small percentage of the actual vote.

The Republicans have far more money than the Dems, and have plenty of money to corrupt our system. And they are criminal enough to have no problem with doing such things.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: carmenjonze and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group