Party time, excellent

Koggit

Koggit

CAGiversary!
Feedback
3 (100%)
In Washington we're doing this "top-two" voting thing. I think a couple other states already do it. Candidates indicate a "preferred party", everyone votes in the primaries, and the top two candidates make it to the general election regardless of party. I love it. I think it's the absolute best thing to happen to democracy in many, many years.

Tons of partisan hacks over here oppose it. They oppose the hell out of it. Republicans and democrats alike are rallying against it -- which isn't too surprising, considering party leaders lose power (candidates no longer have any need for party endorsement).

Party leaders, for far too long, have had faaaar too much power over our leaders. They've been able to pick and choose who makes it to the ballot, endorse or don't endorse however they'd like, drastically limiting our choices to those who work well with the party machine. We haven't been led by individuals, we've been led by two opposing factions, and this is the beginning of the end. It doesn't go far enough to take the power away from party leaders, but it's a great start.

Here are a couple articles against the top-two system:

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/08/opinion/4_7_0421_37_41.txt

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008090015_thirdparty04m.html

http://www.nwprogressive.org/special/primary/

I'm about as party-agnostic as they come. I never, ever favor a candidate based on party affiliation, nor do I group "republicans", "democrats" etc as many people do (although I may group "conservatives" and/or "liberals", which is a different matter). So perhaps I'm just an exception. I'm curious, especially with the more partisan posters, do you support top-two primaries?
 
As you describe it, and on the surface, it sounds like a good idea.

If there is anyone as against the two party system or has as much disdain for Republicats as I do, I'd be surprised. So I welcome anything that challenges it/them.
 
So ... how's this work for the whole "checks and balances" thing? We have two opposing factions because we have an intentionally antagonistic system, wherein the pull between the two adversarial parties generally leaves us centered. But what if the top two candidates have fundamentally the same view points? Kind of makes the rest of the process pointless, no?
 
[quote name='trq']So ... how's this work for the whole "checks and balances" thing? We have two opposing factions because we have an intentionally antagonistic system, wherein the pull between the two adversarial parties generally leaves us centered. But what if the top two candidates have fundamentally the same view points? Kind of makes the rest of the process pointless, no?[/QUOTE]

Many people already feel this is the case. That's the problem.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Many people already feel this is the case. That's the problem.[/QUOTE]

Okay. I'm really trying to get this, so bear with me.

If one thinks the Democrat and Republican positions are the same, what's an actual example of a stand-out alternative viewpoint? The socialists/communists, maybe? It sure as heck isn't Ron Paul or the Green Party or whatever third party is typically favored by those who dislike the two part system. In those cases, either they're extremely close to a preexisting party, but with a specific emphasis (Green) or they're basically an amalgamation of other preexisting views (Paul).

So while a partyless system seems great, it no more encompasses the myriad of viewpoints than the two party system does, and it loses the checks and balances aspect of the current system to boot.
 
In the small town of Davis, Ca they have choice voting. Meaning you vote for your 1st, 2nd 3rd choice and so on. Officials are then elected in a Heisman Trophy type fashion where the person with the most all around points is elected. As wacky as Davis is on other issues I really like how they do that.

I think that Choice Voting is a better solution than an open primary where only two people get to run for the office seat. First of all, this would kill 3rd parties even more. Second, 95% of the time we'd still end up with a Republican/Democrat choice (minus the 3rd parties that wouldn't get the votes). The off chance that two Dems or two Reps get the votes to be the only canditates on the ballot, well it's not especially fair to the other party and as stated before to third parties especially.
 
[quote name='trq']Okay. I'm really trying to get this, so bear with me.

If one thinks the Democrat and Republican positions are the same, what's an actual example of a stand-out alternative viewpoint? The socialists/communists, maybe? It sure as heck isn't Ron Paul or the Green Party or whatever third party is typically favored by those who dislike the two part system. In those cases, either they're extremely close to a preexisting party, but with a specific emphasis (Green) or they're basically an amalgamation of other preexisting views (Paul).

So while a partyless system seems great, it no more encompasses the myriad of viewpoints than the two party system does, and it loses the checks and balances aspect of the current system to boot.[/QUOTE]

There really is very little choice. Especially that's electable. I can't even name you names anymore. Bob Barr's political positions are in the right ballpark, but he isn't a leader and has personal issues too.

Basically I have to admit that we are leaderless without many options. But I refuse to attempt to "make the best of the choices forced on us" either. That's how we got where we are.

[quote name='RAMSTORIA']In the small town of Davis, Ca they have choice voting. Meaning you vote for your 1st, 2nd 3rd choice and so on. Officials are then elected in a Heisman Trophy type fashion where the person with the most all around points is elected. As wacky as Davis is on other issues I really like how they do that.

I think that Choice Voting is a better solution than an open primary where only two people get to run for the office seat. First of all, this would kill 3rd parties even more. Second, 95% of the time we'd still end up with a Republican/Democrat choice (minus the 3rd parties that wouldn't get the votes). The off chance that two Dems or two Reps get the votes to be the only canditates on the ballot, well it's not especially fair to the other party and as stated before to third parties especially.[/QUOTE]

I rather like that system a lot. I very much want to put some rather unknown's as my top person or two, but I hate feeling like I am wasting my vote on someone unelectable if I can only choose one. Then I end up putting one of the big two on the ballot that I really don't like much. It sucks.
 
[quote name='DarkSageRK']Wouldn't this kill third parties?[/QUOTE]

No -- if anything, it'd help third party candidates because they wouldn't be forced into going third party. It's common nowadays for candidates to run third party simply because they couldn't get the endorsement of the major party they peferred (republicans going libertarian, democrats going green). In this system, whether you're endorsed by the party or not you can list what party you prefer and run in the primary on an even playing field. If you prefer a third party and identify yourself as such, you have ever bit as good of a chance at winning as you currently do. If you can't get at least 2nd in the primary you won't be on the ballot, but if you can't get second in the primary then why should you be on the ballot anyway?

Use olympic swimming as an analogy -- if you can't come in at least 4th in the semifinals, what's wrong with excluding you from competition for gold in the finals? You had your shot. If you were fast enough, you would've won the semifinals and you'd be in the finals. Similarly, if a green party candidate is strong enough to stand a chance in the general, then they'll do well in the primary. They have no advantage or disadvantage against major party candidates.


[quote name='trq']So ... how's this work for the whole "checks and balances" thing? We have two opposing factions because we have an intentionally antagonistic system, wherein the pull between the two adversarial parties generally leaves us centered. But what if the top two candidates have fundamentally the same view points? Kind of makes the rest of the process pointless, no?[/QUOTE]

First of all, please explain how the current system can be interpreted as any form of checks and balances. I do not see it that way at all, quite the opposite.

The antagonistic system you speak of is simply the two main political philosophies in America -- conservative and liberal. If we end up with two candidates on the ballot that share the same philosophies (for example, if they're liberal they'll probably both list their preferred party as Democrat) then it's because that's what the vast majority of the voters want. The people choose -- which is the whole point of democracy. In the current system, party leaders choose, and then they let the people choose which party made the best decision. That's wrong, that's not democracy. For example, McCain won the primary, but he doesn't even have to be the GOP nomination. The GOP, if they wanted, could say "screw you, McCain, we're putting Romney on the ticket" and McCain would be forced to run as a third party or independent (or not at all). Why the hell should the party have that kind of power? They wouldn't do that simply because they want to win the election and chances are the winner of the primary stands the best chance in the general, but the point remains, they have far too much power and there's absolutely no justification for it, nobody benefits except party leaders who get to pick and choose our leaders.

[quote name='RAMSTORIA']In the small town of Davis, Ca they have choice voting. Meaning you vote for your 1st, 2nd 3rd choice and so on. Officials are then elected in a Heisman Trophy type fashion where the person with the most all around points is elected. As wacky as Davis is on other issues I really like how they do that.

I think that Choice Voting is a better solution than an open primary where only two people get to run for the office seat. First of all, this would kill 3rd parties even more. Second, 95% of the time we'd still end up with a Republican/Democrat choice (minus the 3rd parties that wouldn't get the votes). The off chance that two Dems or two Reps get the votes to be the only canditates on the ballot, well it's not especially fair to the other party and as stated before to third parties especially.[/QUOTE]

The problem is party prominence, not the way votes are tabulated. What if I'm a republican and want to run for Governor of Washington? What do I do? Absolutely nothing because Dino Rossi is endorsed by the GOP. I'm shit out of luck.

That's the problem.



What a lot of you seem to be missing is that, in this system, there isn't even democrat or repub candidates. If I agree more with the democratic party than any other, and I'm running for partisan office, I list democrat as my preferred party. That doesn't mean I'm democrat. That doesn't imply any affiliation with the party, it only serves to summarize my stance on issues as concisely as possible. I'm registered as an independent, but if I ran for office and needed a party preference, I would indeed list democrat. That would not make me a democratic candidate. Nobody is a (party name) candidate, they're all just candidates. The entire point is to get rid of party influence, while still allowing voters to easily identify core values.
 
[quote name='Koggit']
What a lot of you seem to be missing is that, in this system, there isn't even democrat or repub candidates. If I agree more with the democratic party than any other, and I'm running for partisan office, I list democrat as my preferred party. That doesn't mean I'm democrat. That doesn't imply any affiliation with the party, it only serves to summarize my stance on issues as concisely as possible. I'm registered as an independent, but if I ran for office and needed a party preference, I would indeed list democrat. That would not make me a democratic candidate. Nobody is a (party name) candidate, they're all just candidates. The entire point is to get rid of party influence, while still allowing voters to easily identify core values.[/QUOTE]


No no, I get it. It's a good system on paper, but I don't think it would be in practice. The problem is, even if voters aren't restricted by party lines the major parties will still be involved. Who is going to have the big bucks to spend on campaigning? The Dems and the Reps. I think, while some third party candidates might receive more votes, that ultimately the top two vote getters are still going to be politicians that have the backing of the major parties. You can say that there isn't a Republican or Democratic candidate, but that doesn't mean the major parties wouldn't be involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top