Posted on Dec 9, 2015
3
3
0
I actually like the idea of this type of primary system. It makes the less extreme candidate the most appealing to the electorate, and it appears to be working just as it is designed to work. Maybe this is what we need to break the stalemate in Congress. The parties just don't seem to want to work together anymore.
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_29188110/dan-walters-democrats-regret-change-top-two-primary
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_29188110/dan-walters-democrats-regret-change-top-two-primary
Posted in these groups: 
Politics
Politics
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 10
4
4
0
I against it. Let me rephrase that: Hell no! It's a further trip down the road to popular democracy which has caused so many of our problems.
First of all, what "stalemate"? The Democrats have dominated Congress for the better part of my 72 years. I have seen them pass all kinds of progressive nonsense in that time. Looking back throughout the 72 years prior to my birth, I find that it was a habit well inbred in the 19th Century. During the few years that the Republicans dominated Congress, they seemed to do the same.
Secondly, popular democracy doesn't seem to work very well. Popular democracies such as Greece and Rome collapsed after very short tenures. In my own lifetime, the two dominant parties selected their brightest and best candidates, and the people's choices were limited to them. This system gave us choices (that I can recall) like Dewey and Truman, Eisenhower and Stevenson, Nixon and Kennedy, Johnson and Goldwater. It didn't matter which you chose, you could respect whomever won. Then came the selection of candidates by the primary system (popular democracy) and we get Carter, Clinton, Bush, Dole, et al. The quality definitely diminished, and any parent can tell you why.
Tell a child, "Eat your broccoli or go to your room" and the child will make the choice you didn't want them to make. Tell them "Eat your peas or your carrots" and you'll be happy with either choice they make. (Please don't make me explain the simile) And, yes, I am comparing voters to children
First of all, what "stalemate"? The Democrats have dominated Congress for the better part of my 72 years. I have seen them pass all kinds of progressive nonsense in that time. Looking back throughout the 72 years prior to my birth, I find that it was a habit well inbred in the 19th Century. During the few years that the Republicans dominated Congress, they seemed to do the same.
Secondly, popular democracy doesn't seem to work very well. Popular democracies such as Greece and Rome collapsed after very short tenures. In my own lifetime, the two dominant parties selected their brightest and best candidates, and the people's choices were limited to them. This system gave us choices (that I can recall) like Dewey and Truman, Eisenhower and Stevenson, Nixon and Kennedy, Johnson and Goldwater. It didn't matter which you chose, you could respect whomever won. Then came the selection of candidates by the primary system (popular democracy) and we get Carter, Clinton, Bush, Dole, et al. The quality definitely diminished, and any parent can tell you why.
Tell a child, "Eat your broccoli or go to your room" and the child will make the choice you didn't want them to make. Tell them "Eat your peas or your carrots" and you'll be happy with either choice they make. (Please don't make me explain the simile) And, yes, I am comparing voters to children
(4)
(0)
SSG Michael Hartsfield
Wrong again PO3 (Join to see) Abolishing the US Dept of Education is, bluntly stated, stupid. The Dept of Education sets the standard that ALL schools in the country have to abide by. If they didn't have it, then states in there would be an unchecked and stark difference between wealthy and poor districts, the achievement gap would not only be widen but ignored all together, and Southern States would have the potential of lagging behind every other state in the Union.
(0)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
SSG Michael Hartsfield - :) right :)
So did the creation of US Dept of Education improved anything? NOPE. Thanks! that rested my case. Dept of Education didn't do a #beep# at improving our education, and you give them so much credit already ...
sigh ... You just don't see it. Education is for each state, they will compete with each other. people will move and vote and do scream at the education board at their county. Wonder ... what will happen if there is a national "standard"? so you scream at the senate? or the US Dept of Education?
Centralized education always turn out bad for a free society. because centralized education can be easily controlled and corrupted, then the generation and generation of youth come out will tie themselves up willing without questioning at all.
Well, at least we can disagree right?
So did the creation of US Dept of Education improved anything? NOPE. Thanks! that rested my case. Dept of Education didn't do a #beep# at improving our education, and you give them so much credit already ...
sigh ... You just don't see it. Education is for each state, they will compete with each other. people will move and vote and do scream at the education board at their county. Wonder ... what will happen if there is a national "standard"? so you scream at the senate? or the US Dept of Education?
Centralized education always turn out bad for a free society. because centralized education can be easily controlled and corrupted, then the generation and generation of youth come out will tie themselves up willing without questioning at all.
Well, at least we can disagree right?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Only in California would a newspaper editorial gripe that a change in law that they championed causes people who aren't "liberal enough" to win elections.
Ah... the law of unintended consequences. One of my favorite rhetorical subjects.
Ah... the law of unintended consequences. One of my favorite rhetorical subjects.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
LTC Kevin B. I like this system because unlike an open primary, voters choose candidates for each office without regard to party. Candidates with the highest votes by party for each office advance to the general election, as the respective party's nominee. It should lead to a better balance.
(2)
(0)
LTC Eric Coger
Mandatory voting is what they do in Cuba and used to do in the USSR. Not voting is also an expression of your 1st Amendment rights in a way. This system greatly favors one dominant party. The ones I hear talking about mandatory voting are the Statists and the Socialists and the ones who don't want national ID cards or the vote to be limited to US citizens... not a good place to start from.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
LTC Eric Coger - Not sure where your comment regarding Mandatory voting is coming from. Are you saying you are against voter identification with regards to a requirement for national ID cards and the vote to be limited to U.S. citizens?
(1)
(0)
LTC Eric Coger
CPT (Join to see) - We should have a national ID card; we should require picture ID for voting (just like we do for banking, buying alcohol, and a dozen other things)to verify the citizen/voter's identity. We should scrub all voter rolls and re-validate ever four years. We should allow citizens to stay home on election day if they want, thus voting "none of the above."
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
LTC Eric Coger - That makes sense and I agree with it. Validate every election year that's a good idea.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google