Election Reform: Is This An Example of How Break the Hyperpartisanship?

LTC Kevin B. — Wed, 09 Dec 2015 07:45:06 -0500

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

Response by PO1 John Miller made Dec 9 at 2015 8:00 AM

PO1 John Miller — Wed, 09 Dec 2015 08:00:27 -0500

It's a step in the right direction. But my theory is simple. Abolish the Electoral College and make it a truly popular vote, and also pass legislation that will automatically put a candidate on all state's ballots. This is for the Presidential election obviously.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 9 at 2015 9:06 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 09 Dec 2015 09:06:56 -0500

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.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 9 at 2015 10:16 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 09 Dec 2015 10:16:46 -0500

Good system.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Dec 9 at 2015 10:39 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Wed, 09 Dec 2015 10:39:14 -0500

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

Response by SSG Michael Hartsfield made Dec 9 at 2015 10:56 AM

SSG Michael Hartsfield — Wed, 09 Dec 2015 10:56:02 -0500

I would like to see this enacted because it would force candidates to actually stand on their merits and offer viable solutions instead of playing to the crowd (Donald Trump) or engaging in mudslinging. Also, it would actually be a system where the majority would rule instead of how much money was pumped into a campaign

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 9 at 2015 12:47 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 09 Dec 2015 12:47:32 -0500

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.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 9 at 2015 4:11 PM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:11:55 -0500

Combine it with overturning Citizen vs United, reducing election campaigning to 6 months, prohibiting campaign materials in the media 24 hours before and we might truly get some say in the outcome of the elections...

Response by LTC Eric Coger made Dec 10 at 2015 10:46 AM

LTC Eric Coger — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 10:46:43 -0500

The author calls Loretta Sanchez centrist. Lost all credibility with that one. My problem with it is that if you aren't a member of a party you shouldn't be allowed to vote for their primary; and if a party has enough registered voters, they should have a name on the general election ballot. This is why we have 6-8 people to choose for President even though only one of the top two can will (usually); the primary is really a party vote and should stay that way.

Response by LTC Eric Coger made Dec 10 at 2015 10:49 AM

LTC Eric Coger — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 10:49:41 -0500

The real problems started when we went to the direct election of Senators with the 17th Amendment. Worst idea ever. Basically gave the "people" two houses and eliminated the proper checks and balances. Tilted way too much power away from the States.

Response by SSgt Christopher Brose made Dec 10 at 2015 3:02 PM

SSgt Christopher Brose — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:02:04 -0500

The primary systems sucks. It is too inconsistent from state to state, and it gives the early states a disproportionate influence on who the parties select as their candidates.