I was listening to NPR yesterday and they were discussing the Congressional races in California as a result of their redistricting. In the discussion, they mentioned that California has what they were calling a "jungle primary system" where it's a general primary (everyone running against everyone regardless of party affiliation) and the top two (again, regardless of party affiliation) move on to the general election. This sounds awesome, since I would think it would allow more moderates to win Congressional races. I would think that, theoretically, if two people from the same party ended up in the primary the moderate would attract all the votes of the people from the opposite party as well as the moderates of their own party.
But I've been conditioned to assume that anything that sounds good under a cursory examination is almost always a chocolate covered piece of shit. So can anyone enlighten me?
Realistically, it means that no one other than the 2 parties will ever be on the real ballot. And like you said, the case where gerrymadering means that it's a choice of two people of the same party
I was listening to NPR yesterday and they were discussing the Congressional races in California as a result of their redistricting. In the discussion, they mentioned that California has what they were calling a "jungle primary system" where it's a general primary (everyone running against everyone regardless of party affiliation) and the top two (again, regardless of party affiliation) move on to the general election. This sounds awesome, since I would think it would allow more moderates to win Congressional races. I would think that, theoretically, if two people from the same party ended up in the primary the moderate would attract all the votes of the people from the opposite party as well as the moderates of their own party.
But I've been conditioned to assume that anything that sounds good under a cursory examination is almost always a chocolate covered piece of shit. So can anyone enlighten me?
One, it's Constitutionally questionable (freedom of association).
Two, Louisiana almost elected an unrepentant member of the KKK to the governorship thanks to a similar system.
Three, the argument for it is a load of gooseshit (this ties into Argument One above.)
Intelligent, hard-bitten moderates who prefer reasonable action and aren't caught up on ideology are fine. Idiot moderates who say "Well why don't we just give half the funding to the road" as a compromise between funding road/no road suck and should be violently destroyed.
Intelligent, hard-bitten moderates who prefer reasonable action and aren't caught up on ideology are fine. Idiot moderates who say "Well why don't we just give half the funding to the road" as a compromise between funding road/no road suck and should be violently destroyed.
I think even your idealized, non-existent moderates would be ineffectual, but sure.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Intelligent, hard-bitten moderates who prefer reasonable action and aren't caught up on ideology are fine. Idiot moderates who say "Well why don't we just give half the funding to the road" as a compromise between funding road/no road suck and should be violently destroyed.
I think even your idealized, non-existent moderates would be ineffectual, but sure.
They're non-existent in the halls of power because they can't get elected. There's a lot of us in the citizenry. Most of us don't vote, because we're leery of voting for the lesser of two evils and are kind of retarded, but we're out there!
Intelligent, hard-bitten moderates who prefer reasonable action and aren't caught up on ideology are fine. Idiot moderates who say "Well why don't we just give half the funding to the road" as a compromise between funding road/no road suck and should be violently destroyed.
I think even your idealized, non-existent moderates would be ineffectual, but sure.
They're non-existent in the halls of power because they can't get elected. There's a lot of us in the citizenry. Most of us don't vote, because we're leery of voting for the lesser of two evils and are kind of retarded, but we're out there!
Oh, they're all over the place. In fact, they even have their own party.
Intelligent, hard-bitten moderates who prefer reasonable action and aren't caught up on ideology are fine. Idiot moderates who say "Well why don't we just give half the funding to the road" as a compromise between funding road/no road suck and should be violently destroyed.
I think even your idealized, non-existent moderates would be ineffectual, but sure.
They're non-existent in the halls of power because they can't get elected. There's a lot of us in the citizenry. Most of us don't vote, because we're leery of voting for the lesser of two evils and are kind of retarded, but we're out there!
Exactly, because the more common election system favors the crazies. I would think in a system like California's you'd get more situations where it's a sane moderate versus a batshit insane extremist from the same party. So the moderates could team-up with the other side to get the sane person elected.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Intelligent, hard-bitten moderates who prefer reasonable action and aren't caught up on ideology are fine. Idiot moderates who say "Well why don't we just give half the funding to the road" as a compromise between funding road/no road suck and should be violently destroyed.
I think even your idealized, non-existent moderates would be ineffectual, but sure.
They're non-existent in the halls of power because they can't get elected. There's a lot of us in the citizenry. Most of us don't vote, because we're leery of voting for the lesser of two evils and are kind of retarded, but we're out there!
Exactly, because the more common election system favors the crazies. I would think in a system like California's you'd get more situations where it's a sane moderate versus a batshit insane extremist from the same party. So the moderates could team-up with the other side to get the sane person elected.
California's elections system, from what I understand, is pretty fucking terrible.
Intelligent, hard-bitten moderates who prefer reasonable action and aren't caught up on ideology are fine. Idiot moderates who say "Well why don't we just give half the funding to the road" as a compromise between funding road/no road suck and should be violently destroyed.
I think even your idealized, non-existent moderates would be ineffectual, but sure.
They're non-existent in the halls of power because they can't get elected. There's a lot of us in the citizenry. Most of us don't vote, because we're leery of voting for the lesser of two evils and are kind of retarded, but we're out there!
Exactly, because the more common election system favors the crazies. I would think in a system like California's you'd get more situations where it's a sane moderate versus a batshit insane extremist from the same party. So the moderates could team-up with the other side to get the sane person elected.
California's elections system, from what I understand, is pretty fucking terrible.
Intelligent, hard-bitten moderates who prefer reasonable action and aren't caught up on ideology are fine. Idiot moderates who say "Well why don't we just give half the funding to the road" as a compromise between funding road/no road suck and should be violently destroyed.
I think even your idealized, non-existent moderates would be ineffectual, but sure.
They're non-existent in the halls of power because they can't get elected. There's a lot of us in the citizenry. Most of us don't vote, because we're leery of voting for the lesser of two evils and are kind of retarded, but we're out there!
Exactly, because the more common election system favors the crazies. I would think in a system like California's you'd get more situations where it's a sane moderate versus a batshit insane extremist from the same party. So the moderates could team-up with the other side to get the sane person elected.
California's elections system, from what I understand, is pretty fucking terrible.
That was my starting assumption. I'm just trying to figure out why something that seems to make sense in my head is actually a steaming pile of shit hidden behind a pretty facade.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Intelligent, hard-bitten moderates who prefer reasonable action and aren't caught up on ideology are fine. Idiot moderates who say "Well why don't we just give half the funding to the road" as a compromise between funding road/no road suck and should be violently destroyed.
I think even your idealized, non-existent moderates would be ineffectual, but sure.
They're non-existent in the halls of power because they can't get elected. There's a lot of us in the citizenry. Most of us don't vote, because we're leery of voting for the lesser of two evils and are kind of retarded, but we're out there!
Exactly, because the more common election system favors the crazies. I would think in a system like California's you'd get more situations where it's a sane moderate versus a batshit insane extremist from the same party. So the moderates could team-up with the other side to get the sane person elected.
California's elections system, from what I understand, is pretty fucking terrible.
That was my starting assumption. I'm just trying to figure out why something that seems to make sense in my head is actually a steaming pile of shit hidden behind a pretty facade.
I think it's because, and I know this is a verboten thing to say, there is such a thing as too much democracy.
Intelligent, hard-bitten moderates who prefer reasonable action and aren't caught up on ideology are fine. Idiot moderates who say "Well why don't we just give half the funding to the road" as a compromise between funding road/no road suck and should be violently destroyed.
I think even your idealized, non-existent moderates would be ineffectual, but sure.
They're non-existent in the halls of power because they can't get elected. There's a lot of us in the citizenry. Most of us don't vote, because we're leery of voting for the lesser of two evils and are kind of retarded, but we're out there!
Exactly, because the more common election system favors the crazies. I would think in a system like California's you'd get more situations where it's a sane moderate versus a batshit insane extremist from the same party. So the moderates could team-up with the other side to get the sane person elected.
California's elections system, from what I understand, is pretty fucking terrible.
That was my starting assumption. I'm just trying to figure out why something that seems to make sense in my head is actually a steaming pile of shit hidden behind a pretty facade.
That's because it is a system that does work - California has instituted a two tier general election, similar to the system the French are currently using to elect their leader. What's problematic is that they're not honest about it. There's also what happened in LA too, to consider - I doubt you'll see many other elections where "vote for the crook" was a popular sentiment.
Honestly, compulsory might yield better results than the system used by California. I'm no fan of the idea, but there is some truth the fact that the politicians would have to start being a little more moderate and in tune with the majority of the voting population since the 45-50% that weren't voting aren't less likely to go for obvious batshit crazy guy or doesn't endorse a reasonable chunk of their values.
Of course as Angel pointed out, the CA system would be more effective if they didn't pass the first round off as a primary.
Except he agrees with the Dems on literally nothing except like... missile defense.
He is from the generation that thinks you shouldn't filibuster every single piece of legislation ever, which is itself a small victory. He also voted to confirm Sotomayor and Kagan, which is a large part of the primary challenger's case against him.
0
sportzboytjwsqueeeeeezzeeeesome more tax breaks outRegistered Userregular
Lugar is from Indiana. It makes it theoretically possible (as opposed to no chance in hell), but still unlikely.
And Armey was in the House.
Last I checked Donnelly was even with or leading Mourdock. I wouldn't call that too unlikely.
Once again, we have a case of Teapers cutting off the GOP nose to spite the party's face. If Mourdock wins (and lets face it, that's looking likely now), the GOP is going to have to spend real money and other resources to just keep the seat that they wouldn't have had to.
Lugar is from Indiana. It makes it theoretically possible (as opposed to no chance in hell), but still unlikely.
And Armey was in the House.
Last I checked Donnelly was even with or leading Mourdock. I wouldn't call that too unlikely.
Once again, we have a case of Teapers cutting off the GOP nose to spite the party's face. If Mourdock wins (and lets face it, that's looking likely now), the GOP is going to have to spend real money and other resources to just keep the seat that they wouldn't have had to.
Lugar is from Indiana. It makes it theoretically possible (as opposed to no chance in hell), but still unlikely.
And Armey was in the House.
Last I checked Donnelly was even with or leading Mourdock. I wouldn't call that too unlikely.
Once again, we have a case of Teapers cutting off the GOP nose to spite the party's face. If Mourdock wins (and lets face it, that's looking likely now), the GOP is going to have to spend real money and other resources to just keep the seat that they wouldn't have had to.
A lot of Republicans are probably fearing the anti-surge to follow the huge gains from 2010. It's a historical trend, and they're going to be saved from significant losses by redistricting, but yeah, I can see why he'd want to hide from his own party affiliation.
This is the second Senate race conservatives have torpedoed for themselves in two cycles, as well as the second six-term incumbent to lose a primary in those same two cycles.
I'd love to see an indie Lugar run, but I have a feeling he's too classy for that.
I think he was pretty much the last Republican in the Senate I had any respect for, so it makes sense the party loyalists couldn't stand having him around.
Lugar can't run as an independent, Indiana law bars doing that. (I can find the name of the statute in my Twitter feed if anyone's really curious)
Mourdock will most likely beat Donnelly. No one's excited about Donnelly; the dude seriously stood up on the floor of the House and told everyone that we needed the BBA that the Republicans were pushing for during the debt-ceiling fight. The only hope he's got is if Lugar's supporters are either pissed enough to vote for him out of spite, or that they're so pissed about Mourdock that they stay home. Neither of those are likely to happen in IN. So, in back-to-back elections we'll have sent Dan I-Think-The-Line-Item-Veto-Is-Great-Lets-Bring-That-Back Coats BACK to the Senate, and we'll send this Tea Party backed asshole there too.
We (Hoosiers) deserve to be put in a very deep, very dark place in The Hole.
I am a very angry citizen of the state of Indiana tonight. Very angry.
Posts
One, it's Constitutionally questionable (freedom of association).
Two, Louisiana almost elected an unrepentant member of the KKK to the governorship thanks to a similar system.
Three, the argument for it is a load of gooseshit (this ties into Argument One above.)
Seen plenty of anti-Tester ads, though.
Intelligent, hard-bitten moderates who prefer reasonable action and aren't caught up on ideology are fine. Idiot moderates who say "Well why don't we just give half the funding to the road" as a compromise between funding road/no road suck and should be violently destroyed.
I think even your idealized, non-existent moderates would be ineffectual, but sure.
They're non-existent in the halls of power because they can't get elected. There's a lot of us in the citizenry. Most of us don't vote, because we're leery of voting for the lesser of two evils and are kind of retarded, but we're out there!
Oh, they're all over the place. In fact, they even have their own party.
The Democratic Party.
Exactly, because the more common election system favors the crazies. I would think in a system like California's you'd get more situations where it's a sane moderate versus a batshit insane extremist from the same party. So the moderates could team-up with the other side to get the sane person elected.
California's elections system, from what I understand, is pretty fucking terrible.
FTFY
That was my starting assumption. I'm just trying to figure out why something that seems to make sense in my head is actually a steaming pile of shit hidden behind a pretty facade.
I think it's because, and I know this is a verboten thing to say, there is such a thing as too much democracy.
That's because it is a system that does work - California has instituted a two tier general election, similar to the system the French are currently using to elect their leader. What's problematic is that they're not honest about it. There's also what happened in LA too, to consider - I doubt you'll see many other elections where "vote for the crook" was a popular sentiment.
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/04/sabotage_the_new_gop_plan/
Of course as Angel pointed out, the CA system would be more effective if they didn't pass the first round off as a primary.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
So long, senator with the absolute greatest name ever.
If Lugar gets primaried, does that put his seat within reach for the Democrats? I don't know what state he's in.
And Armey was in the House.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
He is from the generation that thinks you shouldn't filibuster every single piece of legislation ever, which is itself a small victory. He also voted to confirm Sotomayor and Kagan, which is a large part of the primary challenger's case against him.
I see them in little windows and banners in Youtube. If you have adblocker though you might not get those.
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
Last I checked Donnelly was even with or leading Mourdock. I wouldn't call that too unlikely.
Once again, we have a case of Teapers cutting off the GOP nose to spite the party's face. If Mourdock wins (and lets face it, that's looking likely now), the GOP is going to have to spend real money and other resources to just keep the seat that they wouldn't have had to.
Good. gooooood.
I get home, and I see that I have a mailing from this same Vern Buchanan.
Interestingly enough, I notice it doesn't have his party listed on it.
I look up his website, and it doesn't show a party affiliation either.
Wikipedia reveals he is a Republican.
Sorry Vern, no vote for you. Your party has shown that you can't be responsible with the car keys.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
EDIT: NBC calls it, title updated again.
I think he was pretty much the last Republican in the Senate I had any respect for, so it makes sense the party loyalists couldn't stand having him around.
Mourdock will most likely beat Donnelly. No one's excited about Donnelly; the dude seriously stood up on the floor of the House and told everyone that we needed the BBA that the Republicans were pushing for during the debt-ceiling fight. The only hope he's got is if Lugar's supporters are either pissed enough to vote for him out of spite, or that they're so pissed about Mourdock that they stay home. Neither of those are likely to happen in IN. So, in back-to-back elections we'll have sent Dan I-Think-The-Line-Item-Veto-Is-Great-Lets-Bring-That-Back Coats BACK to the Senate, and we'll send this Tea Party backed asshole there too.
We (Hoosiers) deserve to be put in a very deep, very dark place in The Hole.