ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Washington DC and The Holy Land (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   Elections No partisan primaries. Top two vote getters square off in the general election. (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=278304)

BigRedChief 11-04-2013 06:00 PM

No partisan primaries. Top two vote getters square off in the general election.
 
Our local mayoral race was run like this. Republicans, Democrats, Independents were all on the ballot together. The top two vote getters face off in the general election tomorrow.

Did some research and it looks like its an idea thats being tried in a lot of states. I can see alot of good coming out of this type of approach?

What say you?

Direckshun 11-04-2013 06:07 PM

I read about this the other day.

I think it's brilliant. It's yeilded great results in shutting out extremists in both parties.

There's too much money at stake for it to be widely popular, but it really, really should be.

displacedinMN 11-05-2013 09:27 PM

Minneapolis mayor race is doing that today.

ranked choice voting

34 candidates.

here is a link from the startrib-to show how it works.

one problem I see is some whack job getting in. Almost Jesse Ventura style.
People voted for him, because no one thought anyone would vote for him.

second problem-is it a way to squeeze out a particular party? I don't know.

http://apps.startribune.com/news/201...choice-voting/

displacedinMN 11-05-2013 10:12 PM

Another thought.

Elections are supposed to be one person, one vote

To me, this is one person-three votes.
Very Chicago like. Vote early vote often.

ClevelandBronco 11-05-2013 11:46 PM

Seems like a very good way to make sure that nothing important changes. It shuts out ideas from folks that are influenced by Occupy or the Tea Party. If I had a shit-ton of money and power, I'd back the plan.

listopencil 11-06-2013 12:33 AM

Looks interesting. I'd support changes to encourage people to vote outside of party affiliations and this seems to do that.

displacedinMN 11-06-2013 06:25 PM

As of 6pm, there is no declared winner in the MPLS mayoral contest.
It may go into tomorrow
This may be an unintended consequence of ranked choice voting.

BigRedChief 11-06-2013 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco (Post 10164588)
Seems like a very good way to make sure that nothing important changes. It shuts out ideas from folks that are influenced by Occupy or the Tea Party. If I had a shit-ton of money and power, I'd back the plan.

I think it would allow the minority to get a chance in front of the electorate than having to fight the establishment just to get heard.

This would work on the right and left. I don't see how this type of primary/general would work out better for either party. We would still have a even playing field. Gerrymandering is killing us but thats another discussion.

I do think the voters would profit from hearing new non-establishment ideas.

patteeu 11-06-2013 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief (Post 10166415)
I think it would allow the minority to get a chance in front of the electorate than having to fight the establishment just to get heard.

This would work on the right and left. I don't see how this type of primary/general would work out better for either party. We would still have a even playing field. Gerrymandering is killing us but thats another discussion.

I do think the voters would profit from hearing new non-establishment ideas.

Race baiting and eat-the-rich demagoguery are killing us.

BucEyedPea 11-06-2013 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 10160309)
I read about this the other day.

I think it's brilliant. It's yeilded great results in shutting out extremists in both parties.

Extremists according to who? You? The mainstream conventional stupidity? Let's shut out new ideas because some folks don't like them thereby labeling them extreme.

Lol, sounds like more govt controls--just what you and other lefties love.

Taco John 11-06-2013 07:57 PM

How are debates determined?

Prison Bitch 11-06-2013 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 10160309)
I read about this the other day.

I think it's brilliant. It's yeilded great results in shutting out extremists in both parties.

There's too much money at stake for it to be widely popular, but it really, really should be.

Dude you're a leftist who votes straight ticket with the rest of the Hive. You're not the best person to be extolling getting rid of "extremists" when you are one

cosmo20002 11-06-2013 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch (Post 10166462)
Dude you're a leftist who votes straight ticket with the rest of the Hive. You're not the best person to be extolling getting rid of "extremists" when you are one

Vote for a lot of Democrats, do you?

BigRedChief 11-06-2013 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taco John (Post 10166454)
How are debates determined?

Well the mayoral race here everyone was in on the debate. There was only 6 people though. An establishment Republican and Democrat ended up in the general election. But, I heard the other 4 candidates views and proposals. I'm sure that I wouldn't if I didnt watch the primary debate.

Those large 34 candidate debates would have to be round robin so everyone would get a chance against the other candidates.

The more I think about this I don't see how any established party or group would profit more than other established groups or parties from this type of system. But, I could definitely see how the little guy, the underfunded guy with ideas could get a voice to see if the majority also thinks they have good ideas.

Prison Bitch 11-06-2013 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20002 (Post 10166561)
Vote for a lot of Democrats, do you?

Never, but then I'm not the one advocating for less partisanship, dork.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.