-----Original Message-----
From: Ty
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:33 AM
To: Jamie, Brian
Subject: Video
Have either of you seen the video of a Republican congressman (I can't remember which one, but I think it was in Maine) at a town hall meeting where a lady stands up and shows her birth certificate? She starts shouting about how Obama isn't a legal citizen and that her grandfather fought in WWII (but she doesn't remember/know that Obama's grandfather also fought in WWII). Then the audience starts to recite the pledge of allegiance to drown out the congressman as he tries to explain that Obama is a citizen. It's funny/scary/weird as hell. What has happened to the Republican party?
-----Original Message-----
From: Jamie
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:37 AM
To: Ty, Brian
Subject: RE: Video
I'm glad I never saw that.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:57 AM
To: Jamie, Ty
Subject: RE: Video
I have not seen that either.
My teacher had email that listed Dilbert's rule of order.
One reads
"Never argue, with an idiot they will lower you down to their level and beat you with experience."
I believe that is applicable for this video.
In response to what has happen to the Republican Party. It is the same thing that is happening/happened with the Democratic party. To win a primary you have to appeal to the extreme of your party. In the general election (mostly with congressional elections) the district is gerrymander so the hard liner wins, because a Democratic/Republican would never vote for the other party, no matter how crazy their candidate is. When the hard liner wins it fuel division and scars people to their corners (democratic/republican), so moderates slowly die. People become more radical because the minority party has a perfect example to hate the ruling party and the ruling party uses the attacks as an excuse to attack back. It is really a cycle.
I'm not going to link to the video in question because 1) I REALLY don't want to see it and 2) that's not really the point. Brian's statement about gerrymandering leading to polarizing politics got me thinking. I'd actually like to argue that this is not the case with all states, perhaps just most. We can't all be the gerrymandered (yet lovely) California, but every state does have a bit of this going on, pushing out moderates and putting all the power in the hands of extremists.
I have argued previously that one of the best ways to avoid this is via open elections. In other words, independents would be allowed to vote in the primary for a party of their choosing. Since independents make up a good 40% of the country, this would greatly change the type of candidates who make it to the general election. It will also cause candidates to do less pandering to their party and move towards the middle in order to pick up the independent voters.
The biggest argument I always hear against open primaries is that voters in one party could vote in the rival party's primary for the candidate that s/he believes will do the worst in the general election. The problem with this argument is that there is currently nothing stopping someone from registering in a different party and voting in their primary anyways. Since there doesn't seem to be a problem with this in closed primaries, I don't see why open primaries would change anything.
The other day, the Economist had an article about Washington State's primary system.
Washington’s old system, adopted in 1935, was a “blanket primary”. Voters were not required to declare a party affiliation and instead voted for one candidate for each office, no matter from which party. The leading vote-winner from each party for each office then went on to contest the general election.
Apparently, sometimes this system can even end in two democrats or two republicans running against each other in the general election. However, in 2000, the Supreme Court declared this system unconstitutional. In 2008, the Supreme Court reversed their decision and Washington has since gone back to having open primaries. The Economist said it best.
Daniel Evans, a three-term governor of Washington in the 1960s and 1970s and the epitome of moderation admits that it is too early, after just one cycle, to say that “top-two” primaries always lead to to centrism. In places with gerrymandered districts, the outcome could even be more polarisation. But so far the system looks promising, and California is right to consider it. Maybe the country should, too.
5 comments:
I've never really seen the benefits to having primary elections at all, actually. Just lots of disadvantages.
Anyway, the idea that in open elections people will sabotage the opposition by voting for the worst person in the other party doesn't make much sense to me. People only get one vote in the primaries, regardless of which party they vote for. So for enough people to vote for the unpopular person in the other party to make any difference, they'd have to take away a huge number of votes for the person who they actually support. And I don't think that enough people are willing to do that just to sabotage the other side; some other candidate in their own party could end up winning rather than the candidate who they actually support. It would create too much risk of their actual favourites not getting the needed votes.
I don't like closed primaries. To me, they partly defeat the whole purpose of having a popular election for President. Suppose you're a registered Democrat, but while none of the Democratic candidates thrill you there is a Republican one who you think would be the perfect President. Well, that's too bad for you. You'll just have to hope that he gets enough votes from those within his own party to get to the point where he wins the primary and you can finally have a voice in the matter. Which I suppose goes to encourage partisanship and extremism: a moderate Republican would be likely to draw a number of votes from Democrats and unaffiliated folks as well as a certain number of the Republican votes, and so in open primary elections would have a chance of becoming a final candidate. Without the Democratic and unaffiliated votes, all he can count on is that number of Republican votes. He's cut off from much of his potential support, and so the more extreme candidates who wouldn't get the votes from other parties get a disproportionate advantage.
I absolutely agree Acci. Closed primaries promote movement to the extremes. We should be encouraging a systems that allows moderates to have their place as well.
I wonder what would happen if, instead of primaries and then the general election, they just had one big presidential election wherein everybody could vote as many times as they wanted to, but could only vote once for each candidate? Hmm. I'll have to think about what the possible results of that would be. . .
That would be interesting. But, I don't know. Then we might just end up with someone mediocre that everyone is just ok with. Then again, maybe that would be a good thing.
America prides itself on fair and open elections, but how fair and open are they in reality? Much effort has been expended to make registering to vote and voting itself easier.
But how fair and open are the rules for candidates to get on the ballot?
Minnesota and the other 49 states have different sets of rules depending on who you are. In Minnesota if you belong to what the state defines as a "major party" you just have to pay a small filing fee and you're on the ballot. This fee ranges from $100 for a state representative to $400 for a U.S. senator.
If you don't belong to a "major party" you must petition to get on the ballot. The number of signatures required ranges from 500 for a state representative to 2,000 for a U.S. senator. In reality, more signatures are required to provide a buffer for those signatures that will be disqualified for one reason or another. These signatures can only be obtained during the two-week filing period, not before or after.
If our elections are to be fair, shouldn't ballot access be equal for everyone? The state should not discriminate in favor of certain political parties over other political parties. It should not discriminate against those candidates who do not belong to any political party. Whether through a filing fee, petitioning or some combination of the two, all candidates should have the same requirements to file.
Another area that should be changed is the primary election. In Minnesot the primary for state and federal offices is held only for the major party candidates.
The purpose of the primary is to select the candidate who will represent the major parties in the election. It is an absurd idea. The taxpayers pay for an election to determine the candidates to represent the major political parties. Voters must choose to vote in only one party's primary.
So if they support candidates in different parties they must select which office or race they consider the most important and forfeit their choice in another.
Historically, this foolish system has led to shenanigans where voters from one party vote in the other party's primary, trying to pick the least electable candidate for the general election.
Political parties are private organizations, the state should not dictate how a party selects its candidates, nor should the cost of the process be borne by the state.
This ridiculous system should be done away with. In its place, a primary should be held for all candidates who have successfully filed for office, regardless of any party affiliation.
The primary could be used to narrow the field by eliminating candidates with little or no support. Rather than narrowing it down to only two candidates, It would be better to allow any candidate who achieves a certain minimal percentage of votes, to continue on to the general election.
This would allow a more open and widespread discussion of viewpoints beyond the run-of-the-mill two party views; at the same time it would serve to eliminate candidates who are not serious.
We need to reform our system of elections and bring politics back to the common people and away from the professional politicians. It is time to give all citizens equal ballot access and break the stranglehold on elective office held by the Republicans and Democrats.
Post a Comment