- William Bishop I love reading your opinion.
My question...
Since only the top two move forward to the General.....isn’t it possible to have two candidates from the same party? - Alan Petrillo William Bishop : It is possible but it is rare. It has happened in a couple of races in California. The answer is that all the parties need to nominate candidates who appeal to a broader range of the electorate in their districts as a whole, not just their party base. Which is entirely the point. If we can start getting politicians to agree on consensus goals and only disagree on the details then that can't be a bad thing.
- William Bishop Alan Petrillo you may have just changed my mind.
- Alan Petrillo William Bishop : I would prefer ranked choice voting, but 3 is the next best thing, and easier to administrate.
- Alan Petrillo I must admit, I also question ACLU's goals. Among other things, 3 would tend to reduce the ability of ACLU and groups like them to influence elections, which they no doubt see as an existential threat.
- William Bishop Alan Petrillo
I don’t see anything wrong with that. Everyone needs to vote (and persuade others to vote) in a direction that benefits themselves.
That’s called reality. - Alan Petrillo ACLU still has not responded to my contact requesting they justify their opinion statements.
- Alan Petrillo William Bishop : I have closer contact with the representatives from the Tampa Bay chapter of ACLU. I'll poke them on it.
- William Bishop Alan Petrillo
Very cool.
I’m interested in how it turns out!
ACLU is wrong on 3
The ACLU of Florida opposes Amendment 3, and their reasons are nonsense.
Amendment 3 proposes to enact an open primary/top 2 runoff election system in Florida. ACLU opposes it for a number of reasons, all of which are nonsense. Let’s take their reasons one at a time.
"Ballot initiative #3, misleadingly titled, “All Voters Vote in Primary Elections for State Legislature, Governor and Cabinet,”... "
Nonsense. The title is exactly correct. All voters would get to vote in the primary, unlike the current system in which voters can only vote in primary elections for the party to which they are registered. The current system disenfranchises 3.7 Million Floridians who are registered without a party. In addition to this, 40% of new voter registrations in Florida do not have a party indicated. In the proposed reform, all voters would get to vote in the primary election regardless of party affiliation.
"...would have a negative impact on voters of color and effectively silence their voices."
I don’t see how. Voters of color would still make up the same fraction of the electorate in the same districts. In fact, California, in which this voting system has been used in the past 3 election cycles, has seen an increase minority candidates elected to office.
"...In addition, it would create a "top-two" electoral system that could prevent voters in the general election from voting for members of their own party in state legislative, governor and cabinet races."
Sure, this is possible. It’s rare, but it’s possible. In practice what it means is that both major parties would have to nominate candidates who appeal to a broader base of voters in their districts. Which is the whole idea.
"While supporters of Ballot Initiative #3 claim that this would allow more voters to participate in our democratic process, this amendment would have a negative impact on Black communities by diluting their vote in primary elections."
ACLU makes this claim in several places, but they have not backed it up with logic. I don’t buy it, but I’m willing to listen to their logic with an open mind. In our current gerrymandered system, black voters have been packed and cracked, and the makeup of the districts would not change, only the way people can vote. The apportionment of the districts has far more to do with the effects on Black communities than open primaries ever would.
"The measure also raises First Amendment concerns by hindering political dissent..."
How? By allowing more people to vote in the primary? I don’t buy it. But, again, I’m willing to listen to ACLU’s logic if they choose to present any.
"...and a political party's freedom of association,..."
How? Again, this makes no sense. The amendment says nothing about who can associate with a political party or who may not. In fact, the amendment should increase the association between parties and voters. Again, I’m willing to listen to ACLU’s logic if they present any.
"...as well as the ability to select its candidates..."
Nonsense. The amendment says nothing about how political parties may select their candidates. In practice, currently the political parties have little say over how candidates get on the ballot. All politicians have to do is declare their party affiliation when they register for the ballot. The parties may support them, endorse them, or not at their discretion.
...and messaging."
This one is true. The parties will have to broaden their message to appeal to a wider section of the electorate instead of just their base. That’s the whole idea. Closed primaries brought us to the point that the extremists of the major parties have taken over, and resulted in the situation we find ourselves in, in which the two major parties might as well exist in different universes. As it is now, if an office holder chooses to reach across the aisle and negotiate with officials on the other side then that person will face a primary challenge in the next election from a more extremist candidate. This is the situation which has brought us to 21 years of single party rule.
No comments:
Post a Comment