Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Republicans

Journal pudge's Journal: Not Your Party 29

Journal by pudge

The Republicans and Democrats in WA have agreed to choose their candidates by nominating convention instead of primary this year.

See, a couple of years ago, the parties sued because they didn't like the fact that WA had a blanket primary, meaning anyone can vote for anyone. The entire point of a primary is for parties to choose their own candidates, so it makes no sense of any kind to say that anyone can vote for any candidate.

A federal court case in California opened the door for a suit in WA, which was successful, and the blanket primary was abolished.

Since there is no party registration in WA, they used the same system that is used for the caucuses: by participating in the primary for one party, you temporarily identify with that party for this purpose, and you don't get to participate in the election of any other party for that cycle. Simple enough, and something WA is used to.

But the outcry was enormous. "They're taking away our choices!," people cried. Well, only if you were voting for people in multiple parties, which defeats the purpose of a primary. In that case, yes, you have less choice, which is good.

So some people came up with a solution to their perceived woes, that they believe is in sufficient agreement with the previous Supreme Court decision on the matter: an adoption of something similar to the "Top Two" in Louisiana. The primary is a blanket one, but instead of the top candidate from each party advancing, you get only the top two candidates overall advancing.

There are many legal arguments for and against -- mostly against -- this plan. But bottom line, it takes away the rights of the parties to decide on their own candidates, and the right to even get ON the general election ballot if they have enough signatures to do so, and significantly reduces the choice for the voters in the general election.

There is nothing remotely good about this plan. But the voters were so mad about losing the blanket primary that they blindly voted for it.

So now the parties are taking back their rightful power to choose their own candidates. They are basically saying, "fine, if that's the way you want it, we won't participate in your stupid primary," and there will only be one Republican and one Democrat on the primary ballot.

Because the people passed I-872, they will have less choice on the primary ballot, and less choice on the general election ballot.

Congratulations, people. I tried to warn you.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Not Your Party More

Not Your Party

Comments Filter:

  • So you can't cry, even if you want to? (Score:3, Funny)

    by sulli ( 195030 ) * on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @07:59PM (#11883112) Journal
    You would use a nominating convention too, if it happened to you.
  • The entire point of a primary is for parties to choose their own candidates, so it makes no sense of any kind to say that anyone can vote for any candidate.

    If the people can switch their party affiliation, like I did when so I could vote for McCain, and then switch back, a blanket primary is like doing the same thing, except making it easier for everyone to do.

    The primaries are usually held for races where there is only one seat available, unlike say for a school board. Since only the top vote-getter ge
    • If the people can switch their party affiliation, like I did when so I could vote for McCain, and then switch back, a blanket primary is like doing the same thing, except making it easier for everyone to do.

      No. That is an open primary, where you get to select on election day which party you choose to vote for. What we had last time was essentially this: since we have no party registration, you choose which party's primary you wish to participate in at the time you vote.

      A blanket primary is different: t
      • Well damn, I misunderstood several points you made.

        Agreed, what they're stuck with now, sucks.

        Small point: Not one party in Washington is in favor of it. They are all entirely against it. The Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, everyone. So start off with the fact that they do not agree.

        This makes perfect sense, because they're more concerned about their party than the People. The Dems and Reps are concerned about far-left and right voters stirring things up instead of playing in a corner wit
        • This makes perfect sense, because they're more concerned about their party than the People.

          In the sense that this is true, it is a truism. The AARP doesn't care about the People, it cares about its members. This is the same with the parties.

          People join the party to advance their own interests, which are usually similar to the interests of the rest of the party. Those are the interests the party cares about. The very purpose of the party is to advance those interests through getting their candidates e
          • If instead of the top two, it had been the top four, I wonder if all the small parties would still oppose it? Assuming the Libertarians made the cut, perhaps in the general election they'd pick up a few votes from Constitutionalist members? Now I don't want minority voices shut out, but I wouldn't mind if the ones who don't have a prayer would drop out of the race, or even better, all get together to work on reforming the system. Now that all the small parties have been shut out, perhaps some positive re
            • I would have a problem with it.

              A fundamental aspect to our system is that if you get a certain number of people together, you can get on the ballot. This system destroys that important piece.

              It's not even for the practical fact that these parties rarely, if ever, have a serious chance. It's for the fact that anything can happen, and we should give them a chance, no matter how slight it is, if they can meet some minimum threshold.
              • Reading all the comments a last time before before deleting the notification from my messages. For some reason my brain associated your words with regards to the death penalty and gave me a new question:

                It's for the fact that anything can happen, and we should give them a chance, no matter how slight it is...

                Are you against the death penalty in cases where the convicted might not be guilty? I am. Now in virtually undisputable instances, such as the Atlanta courtroom killings a day or so ago, I still
                • Are you against the death penalty in cases where the convicted might not be guilty?

                  No. Not for it, either. My opinion on the death penalty is that it is perfectly legal for the people to have it if they so choose.

  • Slashdot has covered several stories in the past about this subject. When you have a parity voting system [1], it's possible for a candidate reviled by most of the voters to win the election. Different methods of voting, including approval voting and instant runoffs have been covered here on Slashdot a few times. Mr. Badnarik mentioned these in his interview [slashdot.org]. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the stories concerned specifically with the different methods of voting and the paradoxes they created. I know t

    • When you have a parity voting system

      I do not consider any voting system that is not one person, one vote, most votes wins. Anything less is, to me, antithetical to democracy.

      I don't know what arguments were actually used to persuade voters

      The arguments were irrelevant. People were angry about losing the blanket primary, so they chose the only option available to them.

      • OldMiner wrote:
        When you have a parity voting system

        pudge wrote:
        I do not consider any voting system that is not one person, one vote, most votes wins. Anything less is, to me, antithetical to democracy.

        Could you explain why you believe this to be the case? Given the current parity system used for presidential elections in the U.S., in a three party election, the candidate considered worst by most of the voters has a good chance of winning. Let's ignore the complication of the electoral college,

        • Could you explain why you believe this to be the case?

          Because I define democracy as each person having one vote for one option. Anything else is not democracy, it is trying to use formulas to massage the people into some choice they did not actually pick.

          Given the current parity system used for presidential elections in the U.S., in a three party election, the candidate considered worst by most of the voters has a good chance of winning. Let's ignore the complication of the electoral college, as this
          • And if the winner only gets 10 percent of the vote, then so what? You say this like it is a necessarily bad thing. I don't see how it is.

            Just to clarify, you would rather have a candidate elected that 20% of people love and 80% despise than someone who is nobody's first choice, but 75% think is pretty good?

            Since when did democracy imply requiring a majority?

            Well, since the concept existed. The first known example of a democracy was Greece. Trials were conducted in public, and all citizens eligible to
            • Just to clarify, you would rather have a candidate elected that 20% of people love and 80% despise than someone who is nobody's first choice, but 75% think is pretty good?

              I would rather have the individual voters actually make a choice.

              Since when did democracy imply requiring a majority?

              Well, since the concept existed.

              No.

              A majority vote was all that was necessary.

              This example doesn't show that democracy implies a majority, only that in this case, a majority was used in this case.

              For questions

              • Just to clarify, you would rather have a candidate elected that 20% of people love and 80% despise than someone who is nobody's first choice, but 75% think is pretty good?

                I would rather have the individual voters actually make a choice.

                Since when did democracy imply requiring a majority?

                Well, since the concept existed.

                No.

                A majority vote was all that was necessary.

                This example doesn't show that democracy implies a majority, only that in this case, a majority was used in this case.

                For question

                • Approval, proportional, runoff, etc do not diminish the voice of any individual to a greater extent than the current system

                  All of them do. In runoff, for example, you lose your first choice and have to pick a second. The others are similar, and worse.

                  I suppose a better question to ask is, what is your definition of democracy?

                  I already gave it, quite clearly, earlier in the discussion: "Because I define democracy as each person having one vote for one option. Anything else is not democracy, it is try
                  • All of them do. In runoff, for example, you lose your first choice and have to pick a second. The others are similar, and worse.

                    Since you picked the example of runoff particularly, I'll continue with it. If your first-choice candidate loses under current US elections, you still lose your first choice. That's not a difference. The difference is the second part of your statement, picking a second choice. Picking a second choice after your first had a showing of 3rd or less in the race diminishes your voice?
                    • If your first-choice candidate loses under current US elections, you still lose your first choice. That's not a difference. The difference is the second part of your statement, picking a second choice. Picking a second choice after your first had a showing of 3rd or less in the race diminishes your voice?

                      Yes. Your first choice is thrown out and you are forced to pick someone else if you wish to participate. And in another sense, it diminishes the voice of the other people, who voted for the top candidat
                    • Yes. Your first choice is thrown out and you are forced to pick someone else if you wish to participate. And in another sense, it diminishes the voice of the other people, who voted for the top candidate, as there's a second opportunity to defeat their candidate.

                      The first portion of your response still does not constitute a reduction in your choices. It opens up the possibility of still being able to throw your weight behind the one of the top two candidates that more closely represents your wishes, rathe
                    • Replying here so both of you can get notification.

                      Approval, proportional, runoff, etc do not diminish the voice of any individual to a greater extent than the current system

                      All of them do. In runoff, for example, you lose your first choice and have to pick a second. The others are similar, and worse.

                      Looking at Condorcet because I consider it the best:
                      I don't know the real numbers, but it has the end-result-effect of weighting each person's vote by first choice, second, third... Thus the first pick g

                    • The voters are choosing. A majority or more of voters would have to agree to use condorcet in the first place.

                      Yes, and the voters could choose monarchy too. Therefore, monarchy can be democracy!

                      Why should my vote go to who I think is the best if the odds for that candidate are so small?

                      I am not saying it should. I am saying that choice is yours to make.

                      Condorcet lets me divide my vote between the candidate who has a real chance, and the one whose party I want to see grow and strengthen to be viabl
                    • Yes, and the voters could choose monarchy too. Therefore, monarchy can be democracy!

                      Monarchy:
                      1 : undivided rule or absolute sovereignty by a single person
                      2 : a nation or state having a monarchical government
                      3 : a government having an hereditary chief of state with life tenure and powers varying from nominal to absolute

                      According to (1), No, they could elect a monarchy democratically, but once they have, it's no longer a democracy. England's falls under (3). The USA could create a nominal monarchy, and s
                    • No, they could elect a monarchy democratically, but once they have, it's no longer a democracy

                      Sorry, no, you defined a system as democracy simply because the people chose it. By that standard, a monarchy can be a democracy too, if the people choose it. Drop the argument that people choosing to embrace a system qualifies it to be a democracy, and I won't claim that a monarchy is one. Deal?

                      Why should I have to? That's putting all my eggs in one basket.

                      You're asking me why should you have to make a c
                    • Sorry, no, you defined a system as democracy simply because the people chose it. By that standard, a monarchy can be a democracy too, if the people choose it. Drop the argument that people choosing to embrace a system qualifies it to be a democracy, and I won't claim that a monarchy is one. Deal?

                      I did? Tell me where. I've said that condorcet is part-your-definition-of-democracy, but I haven't defined the word beyond that. Part of my definition requires that there are eligible voters, that each voter's
                    • I've said that condorcet is part-your-definition-of-democracy,

                      It is not. It only fits in that odd statement you make, that people "choose" the system in the first place.

                      Why shouldn't I be able to fractionally vote for several candidates, which condorcet does?

                      That's really a bizarre question. You're asking to fundamentally change a system in a way that is foreign to our country and ask why SHOULDN'T you? The question is not that, it is why SHOULD you? You've got the burden of proof here, and you ar
                    • Then here's my last reply:

                      It is not. It only fits in that odd statement you make, that people "choose" the system in the first place.

                      I've bothered to use your definition of democracy, but this is what it really means:

                      "1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
                      2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
                      3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
                      4. Majority rule.
                      5. The principles of social equality and respect f
                    • You've declared you're done with this, and I've made my "last reply", but I wish you'd consider my reply with the same effort you've given the others, and write back.
                    • Some dreams will always remain dreams. :-) I have nothing to add.

Slashdot Top Deals

It's been a business doing pleasure with you.

Close