9
   

Jungle Primaries

 
 
gollum
 
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2018 12:47 pm
I thought that primary elections were held to select the candidate for a particular office of a particular political party.

I understand that a political party is a non-government. It is not a municipality, county, state or federal government.

Recently, I read that certain States have Jungle Primaries. I believe that on the date of the Primary each voter (including each member of each and every political party? also including voters who are not a member of any party?) is handed a ballot with the names of all the candidates for each office. I'm not sure if the candidate's party is listed.

After the votes are tabulated, on General Election Day all the voters vote in an election between the two candidates with the highest and second-highest number of votes. These two candidates may be of the same party.

My Question
As a political party is a non-government, why is the government telling it that it may not hold an election to decide on the candidate to represent its party?
 
Blickers
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2018 10:22 pm
@gollum,
Good question. First I heard of the "jungle primaries" was last night and I think it's crazy.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2018 12:55 am
@gollum,
"Jungle primaries" need to be abolished.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2018 03:09 am
What would happen in these states if a party decided to select their candidates with caucuses?

Would the candidates then be barred from appearing on the ballot in the general election?
Blickers
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2018 12:45 pm
@oralloy,
Also a good question. Caucuses was the way parties have selected their candidates for most of American history.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2018 12:59 pm
@Real Music,
Why do you say that? Louisiana has used a top two system for decades and no one complained. In a state where one party is completely dominant like California, it makes perfect sense. The top two system allows people from the non-dominant party to have more of a say in who gets elected and tends to prevent extremists from getting elected.
Real Music
 
  3  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2018 11:17 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
What would happen in these states if a party decided to select their candidates with caucuses?

Caucuses should also be abolished.
Blickers
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2018 11:20 pm
@Real Music,
I think a party should be allowed to caucus if they damn well want to.
Real Music
 
  3  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2018 11:37 pm
@engineer,
Quote:
Why do you say that? Louisiana has used a top two system for decades and no one complained. In a state where one party is completely dominant like California, it makes perfect sense. The top two system allows people from the non-dominant party to have more of a say in who gets elected and tends to prevent extremists from getting elected.

This time California luckily avoided a catastrophe. Let's use a hypothetical scenario for a "jungle primary". Let's say the democrats have 20 candidates running for one seat and the republicans have 2 candidates running for that exact same seat. Let's say the two republicans get 20 percent each. Let's say the 20 democrats get 3 percent each. In this hypothetical scenario the democratic party would get 60 percent of the primary votes and the republican party would get 40 percent of the primary votes. The party that get the most primary votes would have no one on the ballot in the general election, while the party that has the least amount of primary votes would have two candidates be on the ballots running against each other for that one seat. In this hypothetical scenario there would be a republican running against another republican in the general election for that one seat.
Real Music
 
  3  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2018 11:41 pm
@Blickers,
Quote:
I think a party should be allowed to caucus if they damn well want to.
The political parties do caucus if they chose to do so. I just personally think caucuses should be abolished. I personally believe that every state should only be primaries and not caucuses.
Blickers
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2018 12:45 am
@Real Music,
I think political parties should be private organizations. If you want to start a Guru party and have the nomination decided by the leaders only, I say go ahead. Caucuses decided the nominations for most of American history so I don't see why they should be outlawed.

Democracy takes place on Election Day. You can have whatever nominating system you choose before that.
roger
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2018 01:00 am
@Blickers,
Would you be okay with knocking off the super delegates?
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2018 04:24 am
I regret not attending Michigan's 2012 Democratic caucus.

I didn't bother at the time because there was really nothing to decide. They were just going to renominate Obama by general acclimation. But in retrospect I think it would have been neat to experience a caucus.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2018 05:12 am
@roger,
That's an unfortunate choice of terms...
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2018 05:29 am
@Real Music,
But why on earth would twenty members of one party run for office? The only reason we are taking "catastrophe" in California is because enthusiasm is so high for Democrats in California right now. As mentioned earlier, Louisiana has been running a top two system for decades and no catastrophes. (I'm not sure why the press is acting like California's system is something new and radical when another state has been doing it for so long.) A more likely situation and one that is occuring right now in several California races is that two Democrats head the ballot in the runoff. I suppose that could be considered a Republican catastrophe, but when you only have a quarter of the statewide registration, it's hard to say you deserve a candidate in the runoff every time. In those districts, non-Democrats now get a say in the final election. The can't vote for their favorite party, but they do get a say in the final election. That limits extremist Democrats from taking office with a simple plurality of the popular vote.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2018 05:32 am
@engineer,
What's good for the Democrats is good for democracy.
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2018 05:34 am
@maxdancona,
In Louisiana, the overwhelming majority is Republican. It's not a party driven thing, it is about allowing minority parties more say in the general election.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2018 05:36 am
@engineer,
Quote:
It's not a party driven thing, it is about allowing minority parties more say in the general election.


Nonsense. The majority parties set up the rules. No one does it to give "minority parties" more say.

The parties set up this crazy system because they think it benefits them.
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2018 05:51 am
@maxdancona,
I think it is generally a disadvantage to the dominant party (which might explain why only two states do it). The California Democratic party tends to support candidates more to the left than where the overall population of California sits. If a moderate and a liberal Democrat are facing off in the general election, the moderate has the edge because he or she is more representative of the entire state. In the standard primary, the liberal Democrat would likely win and would face a conservative Republican giving the people in the middle little choice. The state party clearly doesn't support moderate Dianne Feinstein but the general population clearly does. In a top two primary, she's in with 2x the vote of her next challenger. A Democratic only primary would have been a lot closer. If you want to see the opposite, look at Lisa Murkowski in 2010. Despite being tremendously popular state wide, she lost the primary to an extremist and had to stage a write-in campaign (which she wins!) If Alaska had been running a top two primary, Murkowski would likely have ended up facing her Republican challenger in the general without all the write in garbage.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2018 11:18 am
@maxdancona,
I thought about that before posting and decided to let it stand.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Jungle Primaries
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/15/2018 at 07:06:34