On 16 Jun 2005 at 14:30 UTC-0700, Anthony Duff wrote: > Perhaps there was something specific about the primary that you want > eliminated, but every party has to be able to choose a candidate.
Sure, let parties choose their candidate, but on their own dime. I don't buy the argument that it is in the public interest to publicly fund a primary to choose the candidates. It maintains the status quo of two major parties (in the US, at least). If ranked ballots or approval are enacted, why not allow all the primary candidates on the general election ballot anyway? With a strong ranked scheme or approval it shouldn't hurt the official party representatives, and could possibly even help them. The primary losers don't have to actively campaign, but disaffected party voters could register some kind of statement without actually losing their votes. For example, some 500 voters in last November's Washington State governor's race voted for Ron Sims, the Democratic primary loser, probably as a statement against Christine Gregoire's 1960's membership in a black-excluding sorority. Presidential campaigns are a different beast, anyway. Any voting change is going to have to start locally, with city, county and statewide offices. Q -- araucaria dot araucana at gmail dot com http://www.metafilter.com/user/23101 http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/User:Araucaria Q = Qoph = "monkey/knot" -- see http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/alphabet.html ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
