Araucaria Araucana araucaria.araucana-at-gmail.com |EMlist| wrote:
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).
Forcing the parties to pay for their own primaries is perfectly
reasonable, but I think it would have the opposite effect of what you
claim (under plurality at least). The big two could afford it, but the
smaller parties might not be able to afford their own primaries. Under
the current public financing of primaries, they essentially "piggy-back"
on the big two. What if the Libertarians and Greens couldn't afford
their own primaries? That would further entrench the two-party duopoly,
wouldn't it?
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.
Because under most election methods, having multiple candidates from the
same party would hurt the party's chances. No sane party would allow
such a situation.
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.
A statement against her "1960's membership in a black-excluding
sorority"? Amazing. I wonder how many people realize that Senator Robert
Byrd (D-WV) was an active member of the KKK in his *forties*? (some
"youthful indiscretion," eh)
Presidential campaigns are a different beast, anyway. Any voting
change is going to have to start locally, with city, county and
statewide offices.
Yes, especially considering the Electoral College.
--Russ
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
