Hank, I think open primaries and RCV can be simplified by being using in conjunction with each. For example, we can start with Election 1 (ie old primaries) where everyone from all parties are included and all registered voters can vote and if one person get 50% of the vote, election is over. If not, then the top 3 or 4 move on to Election 2 (ie old general election) and rank choice voting is used. People vote for their favorite all the way down to their least favorite. When tallied up, the one with the least votes is ruled out and the second choice is used for people who voted for him/her and this exercise continues until one candidate has over 50% of the vote. This provides a winner that most people can agree upon. It also means that a candidate needs to appeal to a wider scope of voters than just a narrow range of a given party.
Man, some people just want to see the world burn... What chaos! I love it. lol.
That actually sounds like what Alaska is doing? They just approved a change last year. Very curious how it all plays out in Sarah Palin's House race. I haven't had a chance to dig into that, but if anyone wants to send us to Alaska to check it out, holler!
Or for that matter we'd love to go to Australia to write about compulsory voting. I kinda like that concept.
I'm generally pretty wary of "good government" overhauls because there's always unintended consequences. Like, I think term limits are a terrible idea. I could rant, but I'll save that for a slow day. Also, Clean Elections hasn't exactly worked out as planned (I guess a full disclosure is in order: Clean Elections pays me to moderate some debates).
I see a lot of value in the concept. But I worry about unintended consequence. Like, will a more complicated system dissuade people from voting? It's so hard to get people to vote to begin with. A lot of people don't even understand what a primary is. Then there's the less-obvious unintended consequences...
Why won't the Governor's office discuss Ducey's hands??? What are they trying to hide???
It has been a long time since those hands felt the hard labor of scooping ice cream. No calluses is a bad look for a governor. Sad!
It is great you reached out to the Governor's office to ask about his hands! Perhaps he is a lock picker?
Uh, how long has Chuck Coughlin been dropping f-bombs on the record?
Hank, I think open primaries and RCV can be simplified by being using in conjunction with each. For example, we can start with Election 1 (ie old primaries) where everyone from all parties are included and all registered voters can vote and if one person get 50% of the vote, election is over. If not, then the top 3 or 4 move on to Election 2 (ie old general election) and rank choice voting is used. People vote for their favorite all the way down to their least favorite. When tallied up, the one with the least votes is ruled out and the second choice is used for people who voted for him/her and this exercise continues until one candidate has over 50% of the vote. This provides a winner that most people can agree upon. It also means that a candidate needs to appeal to a wider scope of voters than just a narrow range of a given party.
Man, some people just want to see the world burn... What chaos! I love it. lol.
That actually sounds like what Alaska is doing? They just approved a change last year. Very curious how it all plays out in Sarah Palin's House race. I haven't had a chance to dig into that, but if anyone wants to send us to Alaska to check it out, holler!
Or for that matter we'd love to go to Australia to write about compulsory voting. I kinda like that concept.
I'm generally pretty wary of "good government" overhauls because there's always unintended consequences. Like, I think term limits are a terrible idea. I could rant, but I'll save that for a slow day. Also, Clean Elections hasn't exactly worked out as planned (I guess a full disclosure is in order: Clean Elections pays me to moderate some debates).
I see a lot of value in the concept. But I worry about unintended consequence. Like, will a more complicated system dissuade people from voting? It's so hard to get people to vote to begin with. A lot of people don't even understand what a primary is. Then there's the less-obvious unintended consequences...
Well Nevada is doing it. May their voters are smarter than ours
https://independentvoterproject.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8453033eadb71df419f0295a5&id=e1a7659532&e=38278a0889