Since the GOP is a dying party, maybe the US should switch to the Top 2 system that California uses

[fried eggs]

In June 2010, voters approved the Top Two Primary system for what were formerly called “partisan” statewide offices. With the Top Two Primary, all candidates running for one of these offices are listed on one ballot, regardless of their party preference, and all voters will see the same list of candidates, regardless their own party registration. The top two vote-getters for each office will go on to the general election, regardless their party preference.

If we don't, then we'll continue to see lopsided presidential elections where the thought of the republican nominee winning is unimaginable and downright scary. Under a Top 2 system, the best candidates would emerge, and they'd most likely both be democrats (or a democrat and a green or independent). Imagine how much more intelligent the level of debate would be? Instead of being forced to watch republican men tell women what to do with their uteruses, we could hear debates on climate change, drug legalization, war, etc. This would also address the concerns of people who prefer third party candidates.

[Logical]

1. WTF? Dying? They control the house. And are 1 percent behind nationally? Proof???

[fried eggs]

5. Did you see the clown car of presidential candidates they offered this cycle?

The best they had was Willard. Their so called rising stars at the GOP convention weren't much better.

[bluestate10]

6. The GOP's dying kick. The GOP won't win another national race unless the democrat is an ass. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. It will be gone in two cycles tops, it was a ca GOP idea.

[limpyhobbler]

3. Yeah that would be awesome.

It's think maybe that is similar to how they elect presidents in France.

[jenw2]

7. France worked in the last election...

but elected someone completely unacceptable before that that didn't sufficiently oppose the invasion of Iraq enough. A better system wouldn't elect someone like Sarkozy or his kind.

[limpyhobbler]

9. well their whole range of what is politically acceptable is different than ours.

The run-off system allows for a more accurate representation of the intentions of the people.

I don't want to make too much of France, since the argument for run-off voting does not hinge on France. But they have had universal health coverage for decades. Workers there have more protections on the job and 5 weeks mandatory vacation and plus sick leave.

Sarkozy didn't sufficiently oppose invasion of Iraq? What is that a joke? The US led the invasion. If we had a system as described in the original post up top, George W. Bush would most likely never have been elected President.

[bluestate10]

4. I wouldn't want such a system unless it is a national vote.nt

[jenw2]

8. And if this was done on a state by state basis,

you could have many states where Democrats were the only choices. Also, a split vote for a pair of reasonable candidates wouldn't hurt because of the crooked winner takes all scheme.

[dimbear]

10. I can report from California that that idea sucked, and will be done away with ASAP.

We're not very bright about propositions, but eventually we work it out. People are just now seeing how screwed up it is.

Should have listened to Nancy Pelosi in the first place, tho.

[fried eggs]

11. Could you please elaborate?

What went wrong? Why don't you like it?

[dimbear]

12. In the districts where it's R vs R, the dems are apoplectic. In the districts where it's

D vs D, the republicans are apoplectic. It seems like there's no actual choice for them on election day.

It wasn't a good idea, but that doesn't stop us passing these propositions. This one won't last long, IMHO.