I'm Pissed..Cali Primary System is fucked up..

[busterbrown]

Top 2 Primary winners make it to the Cali General Election..

You figure it out..It's crazy..Dem against Dem against 1 Republican....

At this point in time with our national crisis..We're gonna lose a couple House Seats in D.C. because of some fucking egos.. I swear to christ...I live in L.A. and I'm gonna get involved in this situation, big time..I'll be checking back in frequently....

There is no excuse for this... Our lives and our families lives might be on the line here.. And please no "aren't you being a bit dramatic?"
Getting Control of the House is Mandatory..

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/15/california-democrats-disaster-2018-ballot-465460

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. So if the party tells you to bow out, you bow the FUCK out or ELSE we wanna know

about it.

How did it get this way, dems control the state.

[busterbrown]

2. Here ya go..

https://cavotes.org/vote/how-vote/voting-primary-election

[David__77]

3. The party has not told anyone to bow out.

The party has not even made an endorsement in every race.

[RandySF]

11. Can you imagine the screaming it would trigger on here and elsewhere?

[busterbrown]

29. ABSOFUCKLYLUTLY CORRECT!

[busterbrown]

30. ABSOFUCKINLUTELY CORRECT! N/T

[kennetha]

4. The "wisdom" of the voters

gave us this mess in 2010, via the initiative process.


"Proposition 14 was a proposal to amend Sections 5 and 6 of Article II of the California State Constitution relating to elections. It is officially known as the Top Two Primaries Act.

It was authored by State Senator Abel Maldonado, who represented the 15th district as Senate Constitutional Amendment 4 of the 2009–2010 Regular Session (Resolution Chapter 2, Statutes of 2009).[1] It was based on a proposal drafted by the Independent Voter Project in 2008.[2] It was passed in the State Senate by a vote of 27 to 12 and in the State Assembly by a vote of 54 to 20.[1] The proposition was publicly backed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, as part of a deal in which Maldonado agreed to support his proposed 2009–2010 state budget, and was opposed by political parties."


But I gather there is an initiative working its way through the process designed to repeal this monstrosity. neither party likes it.

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Repeal_Top-Two_Primary_Initiative_(2018)

[busterbrown]

20. Yea.. But probably too late!

Boy could you imagine if Cali Fuck ups is the diff. between a Dem House or Repub House!

[yallerdawg]

5. The presumption of "jungle primaries" is that...

the top two vote-getters will be more moderate and middle-of-the-road to appeal to the General Election voters, eliminating extremist party nominees.

I much prefer the closed primary where the party picks the runoff candidates (unless unopposed or plus 50% for the one), and the final winner goes to the General Election against the other primary winner(s). It would seem to be more reflective of the Party mood and positions than just a popularity contest.

[TheBlackAdder]

9. Yes, the primaries politicians pivot to their base, in the generals, they pivot to get Indy vote.

[Proud liberal 80]

6. I actually like Californias primary system

I actually wish this was done everywhere with one caveat, we get rid of parties. I think that would go a long way in ending partisanship and divisiveness.

[Wounded Bear]

8. LOL!!

Jungle primaries are supposed to allow 3rd parties a better chance to get elected. They tend to fail at that because the two big parties will just run more than one candidates to offset that, like is happening there.

We do this in WA. I don't like it. Pick a party, whether that be D, R, or I, or Green or Socialist, whatever.

People will always form groups to work together on something. We're tribal animals. There will be political parties as long as there is politics, and there will always be politics because that's how people get together to get things done.

[GulfCoast66]

18. Get rid of parties!!! How rich.

So we eliminate the right to freely assemble?

How can you keep people from joining the Democratic Party?

Parties are party of all political systems. Might as well stop the tides from coming in.

[Wounded Bear]

7. Yeah, jungle primaries suck...

[politicaljunkie41910]

10. The current system was in affect during the last election, I don't recall hearing that it hurt us.

In fact in the Senate race, two Democratic candidates, both women, emerged as the two top candidates, and Kamala Harris won. In any House races, I expect that the strongest candidates will emerge as well. The few GOP districts in California are pretty isolated so if more than one GOP runs for a House seat in a GOP district, we probably have a better chance that they will split the GOP votes between the two GOP candidates and open up the possibility that a Dem candidate can slip into that 2nd slop.

[Blue_true]

12. Last time that worked out to an all Dem General.

I am ok with 2 dems and 1 repub because that leads to a strong Dem on puke General. If the other dem don't pull sour grapes, the dem should win. What I don't want to see is five dems and two pukes because that can lead to puke-puke General.

[FakeNoose]

13. Why doesn't one of the Dems bow out?

The candidates need to get together and figure out who should be the candidate, and the other one resigns.
Maybe they can flip a coin? I don't know. If they both want to help the Democratic Party, they should each
be willing to do what it takes.

There is a smart solution to this dilemma!

[Ms. Toad]

19. Why should they?

If there are 3 candidates - 2 dem & 1 rep. the top two vote recipients would be:
1 dem + 1 rep
2 dems

If there are 2 candidates - 1 dem & 1 rep, the top 2 vote recipients would be 1 dem + 1 rep.

Why on earth would it be smart to give up the chance to have the possibility of a guaranteed democratic candidate. Do you want to guarantee a republican candidate in the general election?

[Hortensis]

14. :) Oh, brother. CA has 53 districts, Politico's supposed

"disaster" is about 2 SOLIDLY CONSERVATIVE districts, which would both probably stay Republican anyway. And this is the midterms in 2018, not the general in 2020.

I don't understand why California's system is supposed to be "all fucked up." It allows the candidates who get the most votes to progress REGARDLESS OF PARTY AFFILIATION. What's wrong with that? Except these days for Republicans, of course, because the candidates with the most support are seldom both Republicans but often both Democrats.

[grantcart]

15. Baloney, it alllows the Democrats to lock up more districts and squeeze the Republicans

The only time it will work against us if the people who are running let their own personal greed overtake logical circumstances.

If you are running third or below two weeks before the election you announce that you endorse either number one or two in the race.

The fact is that it has made it more difficult for Republicans to make it to the General in more districts.

Can you give a single example where it hasn't worked for us so far?

[Jim Lane]

16. You asked for "a single example where it hasn't worked for us" -- here's one

This is from Washington state, specifically the 2016 election for State Treasurer. In the jungle primary, 52% of the voters supported Comerford, Fisken, or Liias (all Democrats), versus only 48% for Davidson or Waite (both Republicans). Unfortunately, the three Democrats split the votes among themselves evenly enough that the two Republicans took the top two spots. In the general election, voters had to choose between two Republicans, even though Democrats had won a majority of the votes in the primary.

That kind of result won't often happen with only five candidates in the race. In Washington, if a few voters had switched from one Democrat to another or from one Republican to another, then the general election would have been Democrat versus Republican. It was really bad luck that the numbers fell out precisely the wrong way.

In some California districts, though, the concern is that, with so much "blue wave" enthusiasm, there'll be a very large field of Democrats. With, say, two Republicans and eight Democrats, it's much easier for the Democrats to be shut out, even in a fairly blue district. (Example: Republicans 24% and 20%; Democrats 15%, 12%, 11%, 9%, 4%, 3%, and 2%. The district should be a double-digit Democratic win but the Republicans close it out.)

[grantcart]

23. Not a single example in Ca

This is such two dimensional thinking. Because we can think of a possible situation where something that might happen (which hasn't) we should give up a huge structural advantage.

Let me give you another example "the John Edwards" scenario.

We go back to the old primary system and we have a Democrat who is expected to win by 60% but a few weeks before the general election the electorate is surprised by an unwed pregnant girlfriend, unpaid child support, etc, etc. We now have a Republican congressman in a Democratic seat.

Think that doesn't happen? It happens all of the time. Just look at what eventually happened to the Mayor of Seattle.

Having secured both slots in the general means that even if there is an "October Surprise" which is increasingly possible with guys like the Koch Brothers or O'Keefe.

Look at what happened to Franken. Having both spots in the General eliminates a very real potential problem that is occurring frequently. The downside that we mishandle the primary can be easily handled by having the leaders of the area coalesce behind two candidates.

[Jim Lane]

25. It did happen in a California seat

I just can't remember whether it was state legislature or U.S. House, can't remember the candidate's name, and, most important, can't remember which party got screwed.

That last point illustrates the weakness in your argument. Yes, if a Democrat in a heavily blue district is afflicted with a John Edwards problem, then the top-two primary means that we save the seat. But it's also possible that the adulterer could be a Republican in a red district. (Believe it or not, Republicans have committed adultery.) In that case, it's the GOP that has the built-in insurance policy, if they've won both top spots in the general election.

You refer to this method as "a huge structural advantage." I don't see any reason to think it would tend to favor Democrats over Republicans. In fact, it might well be the other way. Bear in mind that the problem is more likely to affect a party that has a large number of candidates. The Republicans, being more used to marching in lockstep pursuant to orders from above (or from the Kochs), might prove to be better at whittling down their fields.

[busterbrown]

22. Check reply 16

[grantcart]

24. Reply 16 is equally idiotic

You are a 2 dimensional thinker in a 3 dimensional world

Simply because you can see one scenario where it is a disadvantage you cannot see the other 98 scenarios where it is a big fucking advantage.

Let me give you one scenario, "the John Edwards" scenario.

We go back to the old primary system and we have a Democrat who is expected to win by 60% but a few weeks before the general election the electorate is surprised by an unwed pregnant girlfriend, unpaid child support, etc, etc. We now have a Republican congressman in a Democratic seat.

Think that doesn't happen? It happens all of the time. Just look at what eventually happened to the Mayor of Seattle.

Having secured both slots in the general means that even if there is an "October Surprise" which is increasingly possible with guys like the Koch Brothers or O'Keefe.

Look at what happened to Franken. Having both spots in the General eliminates a very real potential problem that is occurring frequently. The downside that we mishandle the primary can be easily handled by having the leaders of the area coalesce behind two candidates.

So we live in a real world where there is a multi billion industry with Fox at its head that is looking for preposterous stories to come in at the last minute and catfish a candidate like they did to Acorn, Sen Franken and on and on and on where they can reveal true facts or completely made up BS right before the election and take out the Democrat and get the Republican in. The "jungle primary" takes that very real risk away and gives them no incentive to use October surprises to steal a Democratic district at the last minute.

The other, hypothetical risk, of spreading too thin and letting the Republicans get two spots is easily handled by getting the other candidates to concede if they haven't reached a certain point by October and having local Democratic clubs (which are very effective in California) endorse and promote the top two candidates.

[pnwmom]

17. If the R's take the top 2, then there should be a massive WRITE-IN campaign for the strongest DEM.nt

[OnDoutside]

28. Do we know just how many districts where this is going to be a problem ?

[Retrograde]

26. Its what the voters wanted

How did you vote om the proposition that enacted it?

[OnDoutside]

27. Where there is stupidity going on, the DNC need to pick a recommended candidate.

And financially back them