SENATE BILL: Primary System Introduction Act (Law'd)

[TJ in Oregon]

Could anyone please tell me why it is a good idea to reduce the competitiveness of elections even further?  I had to go back to December to find an election that was at all remotely competitive on an intra-party level, and there were 6 candidates there for 5 open slots.  Any reduction in the number of candidates would've made the election entirely non-competitive.

Actually, wait, no, I have a better objection than that, even.  (Bear with me... this isn't just an "ilikeverin being grumpy" objection, I promise! *hughughug* )  I can see this proposal, as currently proposed, doing what it's designed to do for the regional Senate races.  But, as currently stated, it seems to limit parties to endorsing a single candidate for all races, which is completely nonsensical for the at-large Senate races, where 5 seats are being competed for all at once.  You could limit it to 5 for those, I suppose, but what party would run 6+ candidates?!  At the very least, the bill should be amended to make it up to the parties themselves how many candidates they can nominate.

Um, this bill only affects single-position races.  It states that right in the first section.  Primaries would not be held for at-large Senate races or any other race that elects multiple people at a time based on preferential votes.

Oh, derp!  I are smart in brain.   ...how often do those situations happen, then?

EDIT: In 2011 and 2012, in federal elections (I didn't check ones for Governor, etc.), I counted a single single-position election where more than one candidate ran for a position from the same party, the January at-large Senate special election.

People may choose not to run for an office because they are concerned about hurting the chances of a fellow party member. I understand we have IRV voting so in theory this should not occur. But, in reality the concept of voting for multiple people effects the psychology of a voter and makes him feel as though a lower preference carries less weight.

Right.  And that exactly my point... we want more people running for office, not fewer.  Anything that would discourage people from running, as this bill would, should be avoided.

That's why we would want primaries... so that people wouldn't afraid to hurt their party in the general election. Instead they can challenge in a primary if that party wants to have one.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Any other concerns or desired changes?

^ I actually need an answer to this. I wasn't just shootin the breeze here.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I personally like what we have already.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Let me phrase it like this. Are we ready for a final vote?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Yes.

[Napoleon]

We already have a law that says this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure if this is only for fusion voting or not though, because that's the law. If this means what I'm reading it to mean, then parties can hold their own primaries and remove the loser from their ballot line. Unless this bill is going to have the SoFE run the primaries; it doesn't say in the text.

[TJ in Oregon]

We already have a law that says this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure if this is only for fusion voting or not though, because that's the law. If this means what I'm reading it to mean, then parties can hold their own primaries and remove the loser from their ballot line. Unless this bill is going to have the SoFE run the primaries; it doesn't say in the text.

That's an interesting point, a party could hold a primary and then prohibit the loser from running on the party line anyway. I suppose it would still be better to have a primary system spelled out in a law than using that loophole though.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What is the situation here?

[TJ in Oregon]

I think we're ready for a final vote at this point.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

When Senators talk about bills, it disrupts the processes and forces me to start over. A senator can call vote a final vote and I can open it at any time debate has expired for 24 hours.  When I ask the question and someone responds, I treat the response as a request for a final vote. But when you responded to Napoleon it voided the previous call for a final vote by Scott.

And responses to procedural questions that count as final vote requests don't count as "content debate" and thus don't violate the 24 hour rule.


Final Vote in Next Post, Please don't say anthing till it is up.

 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators, a vote on final passage of the Primary System Introduction Act is now open, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[TJ in Oregon]

Ay....

okay, fine, I'll go with the coloring scheme,

Aye

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Aye

[Sbane]

Aye

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Abstain

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Aye

[ilikeverin]

Nope

[Pingvin]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This has enough votes to pass, Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Final Passage of the Primary System Introduction Act:

Aye (7): Clarence, Nathan, NC Yankee, Pingvin99, Sbane, Scott and TJ in Cleve
Nay (1): ILV
Abstain (1): Alfred F. Jones

Didn't Vote (0):

With seven votes in the affirmative the Primary System Introduction Act has passed the Senate and is presented to the President for executive action.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

While I can see some benefits, I doubt this this will make a lot of difference, but I will respect the will of the Senate on this.