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

[TJ in Oregon]

The main purpose of this bill is to create a system where a party can have a legally binding primary. Yes, a party could already have a primary but the loser could run under the party label anyway; it's not legally forcing.

This bill was originally intended to function as a way to spice things up when the RPP and JCP were dominating but I think it is a good law to have on the books should a party decided they want a primary. One of the most important aspects of the bill is that no party is forced to do anything.

I accept Scott's amendments as friendly:

TJ already sponsored this, I believe.

Anyhow, I propose these three amendments:

Section 2 is amended to read:
Primaries may be either closed (open only to members of the respective party) or open (open to members of other parties, unaffiliated voters, or both) at the discretion of the parties, the means of which must be held in accordance to the voting system used in the race the candidates are running for.
5. In the event that a registered voter changes parties after voting in a primary and another party's primary is being held for the same race, they are prohibited from voting in the other primary/s.  Unaffiliated voters are also limited to voting in one primary per race.
6. Primary winners may be determined no less than one week before the general/special election/s.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[TJ in Oregon]

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

[TJ in Oregon]

Ay....

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

Aye