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

[ilikeverin]

Can't parties pretty much already hold primaries?  I don't think we have any laws against them... I mean, I suppose this would change whether people could put party affiliations on the ballot, but I think it would just encourage people to drop out.  Right now, having too few candidates on the ballot in the general election is a problem, so I don't think it makes much sense to do anything that would make people want to drop out before election day, particularly because we have a system which is quite conducive to multiple candidates from a single party running for office.

[ilikeverin]

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.

Well, yeah, but the purpose of this bill just seems to be to create the idea that we want less people running in the general election than we have now, which is exactly the opposite of what we want to have happen.

[ilikeverin]

Hey, what about open primaries?

You mean, like, Louisiana-style jungle primaries?  That's essentially the system we have already, except better, because it's instant rather than time-delayed.

[ilikeverin]

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.

[ilikeverin]

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.

[ilikeverin]

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.

[ilikeverin]

Nope