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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: TJ in Cleve

[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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators have 24 hours to object to the Amendments.


I didn't have time to verify who picked this up last night. It was indeed TJ, who posted as such on the last page of the legislation introduction thread. This was introduced way back in December and that is the page linked to in the Noticeboard.


TJ has 24 hours from now to speak on this bill.

[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.

[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.

[Pingvin]

Hey, what about open primaries?

[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.

[Pingvin]

Hey, what about open primaries?

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

No.
If some party decided to have a presidential primary, everybody despite affilation can vote in it.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Hey, what about open primaries?

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

No.
If some party decided to have a presidential primary, everybody despite affilation can vote in it.

That's been amended to the bill already.

[Pingvin]

Hey, what about open primaries?

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

No.
If some party decided to have a presidential primary, everybody despite affilation can vote in it.

That's been amended to the bill already.

Oh, dammit. I'm slowpoke there.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am tacking on nine more hours to the objection time because I called it before TJ have "sponsor feedback". That way a full 24 hours will have lapsed after his having responded on the matter.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

This is a good bill- as long as parties are in control of their primaries I am in favor

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I'm not so sure about open primaries, though. It could lead to Operation Hilarity/Backdoor-style fraud.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Isn't that an issue for the parties to decide?

[tmthforu94]

If it's still an issue for the party's to decide, I actually like this idea. Good game reform improvement.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Amendments passed.

[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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

[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.

[LastVoter]

This is a terrible bill, we already have IRV which encompasses the best parts of all voting systems. The only alternative that should be considered is creating a Parliament with country-wide proportional representation since we have several major parties. That way we can have coalitions form, which could be more fun than the current system.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This is a terrible bill, we already have IRV which encompasses the best parts of all voting systems. The only alternative that should be considered is creating a Parliament with country-wide proportional representation since we have several major parties. That way we can have coalitions form, which could be more fun than the current system.

We'll still have IRV.  This bill doesn't affect much other than the way candidates appear on the ballots.  Basically, primary wins would just be the same thing as formal endorsements from the party.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Any other concerns or desired changes?

[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.

[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.