Agree about the would, disagree about the could. There is nothing magical about voting in the primaries. And if you are worried it is hard to navigate, how would choosing from a plethora of obscure choices be any easier in the alternative you advocate for? It wouldn't...
How would it be easier to fill out a form weeks in advance, only to have to change it back a few weeks later than just filling out a ballet once? Are you kidding?
It still amazes me that anyone voted for him. I knew about him well before his name was on a primary. A self indulged narcissist personality with added bullshit was so obvious to us. He really is a circus act.
That's what I do and yeah, it is sort of a pain in the ass but I do it online so it's not that bad. In 2012 I actually registered as a republican in the primary because I knew my vote would have more value. But maybe that's not what you guys are talking about here.
That's what I'm talking about. And again, some people can do it online. Some states don't allow that. But no matter what, it's an obstacle for 1/3 of voters.
I see it as a requirement for being an independent voter that wants to participate in a primary, just like initially registering is a requirement to voting in the first place.
No, I think that a proper vote work is in analyzing the options and choosing among them, not in filling forms, even if it a pain. The current system works exactly because of that. People that care deeply will do the work and register for the primaries and vote. People that do not have a simple option of choosing from a reduced list. There are tons of studies about it in UX design and the huge success of simplified interfaces (see apple, google etc) are the proof in the pudding. It's not like we do have examples of countries with a flat voting system like the one you advocate for that show it is a bad system. Israel which employs this exact system is going for a 4th elections in less than 2 years because it is such an unstable outcome, and the orthodox party there has never been out of office despite the fact that they represent a tiny portion of the population because they are always needed to form a coalition, meaning they basically get favorable outcomes at all times.
When did I advocate for that? I simply said our current system is too exclusionary. I think the biggest problem is that we need to publicly fund elections and remove most of the corporate money from politics. Opening the primaries and having a runoff between the top two vote getters (if 50% of the vote isn't attained) isn't asking too much either.
Post 664: The only way you do not consolidate power between a limited number of parties is to open them all. Because having 3, 4 or 5 instead of 2 is the same problem with a different constant. So, the only logical conclusion for this is to have an open system where everyone can run in one elections. I have no problem with that - but it is not related to the 2 party system (and if we again look at other places where they have unlimited parties - does not seem to be any different there. Opening the primaries is a mistake - because it opens the door to unfriendly agents. There is nothing stopping Republicans for example, to vote for their preferred candidate in the republican primary but vote for a weak candidate in the democratic primaries. The registration process tries to solve this issue by basically limiting you to vote in 1 primary per election. The runoff between the 2 vote getters is basically the primary system in reverse where instead of having 2 sets of primaries that are followed by a general election between the winner of these - you are having one giant primary for everyone that might be followed by a tie-break. As mentioned above - from a process design work - it complicates it for the general population - and I will once again show you that the Israeli system this month will have the 4th election since Apr 2019 - which makes it a more involved process for everyone. I am going to say it again - the 2 party system is not the problem. The problem is really the lack of term limits and the limited accountability for campaign finance - which lead to power consolidation.
You just make it illegal to vote more than once in a primary. This doesn't seem like that big of a problem... The two party system is absolutely part of the problem. The DNC and RNC have far too much leverage. But that would be drastically reduced by campaign finance changes. Which is why we will probably not see effective campaign finance changes. Thanks to the two party system supporting the current system as it stands from both sides...
So, instead of ensuring that the someone is allowed to vote by registering - you want to ensure that someone is allowed to vote by ensuring someone did not vote somewhere else? What next? Anyone can come in and we will later check if you have a valid passport? Yes, sir, you can go take them nukes and we will check later if you are allowed to do so? This is just not a very reasonable suggestion. So, if it was the RNC, DNC, GNC and TNC (I added the Green and Tea parties) it would not be? The issue is not that there is a C (where C is a constant) number of parties - the procedure is not relevant to the issue. The issue is that there is a concentration of power - and the way to resolve it is with term limits(*) all around and better auditing of campaign finance. The number of parties is not the issue at all. So, your assertion is that if there are 2 parties - but people can not serve there for long time (either in the party management itself or in senate, congress etc...) and money is equal or close to it for all candidates the same problem still exists? I do not believe it at all. The problem is concentration of power, simple as that. The procedural way you create a voting process is not important. (*) Of course, the issue here is that there needs to be a balance between "time to learn the job" and "concentration of power". So, 1 term for congressmen or senators makes little sense - but "lifetime" service is.
It's a felony if you commit voter fraud. That's why it's not a big problem. You only get 1 ballot counted and if you try to vote multiple times you get a felony. This is already handled quite easily. This may surprise you, but you couldn't vote for both Trump and Biden in the general election.
Correct, because you need to be a registered voter to vote - but you want to remove the party registration from the voting... You are contradicting yourself here...
No, I didn't say anything about removing any party from anything. I said to allow anybody to vote for anybody they want in any primary. If you try to vote twice they'll know. This is not a problem.
There are many states that allow voting in whichever primary a voter chooses (without change of registration). Google says: Alabama Michigan Montana Vermont Arkansas Minnesota North Dakota Virginia Georgia Mississippi South Carolina Wisconsin Hawaii Missouri Texas are of that type. Not sure how old that list is so it may not be 100% accurate. I wouldn't say any of those states have achieved electoral nirvana through that rule. barfo
Right, thank you. And no rampant voter fraud in those states. My point was that there are many states which do not allow that. Which is an obstacle I believe should not exist. Very simple.
But you already allow everyone to vote in any primary by registering - which automatically solves the 2nd problem of voting twice. So - this is a non-issue. The registration process which is not closed to anyone (thus any valid voter can do it) - automatically eliminates the duplicate vote. In other words - it does exactly what you want for a very small price - and probably the most efficient way of doing it (because it makes the verification of only a single vote very easy - where you would have to synchronize 2 huge database otherwise).
No. It's pointless, except to disenfranchise voters and consolidate power. It doesn't make verification any easier at all.
