Wednesday, July 22, 2015

To Sign or not to sign the All Voters Vote Petition. By Geniusofdespair

I am torn on whether to sign the All Voters Vote Petition which allows all voters in Florida (not just people in the particular party) to vote in the other party's primary. Independents would finally have a vote and Democrats could vote for Republicans.

I would have to give up my hope that Donald Trump becomes the nominee if this were in effect. What this petition would do is dilute the nitwits of the both parties so a more viable candidate would end up as the final candidate.  That would mean if Republicans or Democrats made a concerted effort, they could scuttle a good candidate from the other party.  That could be very bad.

The petition, of course, would hurt Democrats and help Republicans in this particular election because they have so many screwball candidates (but it would not be in effect this election). And, being one of the nitwits with an eye on Trump, it would certainly hurt me.  Let's discuss the pros and cons of this petition (aiming for the 2016 election) in comments. Would you sign it?

Here is the petition summary, it is not going to be any fun unless there are presidential candidates included, can you amend it?

  • "Replaces closed political party primaries for congressional and state partisan elective offices with primaries where all qualified registered voters may vote regardless of party affiliation of the voter or candidate. Qualified candidates appear on one ballot. The top two vote getters per office advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation. Candidates nominated by a party appear on the ballot as that party’s nominee; other candidates may indicate their party preference on the ballot.”
Lawyer Gene Stearns, leading the effort on the petition drive, took the time to leave this comment to alleviate some of our fears:
Thanks to Ellen Friedin and the many others who have worked tirelessly for so many years to bring us a Constitutional standard for districting that precludes those drawn to favor parties or incumbents, and thanks to a Supreme Court with the strength of purpose to enforce it, districts will be drawn to rationally reflect geographical constraints. No matter how the districts are drawn, however, natural population distribution will result in urban districts having a higher percentage of Democrats than the less populated Republican districts. Today 55% of all new voters are registering as no party affiliation and, by the time of the next census will make up the largest political group in the State. They care enough to register but are eliminating themselves from election to the Congress and legislature. A system that assures a favorable outcome for one side or the other is inherently undemocratic. In a top two system with all voters voting, the winner will have to look at the entire constituency as his or her employers instead of the fringes of the existing parties. No system is perfect. The existing system exceeds tolerable limits of imperfection.
 Gene, thank you for helping our readers to make an informed decision. I can't stand the Republican District Drawing Guru - Miguel DeGrandy. He is one pain in the ass.

Miguel DeGrandy drawing districts favorable to Republicans.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Under the proposal, also known as a “jungle primary,” all registered voters could vote in primaries for congressional and state partisan elected offices regardless of the party affiliation of the voter or candidate."

Love the term jungle primary. Same reason I always tell the pollsters I'm a different race and party affiliation - to screw
with the numbers, I think I'd like to be able to pick from the whole field of contestants.

Anonymous said...

I am signing it. I have had enough of the pandering to the tea party.

Geniusofdespair said...

What? It is not for the presidential candidates? Are you sure?

Anonymous said...

Without proper redistricting, we would never get another Democrat in office. This is a bad idea.

Perry said...

It is hopeless. The State is a lost cause.

Geniusofdespair said...

" The top two vote getters per office advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation. "

That is the part I don't like. It should be the top vote getter from each party, not regardless of party. Anonymous is right. The way districts are drawn will make this unworkable. I WILL NOT SIGN IT

Anonymous said...

How would this play out in Fresen's district and Curbellos?

Anonymous said...

I am undecided. I need help!

Gene Stearns said...

Thanks to Ellen Friedin and the many others who have worked tirelessly for so many years to bring us a Constitutional standard for districting that precludes those drawn to favor parties or incumbents, and thanks to a Supreme Court with the strength of purpose to enforce it, districts will be drawn to rationally reflect geographical constraints. No matter how the districts are drawn, however, natural population distribution will result in urban districts having a higher percentage of Democrats than the less populated Republican districts. Today 55% of all new voters are registering as no party affiliation and, by the time of the next census will make up the largest political group in the State. They care enough to register but are eliminating themselves from election to the Congress and legislature. A system that assures a favorable outcome for one side or the other is inherently undemocratic. In a top two system with all voters voting, the winner will have to look at the entire constituency as his or her employers instead of the fringes of the existing parties. No system is perfect. The existing system exceeds tolerable limits of imperfection

Anonymous said...

It would be better than what I do now which is switch parties almost annually to be able to support or screw with candidates in the primary cycles.

gw said...

When I lived in Illinois, you did not have to declare a party to register but in primaries, you had to ask for a Rep or Dem ballot. One year, the primary was so late, Illinois had no influence so I asked for a Rep ballot and voted for the worst people on the Rep ballot to attend the National Convention.

For the next 10 years I kept getting all kinds of Republican party propaganda in the mail so I guess the joke was on me.

I would vote no for this until it is changed to the top vote getter in each party. It is too easy to rig it so only one party has candidates running for a particular office.

Anonymous said...

This is not a good plan. If you have many candidates, the 2 top vote getters may have only a small percentage of supporters. So fringe people who turn out in droves at the polls will get their crazies in the general. Imagine having to choose between a Trump and a Palin. I would shoot myself!

What we need are automatic runoff elections. You select you candidates in order of preference, first, second, third and so on. Then use a math/statistical (not my area) formula to pick winners from top preferences. This way some fringe loon with 11% support from other fringe loons, but last pick of all normal people, will not get moved up to the general based on large fringe loon turnout.

Its math and statistics, I know that puts most people to sleep, but think about it.

Anonymous said...

I know Mr. Stearns heart is in the right place, but he is lawyer and they don't do math and statistics. The automatic runoff is the way to go.

Anonymous said...

Nice drawing of MD! Would love to know how much he earned for his talent drawing maps.

Anonymous said...

If there are two Republicans running or two Democrats, I would not bother voting if it was not my party. So in the interest of independents who are disenfranchising themselves by choice, you are taking away the party system and reducing importance of elections instead, making the primary the major way to get elected?

cyndi said...

A few things. One they do this in new Hampshire. you have pick the party you want to vote for and they seem to do fine. I honestly feel that people do get pandered to and its all a bunch of bs. If everyone was no party they'd have no one pander to and would have be to more honest and work harder to get my vote. If we didn't have have we could could more on actual issues. Up here in our clean water movement we have all kinds of people and I love that. Party has not been an issue and something when someone starts talking about it we ask them to stop. At the last election we chose clean water candidates and locally it was a mixed bag. It wasn't easy and I'll do it again the next time around. I could never a Republican. The spirits of my parents would come down and haunt me. Right now we have a pile of people on both sides that want to run for Murphys seat. None of them are worth.

Hopeless said...

Disagree with Gene: the top two tier system will undo fair districts, throwing elections back to the money candidates wherever they are.

Anonymous said...

What should happen first is to close the existing loophole that allows an unnamed "write-in candidate" to close a primary when there is only one announced candidate for a seat.

Anonymous said...

Federa law prevents this from applying to Presidential primaries.