3 ms·

Thanks for paragraph two, but why the snarky dig at "liberals"? This tribal caricaturing is itself becoming part of the larger problem.

humanrebar 9y ago
We were talking about Baltimore. All of our visits to the moon have come since there was a Republican mayor of Baltimore. In a less ideological point, I'd argue that a political monoculture is part of the issue. It's hard to hold local politicians accountable if there's no real chance for repercussions for being corrupt or just doing a poor job.
- jdavis703 9y ago
  You hold the politicians accountable in primary elections then. Maybe more states will move to top-two style elections like California does for senators. In places with political party monocultures it gives alternative views within a party a shot at winning a general election.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Maybe more states will move to top-two style elections like California does for senators. California does that for most formerly-partisan offices (excluding Presidential electors), not just Senators. > In places with political party monocultures it gives alternative views within a party a shot at winning a general election. Specifically, in urban areas that tend to be supermajority Democrats (there's virtually nowhere with a Republican supermajority strong enough to make it likely that they'd get the top two spaces usually), it gives Republicans, particularly (which are usually the vast majority of non-Democrats) a say in which Democrat gets elected, skewing overall results further to the right.
  - Chathamization 9y ago
    I don't think the California system is great. It ends up benefiting whatever faction fields the least number of candidates. IE, if 40% of voters support the Purple Party and there are only 2 candidates, and 60% of voters support the Yellow Party but there are 10 candidates, there's a decent chance that in the general you'll have two Purple Party candidates even though fewer people support them. Anyway, in my experience the biggest issue with primary votes is that the vast majority of the population doesn't care, doesn't pay attention, and most don't even bother voting. Check out the turnout for most primaries (and California's "jungle primary" doesn't seem to have helped with turnout[1]), or ask the people around you about the positions between the two candidates in some of the recent local primaries. [1] http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-meyerson-california-jungle-primary-20140622-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-meyerson-californ...
- Chathamization 9y ago
  Being a one party place doesn't mean there's no accountability, though. Look at D.C. (a one-party city/quasi-state) for an example. The last two mayors (de facto governors) were voted out, and in the past election about 1/2 of the members of the city council (de facto state legislature) who were up for reelection were voted out. When you see a lack of accountability, it's mostly a choice being made by people who don't care enough to vote bad politicians out (look at primary turnout rates).

humanrebar 9y ago

We were talking about Baltimore. All of our visits to the moon have come since there was a Republican mayor of Baltimore. In a less ideological point, I'd argue that a political monoculture is part of the issue. It's hard to hold local politicians accountable if there's no real chance for repercussions for being corrupt or just doing a poor job.

jdavis703 9y ago
You hold the politicians accountable in primary elections then. Maybe more states will move to top-two style elections like California does for senators. In places with political party monocultures it gives alternative views within a party a shot at winning a general election.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Maybe more states will move to top-two style elections like California does for senators. California does that for most formerly-partisan offices (excluding Presidential electors), not just Senators. > In places with political party monocultures it gives alternative views within a party a shot at winning a general election. Specifically, in urban areas that tend to be supermajority Democrats (there's virtually nowhere with a Republican supermajority strong enough to make it likely that they'd get the top two spaces usually), it gives Republicans, particularly (which are usually the vast majority of non-Democrats) a say in which Democrat gets elected, skewing overall results further to the right.
- Chathamization 9y ago
  I don't think the California system is great. It ends up benefiting whatever faction fields the least number of candidates. IE, if 40% of voters support the Purple Party and there are only 2 candidates, and 60% of voters support the Yellow Party but there are 10 candidates, there's a decent chance that in the general you'll have two Purple Party candidates even though fewer people support them. Anyway, in my experience the biggest issue with primary votes is that the vast majority of the population doesn't care, doesn't pay attention, and most don't even bother voting. Check out the turnout for most primaries (and California's "jungle primary" doesn't seem to have helped with turnout[1]), or ask the people around you about the positions between the two candidates in some of the recent local primaries. [1] http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-meyerson-california-jungle-primary-20140622-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-meyerson-californ...
Chathamization 9y ago
Being a one party place doesn't mean there's no accountability, though. Look at D.C. (a one-party city/quasi-state) for an example. The last two mayors (de facto governors) were voted out, and in the past election about 1/2 of the members of the city council (de facto state legislature) who were up for reelection were voted out. When you see a lack of accountability, it's mostly a choice being made by people who don't care enough to vote bad politicians out (look at primary turnout rates).