6 ms·

It is worse than that. With the passage of the "Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act" California has open primaries (anyone can vote for anyone on the ballot in

It is worse than that. With the passage of the "Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act" California has open primaries (anyone can vote for anyone on the ballot in the primaries) and only the top two get to be on the main ballot. So many times only two Democrats are on the ballot with no Republican candidate at all. Not a good situation in my opinion.

esoterica 7y ago
How is a jungle primary different from no primary and a free for-all-election with a run-off? Is the latter also corrupt?
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  >How is a jungle primary different from no primary and a free for-all-election with a run-off? Majority/runoff with no primary would mean if a candidate gets an absolute majority on the first ballot, they win. You can't win at the primary in the jungle primary.
yongjik 7y ago
It would actually work in favor of Republican-inclined voters, though not necessarily the party itself. By allowing anyone to vote, Democrat candidates are incentivized to be more moderate, because a vote from a Republican is as good as another from a Democrat. Without open primaries, a Democratic-only primary pretty much decides the winner, and a candidate only has to appeal to fellow Democrats.
- kortilla 7y ago
  only beneficial during the primary after the top candidates have been selected, which can both be extremely left-wing due to the caucus
- ericfrenkiel 7y ago
  Yeah, no. Reality doesn’t bear out with your theory.
  - jvanderbot 7y ago
    IMHO because R's instantly become disenfranchised. Only if voting were compulsory would it work as prev suggested, and thats not realistic.
  - bsder 7y ago
    Uh, yeah. Reality does bear out your theory. The extremes have been muted on both sides. Yes, if your views are at the extremes, you have less voice. That's a FEATURE, not a bug. And I feel no sympathy for you.
    - ericfrenkiel 7y ago
      I would say it’s your own bias which is informing your opinion. California has only gotten more “progressive” with each election. If that makes you happy, I hope you understand that it’s “progressive” policy which has caused crime to explode, housing prices to rise, and people to leave the state.
      - bsder 7y ago
        > California has only gotten more “progressive” with each election. That is different from "damping the extremes". Why is it so difficult for those on the "conservative" side to believe that the election outcomes reflect the will of the populace when they actively reject "conservatism"? > I hope you understand that it’s “progressive” policy which has caused crime to explode This is a dog whistle way of saying "homelessness" as most crime has not exploded. However, I have yet to see a conservative solution to homelessness short of "round them up and ship them somewhere else". aka part of the reason for California's homelessness is other, generally conservative, states shipping them in. > housing prices to rise A fair argument. And this is also a contributor to homelessness. Prop 13 is going to have to fall before anything really helps with this. > and people to leave the state. I'm still waiting for all these Republicans in Southern California to head to Texas. Any time now ... What the article points out is that most people leaving California are, unfortunately, on the lower end of the income range. Conservatives like you should welcome this as they are generally Democratic Party folks.
asdff 7y ago
There are plenty of republicans in california, they just run as democrats. Even Reagan used to be a DINO until he came out of the closet in support of Barry Goldwater's presidential run.

esoterica 7y ago

How is a jungle primary different from no primary and a free for-all-election with a run-off? Is the latter also corrupt?

dragonwriter 7y ago
>How is a jungle primary different from no primary and a free for-all-election with a run-off? Majority/runoff with no primary would mean if a candidate gets an absolute majority on the first ballot, they win. You can't win at the primary in the jungle primary.

yongjik 7y ago

It would actually work in favor of Republican-inclined voters, though not necessarily the party itself. By allowing anyone to vote, Democrat candidates are incentivized to be more moderate, because a vote from a Republican is as good as another from a Democrat. Without open primaries, a Democratic-only primary pretty much decides the winner, and a candidate only has to appeal to fellow Democrats.

kortilla 7y ago
only beneficial during the primary after the top candidates have been selected, which can both be extremely left-wing due to the caucus
ericfrenkiel 7y ago
Yeah, no. Reality doesn’t bear out with your theory.
- jvanderbot 7y ago
  IMHO because R's instantly become disenfranchised. Only if voting were compulsory would it work as prev suggested, and thats not realistic.
- bsder 7y ago
  Uh, yeah. Reality does bear out your theory. The extremes have been muted on both sides. Yes, if your views are at the extremes, you have less voice. That's a FEATURE, not a bug. And I feel no sympathy for you.
  - ericfrenkiel 7y ago
    I would say it’s your own bias which is informing your opinion. California has only gotten more “progressive” with each election. If that makes you happy, I hope you understand that it’s “progressive” policy which has caused crime to explode, housing prices to rise, and people to leave the state.
    - bsder 7y ago
      > California has only gotten more “progressive” with each election. That is different from "damping the extremes". Why is it so difficult for those on the "conservative" side to believe that the election outcomes reflect the will of the populace when they actively reject "conservatism"? > I hope you understand that it’s “progressive” policy which has caused crime to explode This is a dog whistle way of saying "homelessness" as most crime has not exploded. However, I have yet to see a conservative solution to homelessness short of "round them up and ship them somewhere else". aka part of the reason for California's homelessness is other, generally conservative, states shipping them in. > housing prices to rise A fair argument. And this is also a contributor to homelessness. Prop 13 is going to have to fall before anything really helps with this. > and people to leave the state. I'm still waiting for all these Republicans in Southern California to head to Texas. Any time now ... What the article points out is that most people leaving California are, unfortunately, on the lower end of the income range. Conservatives like you should welcome this as they are generally Democratic Party folks.

asdff 7y ago

There are plenty of republicans in california, they just run as democrats. Even Reagan used to be a DINO until he came out of the closet in support of Barry Goldwater's presidential run.