5 ms·

It would actually work in favor of Republican-inclined voters, though not necessarily the party itself. By allowing anyone to vote, Democrat candidates are inc

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.
      - nradov 7y ago
        Texas is actually the top state destination for people leaving California. I don't know whether we have any data about their political views. https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/move-california-where-to-go-cheap-states-best-14811246.php https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/move-...
        dmode 7y ago
        Do you know California is also the top state destination for people leaving Texas ? You know why ? It is because these are two largest states and they exchange population. The per year net migration to Texas is less than 0.1% of CA population.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      I would say it’s the lack of mental healthcare and a social safety net that causes all of the above. And it’s not possible to address on a state level as all the other states would ship the problems to the state that tries to offer the benefits.
- wahern 7y ago
  Jerry Brown was a conservative by any historical understanding of the term, and he won in a landslide. Gavin Newsom is also relatively moderate. For example, he's made it clear that it's simply not economically feasible to throw money at homeless housing (because he literally tried that in SF as mayor). And hit the pause button on high-speed rail (which is basically a death sentence). Newsom rose up through the San Francisco Democratic political machine, which while liberal on social issues has been until recently predominately controlled by right-of-center politicians and interest groups. The last three mayors, including Newsom, have been opponents of the self-styled "progressive" faction. Unfortunately, Newsom has ambitions for higher office so he's not providing much leadership at the moment; just refereeing squabbles and trying to avoid bad press. A large contingent of Republicans wanted the top-two primary system, believing it would benefit them. (Though the GOP opposed it.) It didn't work out that way. But it didn't really change the dynamics in the other direction, either; that train had been accelerating for years. California is a one-party state because of term limits. Running for office is expensive and difficult. Few sane people, unless they're independently wealthy, wish to expend all that time and effort to serve a mere two terms. They want a political career. With term limits the only way to have a political career is to jump office every two terms. The best chance of accomplishing that--of achieving career "progression"--is to work closely with a political party, which can ensure a spot in various low-level offices if you don't make the cut for a bigger office. Term limits make the party system more important. What ends up happening is that the party with more offices and better electoral chances in the near future when this process starts will quickly build on that initial advantage, while the other parties will quickly wither. If Texas enacted term limits I have no doubt that Houston, Austin, Dallas, etc, would quickly become, nominally at least, Republican. That said, California may be a one-party state, but there are absolutely liberals, moderates, and conservatives within the party. What difference does the label "Democratic" or "Republican" make, so long as there are free and open elections? From a foreign country's perspective, most American politicians behave alike regardless of whether they're Democratic or Republican. One benefit of being an all-blue (or all-red) state is that there's less political grid-lock. At least, less grid-lock from naked partisanship. Grid-lock from the electorate demanding conflicting and contradictory policies... alas that doesn't go away.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago

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.
    - nradov 7y ago
      Texas is actually the top state destination for people leaving California. I don't know whether we have any data about their political views. https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/move-california-where-to-go-cheap-states-best-14811246.php https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/move-...
      - dmode 7y ago
        Do you know California is also the top state destination for people leaving Texas ? You know why ? It is because these are two largest states and they exchange population. The per year net migration to Texas is less than 0.1% of CA population.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    I would say it’s the lack of mental healthcare and a social safety net that causes all of the above. And it’s not possible to address on a state level as all the other states would ship the problems to the state that tries to offer the benefits.
wahern 7y ago
Jerry Brown was a conservative by any historical understanding of the term, and he won in a landslide. Gavin Newsom is also relatively moderate. For example, he's made it clear that it's simply not economically feasible to throw money at homeless housing (because he literally tried that in SF as mayor). And hit the pause button on high-speed rail (which is basically a death sentence). Newsom rose up through the San Francisco Democratic political machine, which while liberal on social issues has been until recently predominately controlled by right-of-center politicians and interest groups. The last three mayors, including Newsom, have been opponents of the self-styled "progressive" faction. Unfortunately, Newsom has ambitions for higher office so he's not providing much leadership at the moment; just refereeing squabbles and trying to avoid bad press. A large contingent of Republicans wanted the top-two primary system, believing it would benefit them. (Though the GOP opposed it.) It didn't work out that way. But it didn't really change the dynamics in the other direction, either; that train had been accelerating for years. California is a one-party state because of term limits. Running for office is expensive and difficult. Few sane people, unless they're independently wealthy, wish to expend all that time and effort to serve a mere two terms. They want a political career. With term limits the only way to have a political career is to jump office every two terms. The best chance of accomplishing that--of achieving career "progression"--is to work closely with a political party, which can ensure a spot in various low-level offices if you don't make the cut for a bigger office. Term limits make the party system more important. What ends up happening is that the party with more offices and better electoral chances in the near future when this process starts will quickly build on that initial advantage, while the other parties will quickly wither. If Texas enacted term limits I have no doubt that Houston, Austin, Dallas, etc, would quickly become, nominally at least, Republican. That said, California may be a one-party state, but there are absolutely liberals, moderates, and conservatives within the party. What difference does the label "Democratic" or "Republican" make, so long as there are free and open elections? From a foreign country's perspective, most American politicians behave alike regardless of whether they're Democratic or Republican. One benefit of being an all-blue (or all-red) state is that there's less political grid-lock. At least, less grid-lock from naked partisanship. Grid-lock from the electorate demanding conflicting and contradictory policies... alas that doesn't go away.
- dragonwriter 7y ago