3 ms·

I get the feeling the people behind the proposal aren't doing it for political gain. It sounds like they are fully resigned to their group's lack of political

• zepto 5y ago
  Like in Russia or China?
  • nverno 5y ago
    How about just like an Eisenhower or Kennedy or Mandela? Competition isn't a good sign in politics, it just means people havent reached a good consensus.
    • legitster 5y ago
      The difference with Eisenhower and Kennedy is that they were elected in eras when people were much more likely to switch their votes between parties - on average elections we were much more competitive.
    • cbozeman 5y ago
      Competition is the best sign of healthy politics. It means many different ideas are being expressed and debated. Politics is supposed to be an eternal struggle against competing ideas. Stagnation is death.
    • w0de0 5y ago
      Both Eisenhower and Kennedy were moderates who could not get elected in a gerrymandered district because their strategy of appealing to the national center does not work in an idea logically homogenous district.
    • zepto 5y ago
      That assumes there’s some ideal that can be reached or an ideal leader rather than an ever evolving set of solutions. Competition is vital in politics. What isn’t so good is when nobody can actually win.
• pyuser583 5y ago
  Like California? Voters are very liberal, but they hate the Democratic Party.
• manyxcxi 5y ago
  I’ve lived in Oregon most my life. Not unlike Washington (or many other states), when you get out of the metro areas the voting turns from “blue” to “red” pretty quickly. East of Bend has significantly more in common with Idaho than the valley (Portland, Salem, Eugene) or the coast- in fact there is a section of eastern Oregon even in the Mountain time zone. Once you get 200+ miles east of Portland, you’re closer (and more likely) to go to Boise than you’ll ever come to Portland. For reference, Baker City, a larger eastern Oregon population center, is approximately 300 miles from Portland and about 140 from Boise. Pendleton may be about equidistant. I’ve got acquaintances and friends that have only been to the western side of the state a few times in their life and they’re more likely to spend their time in Idaho or Nevada than come west. The way of life out there is completely foreign to most on the western side of the state, and the eastern side thinks the west is full of “crazy liberals”. It’s been that way my whole life, but the last few years have made it seem completely broken. I spend a lot of time out east, whether it is Idaho or Oregon, I’ll still spend my time out there- but I’d love to find a way to prevent the divorce (that they’ve been talking about since before I was born).
• alistairSH 5y ago
  Less competitive elections sound great to me. That would imply that whoever won would have good majority support and maybe politics would fade into the background where it belongs. Less competitive elections, at the federal level, are where we are now. As House seats have been gerrymandered to favor mostly conservatives (though liberals play the game too), we get more districts willing to elect extremists like MTG who are unwilling to compromise and hold positions anathema to the majority of the country. Competitive elections should be more likely to result in moderate candidates, and therefore moderate elected politicians. In theory, this eventually leads to more compromise, and hopefully more progress. With extremists on both sides, we get lots of sound-bites, lots of feigned (and maybe real) anger, and not a lot gets done (and by "nothing gets done", I'm talking about things like government shutdowns because recalcitrant conservatives like McConnell refuse to play ball).
  • w0de0 5y ago
    The elections aren’t so much less competitive, the competition simply exists at an extreme because there’s no upside to moderation in a partisan primary.