Subscribe to EspressoPundit

About Greg

« Words Matter...or at least this one does. | Main | Gut Check »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Linda would be happy with the election reform where no GOPer shall be permitted to run.

Another insidious aspect of the "jungle primary" is that it causes voters less knowledgable about candidates further down the ballot in low profile races to either guess who to vote for or not vote for that office at all.

Currently, party affiliation serves as a surrogate for specific knowledge about a candidate when voters do not know anything about the person. If a voter is conservative and knows little about the candidates, he or she votes Republican and liberals vote Democrat. A jungle primary without affiliation becomes a guessing game for many. (In deference to Johnson, after I brought that problem up he included party label in his plan.)

Doesn't Valdez realize that suppressing voter information, which causes voters to guess or skip a vote, is another form of voter suppression?

I'm still sore about the 17th Amendment so more tweaking with the elections doesn't really appeal to me. Sarah Gassy Gassen is also trying to "coach" Republican voters in Baja AZ. Which is like a vegetarian trying to tell me how to season and cook a steak. But thanks for the efforts Serri and Linds.

I would love to see if these same liberals would tout a jungle primary in states like New York or Maryland.

So what is the alleged "benefit" of this new way of doing things that they are using as a smokescreen?

Or are they just honest that it will mean "less conservatives" getting elected because they have found a way to game the system?

Are we still talking about jungle primary? Didn't that fail miserably last go-round? I'll tell you one way to fix things. Get rid of Clean Elections. Thank you, Clean Elections, for allowing our public money to fund Andy Thomas's hate speech. Where are you on that one, Linda Valdez?

We have the stupid Top Two primary here in WA. Like many of these supposed "reforms," it has the unintended consequence of weakening the two major parties. Even in districts where the primary result is R vs R or D vs D, the intraparty feuds and divisions that result leave deep scars.

Give me a "pure" party-members-only primary, winner advances to the general election every time.

The comments to this entry are closed.