tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22040291.post2787414625129650345..comments2024-01-09T17:38:35.707-05:00Comments on This Old State: Make challengers pay for runoffs?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22040291.post-62224374629843345482010-07-15T14:33:22.538-04:002010-07-15T14:33:22.538-04:00You don't get something for nothing.
You get w...You don't get something for nothing.<br />You get what you pay for. Absolutely all democrats of ALL stripes (LITTLE d) think that *democracy* (LITTLE d) is WORTH paying for.<br /><br />This idea is idiotic, period.<br />Times may be tight but the amount of money we spend on elections IS NOT some huge drain, not compared to corporate welfare or transportation boondoggles or any other form of government spending to which you might LEGITIMATELY object.<br /><br />The fact that an internal party officer has expressed support for this is shameful. Ability to pay for this should NOT be a factor in ANYbody's entitlement to come before the voters. A campaign that would be viable if it could afford to spend this money on ads and outreach could be reduced to non-viability by having to pay this. The runoff is NOT just for the benefit of the candidates! It is to ensure a PROCESS whereby we can be confident that the nominee is someone that a majority of us actually support! And people who do not have a lot of big donors are still entitled to vie for that support -- that's the only way working-class people are ever going to get represented!georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05217036324558933645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22040291.post-78281079695187099642010-07-14T15:49:31.139-04:002010-07-14T15:49:31.139-04:00When we should be doing more to have publicly fund...When we should be doing more to have publicly funded campaigns to make elections voter-owned, why would we even think about doing this?<br /><br />The funny thing is, we lowered the threshold for winning a primary from 50% plus one vote to 40% plus one vote. That reduced the number of primary runoffs AND reduced voter turnout. <br /><br />In the 2008 Labor Commissioner primary runoffs where there were more than one race on the ballot, voter turnout was higher than in places where there was more than one Democratic runoff on the ballot - and a different candidate won in those districts. Perhaps we should be looking to raise the threshold to increase the turnout?<br /><br />Either that or have the political parties hold county caucuses and cast the votes there. Of course, that would cut out the UNA voters from voting in either the GOP or DEM party runoffs. <br /><br />But anything would be better and cheaper than IRV! It would cost close to $20 million (not including the cost of certified machines - which we do not yet have - that can tabulate the IRV ballots) for start-up costs, then $3 million a year for voter education. And you'd have to pay for that even if you didn't end up needing IRV to determine a winner. <br /><br />At those prices, traditional runoff elections are looking like a better deal all the time!Chris Telescahttp://noirvnc.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22040291.post-79520951791562544062010-07-14T14:42:50.401-04:002010-07-14T14:42:50.401-04:00Or just come up with a different system to declare...Or just come up with a different system to declare a primary winner with the first election. I dunno, maybe something like if there are 3 or more canditates, each voter picks a first and second choice. If no clear winner emerges with >50% of the vote, add in the second choice votes for the two highest vote-getters and declare the winner outright. That saves time and money for everyone, taxpayers and candidates.Marge Innoveranoreply@blogger.com