PDA

View Full Version : What does an Open Primary mean for us?


lioneaglegriffin
02-20-2009, 10:32 PM
R- Sen. Abel Maldonado of Santa Maria had a open primary put on the ballot as a condition of his vote. This is somehow supposed to make it easier for moderates to win or conservative Dems or Liberal Repubulicans. What if anything would this mean for gun owners in CA if anything?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-hill20-2009feb20,0,894598.story

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-cap20-2009feb20,0,6741098.column

DDT
02-20-2009, 10:53 PM
It is probably good news for us but barely. The most likely outcome of this bill is to create a situation in which 2 democrats face each other which means you might get a chance to vote for a more moderate (less gun-grabbing) democrat rather than tossing a vote away on a republican that has no chance of winning.

DarkHorse
02-20-2009, 11:05 PM
An open primary means you can vote for a candidate of any party during primary elections, whereas right now you can only vote for candidates in your own party during the primaries (a few exceptions, depends on the party). In any general election, you can vote for any candidate of any party. This may help "us," as gunowners, because if we found a Democrat that supported "gun rights," those voters registered as Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, etc. could vote for that candidate in the primary, increasing his/her odds of beating a "gun control" Democrat for that party's candidate in the general election. As DDT said, this simply would allow us an opportunity to have a moderate Democrat to vote for, vs. a Republican, Indy, Liber.,etc. that won't win, depending on your district.

Harrison_Bergeron
02-20-2009, 11:05 PM
It means that the two best candidates end up on the ballot in the general election. It could mean two Dems, two Reps, some Libs, some Inds. It means that people will have to actually pay attention to who they vote for and what that person stands for as opposed to just checking the name with their party under it. It makes for more competition. With an open primary and the redistricting reform of Prop 11 California is going to have the most democratic election process possible, if we can't elect a competent legislature under those conditions then it means that doing so is impossible.

lioneaglegriffin
02-20-2009, 11:14 PM
It means that the two best candidates end up on the ballot in the general election. It could mean two Dems, two Reps, some Libs, some Inds. It means that people will have to actually pay attention to who they vote for and what that person stands for as opposed to just checking the name with their party under it. It makes for more competition. With an open primary and the redistricting reform of Prop 11 California is going to have the most democratic election process possible, if we can't elect a competent legislature under those conditions then it means that doing so is impossible.

yes, i think this combined with prop 11 can help things.

Dr. Peter Venkman
02-20-2009, 11:54 PM
That might be his parting shot.

motorhead
02-21-2009, 8:49 AM
will probably result in regional polarization. a few areas come to mind where the choices will inevitably end up lib and more lib.

SteveH
02-21-2009, 9:53 AM
We had an open primary not too many years back. Courts tossed it out. The political parties have the right to choose their own candidates.

bohoki
02-21-2009, 9:57 AM
i think it is a bit weird to have a private organization like the democrat or republican party using a public ballot for their selection anyway

they should do away with primaries all together and the democrat and republican parties should pick their person in house any way they see fit

i didnt se any primaries for the greenies or libertys

sholling
02-21-2009, 11:34 AM
I like the idea of the two highest primary vote getters running against each other for office regardless of party. And even though this law was created solely for the benefit of Maldonado in his next run for office it's a good thing for us.

rp55
02-21-2009, 11:41 AM
It means nothing. Correct me if I am wrong but we had open primaries established by Proposition 198 in 2000. Anyone remember that? Bueller? Anyone anyone? The Dems *AND* Pubs took it to court and got it thrown out. They *DON'T* want it. And it was the US Supreme Court that threw it out because "it violated a political party's First Amendment right of association." What makes Maldonado think this will wind up any different? He's turned into a moonbat.

sholling
02-21-2009, 11:51 AM
It means nothing. Correct me if I am wrong but we had open primaries established by Proposition 198 in 2000. Anyone remember that? Bueller? Anyone anyone? The Dems *AND* Pubs took it to court and got it thrown out. They *DON'T* want it. And it was the US Supreme Court that threw it out because "it violated a political party's First Amendment right of association." What makes Maldonado think this will wind up any different? He's turned into a moonbat.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the difference is that the two candidates of any party with the most votes advance to the general election. This is of course just hearsay because I haven't had a chance to read anything yet.

Timberline
02-21-2009, 11:59 AM
It's a good thing, but both major parties will fight it. The benefit for us is that it will send more moderate legislators to Sacramento, from whichever party, and help us avoid the irrational partisanship which has held our budgeting process hostage since term limits were imposed. Here's a very good description of how an open or "jungle" primary would look:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/land-of-thousand-liebermans.html

trashman
02-21-2009, 12:02 PM
And don't forget that all this does is put the Open Primary proposal on a 2010 ballot issue....the two parties will work hard to make sure it's defeated.

Too bad, because the resultant chaos could be kinda fun for us.

--Neill

Harrison_Bergeron
02-21-2009, 12:03 PM
An open primary takes the political parties out of the equation all together. It demotes them to the same status as any other special interest group. It basically sets up the elections like the runoff type elections other offices use, instead of a general election free for all, like I think some counties use for BOS seats, and a runoff when things are too close to call it will now be a free for all primary and a runoff general election. If the Dems or Reps want to throw their money behind a candidate like the NRA, Teacher's Union, Teamsters, or any other special interest group would then they still have that option, but they will no longer have this imaginary entitlement to their own public elections. There won't even be Rep or Dem ballots in the primary anymore, just a single ballot.

I got a little ahead of myself, of course, this will only happen if the measure is approved by the voters.

I got my feet wet trying to help Prop 11 and I really enjoyed it, when the 2010 election comes around I am going to have a darn good time helping with this.

DDT
02-21-2009, 1:04 PM
Perhaps the best outcome of an open primary would be that the Democrat party would have to spend money in solid democrat elections to try and elect the party's candidate between 2 dems where if the dem was running against a Republican they wouldn't have to spend any money because the Rep would have zero chance of winning.

This would mean they would have less money to dump into the close races so pro-2A candidates might have a slightly more even footing economically.

sholling
02-21-2009, 1:43 PM
One thing that we can count on is that the public employee unions will spend as much money as it takes to defeat this measure. They've invested too much money on the far left wing of the Democrat party to let that control slip through their fingers. They can easily drop $20-50M on this. The teachers may also be dropping as much as another $50M to get the boost in school spending and derail spending reform. I've heard estimates as high as $100M union spending planned for 2010.

Meplat
02-21-2009, 1:50 PM
I don't think so. Libertarians, Republicans, will still be in the general. It just means reps can vote in dem primaries and vic-verca.It means that the two best candidates end up on the ballot in the general election. It could mean two Dems, two Reps, some Libs, some Inds. It means that people will have to actually pay attention to who they vote for and what that person stands for as opposed to just checking the name with their party under it. It makes for more competition. With an open primary and the redistricting reform of Prop 11 California is going to have the most democratic election process possible, if we can't elect a competent legislature under those conditions then it means that doing so is impossible.

sholling
02-21-2009, 1:56 PM
Here's the skinny....

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/feb/20/1n20primary004711-open-primary-proposal-could-shak/?zIndex=55508
The latest proposal would allow any registered voter to cast a ballot for any candidate in a primary. The two candidates – regardless of party – who receive the most votes would square off in the November general election.

Unlike some local, nonpartisan elections, no candidate could win outright in the primary by gaining a majority of votes.

As a result, in some overwhelmingly Democratic districts in San Francisco and Los Angeles and heavily Republican districts in Orange County and elsewhere, two Democrats or two Republicans likely would qualify for the runoff.

In those cases, independent voters and others from a district's minority party likely would vote for the more moderate of the two candidates in the general election, backers of the proposal say.

CCWFacts
02-21-2009, 2:14 PM
It means that the two best candidates end up on the ballot in the general election. It could mean two Dems, two Reps, some Libs, some Inds.

I haven't seen a full analysis of it but it seems like a good idea to me.

It means that a conservative in a heavily Dem area could run as a Dem, and could end up on the general election ballot. That's good because then the voters would have two Dems to choose from, rather than automatically rejecting one candidate who has an "R" next to his name. Further, making the primary open also will allow conservative voters to have their votes have more impact.

It seems like a win for us and may let some conservatives run as Dems in in heavily Democratic areas and have a shot at winning.

Maybe that would result in the Republican party having fewer nominal Republicans in the leg., but at the same time, it would serve to dilute what "Democrat" means. For most Californians today, Democrat = good, so if we want conservatives in power, it might help to run them without the "R" stigma. This proposal does just that.

Timberline
02-21-2009, 2:44 PM
I haven't seen a full analysis of it but it seems like a good idea to me.

It means that a conservative in a heavily Dem area could run as a Dem, and could end up on the general election ballot. That's good because then the voters would have two Dems to choose from, rather than automatically rejecting one candidate who has an "R" next to his name. Further, making the primary open also will allow conservative voters to have their votes have more impact.

It seems like a win for us and may let some conservatives run as Dems in in heavily Democratic areas and have a shot at winning.

Maybe that would result in the Republican party having fewer nominal Republicans in the leg., but at the same time, it would serve to dilute what "Democrat" means. For most Californians today, Democrat = good, so if we want conservatives in power, it might help to run them without the "R" stigma. This proposal does just that.

I think voters are pretty smart, and see through wolves in sheep's clothing. Most voters are also fairly moderate, and so in an open primary will favor the candidates that best reflect their own values. This should, in theory, lead to election of people who are less extreme, that is, less likely to be fully-attired with the labels "conservative" or "liberal." Maybe we'll be able to make progress at that point.

secretasianman
02-21-2009, 2:51 PM
i didnt se any primaries for the greenies or libertys

We Libertarians did indeed have a primary. You didn't know because you either didn't get your ballot or you are not a registered Libertarian.

Harrison_Bergeron
02-21-2009, 3:26 PM
I don't think so. Libertarians, Republicans, will still be in the general. It just means reps can vote in dem primaries and vic-verca.

No, it does away with party primaries all together, if the presidential primary had been open instead of your ballot saying McCain, Romney, Thompson, Paul, etc. It would have said Clinton, Barr, Romney, Paul, McCain, Obama, Nader, etc. Then the two of them with the most votes would have gone on to the general election whether it was McCain and Romney, Paul and Clinton, or Nader and Barr.

EZ G
02-21-2009, 5:14 PM
Open Primaries and Dem Crossovers gave us McCain. Had enough of that thanks.

cousinkix1953
02-22-2009, 2:11 AM
An open primary means that you'll wind up with two anti-gun parties that control the entire system!

Our last open primary was the brainchild of anti-gun RINO-Publicans like Tom Campbell. This guy was elected to Congress in Silicon Valley; where he spent much of his time drafting special interest gun control laws at the request of his girlfriend - Sarah Brady. He's a Dianne Feinstein with a d!ck and a F- rating from the NRA too.

The other RINO candidate is Meg Whitman. Her EBAY website is anti-gun. Don't you even try to peddle a garbage full of empty plastic shotgun shells. It isn't illeggal; but they would rather traffic in pirated music and sell scalped tickets to rock concerts. $25K, to see a Grateful Dead reunuon concert at MSG in New York city without Jerry Garcia. What a rip-off.

We already know that the Democrats will offer us 2, 3 or maybe even four anti-gunners for governor...

jnojr
02-22-2009, 8:14 AM
With an open primary and the redistricting reform of Prop 11 California is going to have the most democratic election process possible, if we can't elect a competent legislature under those conditions then it means that doing so is impossible.

It could also mean that Californians are simply too stupid to properly exercise their franchise. Or that "democracy" really isn't all it's cracked up to be.

"The voice of the people" is a proper way to form a government when the people are informed, involved, and contributing members of society. When "the people" vote according to what a brightly-colored sign or some celebrity tells them, and either way they're going home to a government-provided house with government-provided food so they can play X-Box on a 50" plasma all day... democracy quickly becomes far worse for society than an autocracy would be.

I do look forward to redistricting, for sure. That should help to moderate the Legislature. And with open primaries, if the GOP doesn't shape up, I'll be dropping them and registering as a Libertarian. Hopefully, enough others will too so that the Libertarian Party and their views have to begin to be taken seriously. But, in the long run, population concentrations are inimical to personal liberty. The only way to retain freedom is to be where there aren't a lot of people. But the people who are already there aren't going to want to welcome you, just as once you're there, you won't want to see anyone else come in.

HunterJim
02-22-2009, 10:04 AM
Open Primaries and Dem Crossovers gave us McCain. Had enough of that thanks.

I agree, and I don't support open primaries. It is not a good idea, and the supposed benefits are marginal at best.

Other than that it is a good idea. <---humor

jim

M. D. Van Norman
02-22-2009, 10:42 AM
With an open primary and the redistricting reform … California is going to have the most democratic election process possible, if we can’t elect a competent legislature under those conditions then it means that doing so is impossible.

Truer words have perhaps never been misspoken. ;)

dustoff31
02-22-2009, 11:08 AM
An open primary would pretty much insure that the person who promises the most free stuff to the most people will win.

lioneaglegriffin
02-22-2009, 12:59 PM
No, it does away with party primaries all together, if the presidential primary had been open instead of your ballot saying McCain, Romney, Thompson, Paul, etc. It would have said Clinton, Barr, Romney, Paul, McCain, Obama, Nader, etc. Then the two of them with the most votes would have gone on to the general election whether it was McCain and Romney, Paul and Clinton, or Nader and Barr.

There would have been a Clinton Obama General Election then according to the numbers.

sholling
02-22-2009, 1:22 PM
What people are forgetting is that the founding fathers sincerely hoped that we'd never adopt a party system. The current elephant versus donkey system ensures that we have two parties spending all their time fighting over power and nobody that gives a rat's tail about the state. Campaign finance reform has ensured that the only two groups in a position to legally finance a primary run are the party power brokers and the public employee unions and the people are essentially given the choice of an elephant or a donkey that have been appointed by party bosses. On the donkey side that translates into the far left wing party bosses picking socialists. And on the elephant side the "Church Lady" picks the candidate.

The vast majority of Californians do not want to elect either church ladies or socialists. What this proposal does is break the party boss stranglehold on power in California and returns it to the people. The parties can still choose their candidates but the two top vote getters from any party make it to the general election. That gives parties like the libertarian and constitution party a chance and encourages the donkeys to stop running socialists and gun grabbers.

anthonyca
02-22-2009, 3:37 PM
I think voters are pretty smart, and see through wolves in sheep's clothing. Most voters are also fairly moderate, and so in an open primary will favor the candidates that best reflect their own values. This should, in theory, lead to election of people who are less extreme, that is, less likely to be fully-attired with the labels "conservative" or "liberal." Maybe we'll be able to make progress at that point.

I wish that were true. How many of us talk about a position and someone says "ya, that't what I am talking about!!! If someone said that I would vote for him"!!! Then when you tell them that you are quoting someone with a R next thier name they say "I will never vote for a $*@$(*@ republican"!!! Many older voters think that the dems are still the dems of the old days not the far left libs that many of them are now.

I can tell you that almost all of my family is conservative leaning as far as government intrusion, taxes, gun control, ect but ALWAYS vote party line Domocrat. Most voters in California that I know are the same in that way. They actually lean a little more towards the Republican message in many areas but vote party line Dem.

Timberline
02-22-2009, 3:48 PM
I wish that were true. How many of us talk about a position and someone says "ya, that't what I am talking about!!! If someone said that I would vote for him"!!! Then when you tell them that you are quoting someone with a R next thier name they say "I will never vote for a $*@$(*@ republican"!!! Many older voters think that the dems are still the dems of the old days not the far left libs that many of them are now.

I can tell you that almost all of my family is conservative leaning as far as government intrusion, taxes, gun control, ect but ALWAYS vote party line Domocrat. Most voters in California that I know are the same in that way. They actually lean a little more towards the Republican message in many areas but vote party line Dem.

Well, I'm a registered Democrat, but voted for a Republican (Steve Poizner) last time around. I voted for the redistricting proposition, too. Nice to cast winning votes. The way I see it, an open primary will give the folks in your family a chance to get a more moderate Democrat elected to State office than the current system.

anthonyca
02-22-2009, 4:34 PM
Well, I'm a registered Democrat, but voted for a Republican (Steve Poizner) last time around. I voted for the redistricting proposition, too. Nice to cast winning votes. The way I see it, an open primary will give the folks in your family a chance to get a more moderate Democrat elected to State office than the current system.

I am like you and don't vote party line but on issues. I wish more people were like that but atleast in my family and co workers it's not true. It's nice to see someone like you that uses your brain and applies critical thinking.

Harrison_Bergeron
02-22-2009, 4:59 PM
Why would people have a problem with two non-Reps being on the general election ballot if those two were put there by a popular vote as described by the Constitutions of the country and state? If you live in a predominantly Democratic district then you live in a predominantly Democratic district. Other than getting the warm and fuzzies over casting a protest vote what do you get out of the current system? How does it help California?

With open primaries you have the choice of voting for the more moderate candidate in the general election, in other words, you can vote for the lesser of the evils, and that person actually has a chance at winning because he earned his spot on the ballot, which actually has the potential to help California.

I'm not up to date on district lines, they are too complicated, but in districts like San Fransisco's how many votes does it take for a Rep to win a spot on the general ballot? How many does it take for a Dem to get on the general ballot? I'm guessing that the number of Dems is quite a bit higher than the number of Reps. What chance does a Rep have of actually winning in a region like that? Since the general election only has the exclusively Dem choice and the exclusively Rep choice what are the chances of someone other than a pure blooded Dem getting the win? What is gained from pure blooded Democrats choosing the representative with no outside influence? In an open primary someone who is not a pure blood, someone like blue dog, actually has a shot at winning the primary because someone smart like a Calgunner will realize that a moderate Dem is better than a pure blood Dem.