Arizona Prop. 121 would transform the primary election process

[rambone]

All candidates from all parties face each other in a non-partisan primary race. The top 2 candidates, regardless of party, face each other in the general.


Prop 121 would end partisan primaries

Proposition 121, on the ballot for the Nov. 6 election, would fundamentally change how Arizonans elect their state officials. Partisan primaries would be eliminated. In their place would be an open primary in which all candidates would be on the same ballot, regardless of party affiliation. Voters would be able to vote for any candidate they chose. The top two candidates for any position would face each other in the general election.

Prop 121 is truly needed

 

[steveh_131]

I can dig it.

 

[Cheapdiesel]

If it's that simple I love it!

 

[mrjarrell]

No doubt the republicans and dems are already getting their lawyers ready to challenge this. The will of the electorate is no match for the power of the parties, we've already seen that in Nevada. This cannot be allowed to become the law of the land.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

No doubt the republicans and dems are already getting their lawyers ready to challenge this.

Really? You don't think that this was made by the Establishment to bolster Republicans and Democrats even more?

Libertarians would never be on the ballot in a general election.

 

[wizard_of_ahs]

If it's that simple I love it!

IF only it WAS that simple

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I've always wondered why more states have had copied the "None of the above" ballot option. Or, why at least a few states have gone to ballotage in general elections.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Really? You don't think that this was made by the Establishment to bolster Republicans and Democrats even more?

Libertarians would never be on the ballot in a general election.

Exactly. Why limit it to the top two? We can vote for more than two now if they are running.

We do not have a two party system!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

We do not have a two party system!

No, but Arizona is certainly working on it with 121.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

No, but Arizona is certainly working on it with 121.

Yep!

 

[steveh_131]

Exactly. Why limit it to the top two? We can vote for more than two now if they are running.

We do not have a two party system!

Well, we kinda do. Because we choose to have one. Everyone chooses to vote for the guy with the R or D because, hey, he's better than the alternative. I think we all know that this is ruining our nation.

It sounds like Arizona is trying to break this cycle. A third party would then have a chance, in the primary, to snatch up some votes from both sides of the aisle instead of having to rely on one side or the other. A strong libertarian candidate holds some appeal to both sides.

I'm not certain how it would turn out. But I'm not so thrilled with the status quo that I'm ready to dismiss a new idea quite yet.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Well, we kinda do. Because we choose to have one. Everyone chooses to vote for the guy with the R or D because, hey, he's better than the alternative. I think we all know that this is ruining our nation.

It sounds like Arizona is trying to break this cycle. A third party would then have a chance, in the primary, to snatch up some votes from both sides of the aisle instead of having to rely on one side or the other. A strong libertarian candidate holds some appeal to both sides.

I'm not certain how it would turn out. But I'm not so thrilled with the status quo that I'm ready to dismiss a new idea quite yet.

I take it as the opposite. People obey the status quo and vote for R or D instead of considering any other candidate as viable, but at least the Libertarian can make it to the general election and have a shot at actually getting elected.

In this system everyone will vote R or D and no Libertarian will have the votes to even be in the general election at all.

I have a question- if the two most popular are in the same party, then they go against each other? No opposition allowed?

 

[steveh_131]

I take it as the opposite. People obey the status quo and vote for R or D instead of considering any other candidate as viable, but at least the Libertarian can make it to the general election and have a shot at actually getting elected.

In this system everyone will vote R or D and no Libertarian will have the votes to even be in the general election at all.

It really just depends on how you look at it. Currently, there aren't enough libertarians in the republican party to nominate a libertarian. There aren't enough in the democratic party to nominate one either. If we could rally support from both parties towards the libertarian candidate while we let the D and R fight over Big Bird, then I think a libertarian just might have a fighting chance.

I have a question- if the two most popular are in the same party, then they go against each other? No opposition allowed?

That's correct, from what I've read.

 

[rambone]

I saw an awful lot of nominations given in this year's primary because the Republican ran unopposed. This would make sure nobody is coasting to the General.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

A third party would then have a chance, in the primary, to snatch up some votes from both sides of the aisle instead of having to rely on one side or the other. A strong libertarian candidate holds some appeal to both sides.

How many people vote in primaries? Single digits. 5 or 6 percent.

FairVote.org | Voter Turnout

Do Libertarians vote? Nope. In fact there is a strong anti-voting meme going about Libertarian circles. In this month's Reason it even gets print. I guess they will all be watching Firefly wearing black leather jackets or something.

121 will lock in the Rs and Ds as it is intended to do.

 

[steveh_131]

How many people vote in primaries? Single digits. 5 or 6 percent.

FairVote.org | Voter Turnout

Do Libertarians vote? Nope. In fact there is a strong anti-voting meme going about Libertarian circles. In this month's Reason it even gets print. I guess they will all be watching Firefly wearing black leather jackets or something.

121 will lock in the Rs and Ds as it is intended to do.

Why do you think so many libertarians don't bother to vote?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Because it is hip not to vote. Or, because Firefly in on.

Dude, I've subscribed to Reason for a very long time. They don't vote because that is what mommy and daddy do, ugh, how lame.

 

[hornadylnl]

Because it is hip not to vote. Or, because Firefly in on.

Dude, I've subscribed to Reason for a very long time. They don't vote because that is what mommy and daddy do, ugh, how lame.

If that's all you're getting out of your subscription, I think I'd let it expire.

 

[mrjarrell]

Because it is hip not to vote. Or, because Firefly in on.

Dude, I've subscribed to Reason for a very long time. They don't vote because that is what mommy and daddy do, ugh, how lame.

Didn't bother to read the article? There is a principled stance against voting for some people. Not because it's the cool thing to do. One of the main reasons is that your vote really doesn't count.

Your Vote Doesn't Count - Reason.com

http://reason.com/archives/2004/11/02/not-voting-and-proud

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Take a look at this month's issue. They don't vote and they want their fellows not to vote.

They are a non-factor in politics and 121 seals their lock out from the mainstream.