Comments on: Join the debate: Should Arizona adopt the open primary system? (poll)

By: tiponeill

tiponeill — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:26:00 +0000

There was nothing to bother filling in the oval for, now was there ?
A waste of postage

By: Bruxley

Bruxley — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:01:00 +0000

I’m a bit on the fence.

On one hand I do see the rationale behind the argument that a party’s primary results in a nominee that appeals to the far wings of those parties due to the fact that the most involved party members are the ones that show up to vote in the primaries. The Dems pick someone very left and the Reps pick someone very right while the actual majority of voters are somewhere in between resulting in the classic problem for most voters in the general election where they really don’t like either one very much and vote ‘the lesser of two evils’. Even though Independents can choose to vote in an Arizona primary in the existing system, they can only choose a Rep. or Dem. ballot so they are still limited on who they can vote for. They may like a Dem. for one office and a Rep. for another but in the primary they only have one party’s ballot so they can’t pick candidates of different parties.

Another attribute I like is the end of unopposed primaries and general elections. As long as at least 2 people are running, they will both face challengers in both elections and I feel that will cause more attention to be paid to the public good than to partisanship. It keeps an elected official’s eye on the ball when they know they will face a challenger every election cycle

The down side I see is that the boundaries for the different districts have been so gerrymandered that virtually everyone is designed to be a ‘safe’ Democrat or ‘safe’ Republican district. This means that the district would likely be perpetually locked in to that party leaving majorities in City, County, and State bodies fixed. This kind of perpetual control is directly contrary to the cleansing effect of elections. Regardless of which side one is on, perpetual majority existing and being known to be perpetual, will cause wrongheaded behavior.
This does however give a party room to manipulate who runs in ‘safe’ districts and unduly influence a primary as we saw in the Ward 1 City Council primary last City cycle in Romero’s race where the party chair decided who the party wanted to win the primary so they actively worked against Romero’s primary challenger due to it being an unopposed General. It was illegal, it was despicable, but it has unchallenged because other Democrats didn’t want to cross someone willing to hurt their own and Dems. have perpetual majority with the unique ward system primary, citywide general system in Tucson elections so the party boss is the real boss and a challenge to that authority will get THEM in Flores’ shoes if they cross the boss.

I think this proposal works if competition is the main desired factor when drawing districts and when people are only allowed to vote for their own elected representatives and not someone else’s. Unfortunately it’s not the case right now. SEVERAL other factors come in first to pass judicial review. And we only get a shot at re-drawing these districts every 10 years so we have what we have until 2022.

Given the problem with gerrymandered districts verses the problem with unopposed elections I’m leaning toward going ahead with this proposition and solving at least half the problem now and hoping that will get people in seats to draw more competitive districts later.

I say let’s get the party hold over who we have to choose from out of the equation and get this Open Elections proposition on the ballot. It solves at least half the problem.

By: Carolyn_Classen

Carolyn_Classen — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:58:00 +0000

Read your report on this debate over at Blog for AZ:
http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2012/04/pda-open-primaries-debate-emotion-vs-facts.html

By: Bruxley

Bruxley — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:11:00 +0000

A bit skewed as Barber didn’t run directly against the others so his numbers wouldn’t be the same given independents in the mix with the open primary system proposed.

By: BajaDemocrats

BajaDemocrats — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:05:00 +0000

Wait, so all your comments about how you don’t like early mail-in voting because you enjoy going to the polls so much and you didn’t even bother to vote in the primary??? You had a choice, you could have written in the name of anyone you preferred over Barber. Me, I took the 10 seconds to fill in the oval next to Ron’s name, sign it, and drop it in the mailbox.

By: tunkashila

tunkashila — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 05:42:00 +0000

Maybe so, but since you and the other wedgies aren’t paying the parties’ bills, don’t hold your breath waiting for them to offer anything other than bandaids for major problems.

And FWIW, I agree with and support gay and women’s rights, despite my status as a “privileged white male”. I just happen to think we should solve problems like the war and deficit spending that affect all citizens before focusing on sexual and gender-specific issues. For some reason, neither the Rs or the Ds seem very interested in dealing with those…coincidence? I’m sure their motives are pure….

By: tunkashila

tunkashila — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 05:34:00 +0000

Funny, I made the same observation about you!

By: tiponeill

tiponeill — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 03:55:00 +0000

>
Socially, you have a point

In real life I have a point.

> but I don’t think Democrats care any more for women’s or gay rights than Republicans, other than paying them lip service (no pun intended) to heighten the impression of difference.

I don’t know about “care” but I do know about the laws that are passed, which is what counts.

I understand that a privileged white male that has no concern for anyone else’s'rights would see no difference between the parties, but those of us who are “wedge issues” see big differences.

By: tunkashila

tunkashila — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 03:51:00 +0000

Socially, you have a point, but I don’t think Democrats care any more for women’s or gay rights than Republicans, other than paying them lip service (no pun intended) to heighten the impression of difference.

And after the press conference, they all go raise funds from the same batches of corporate swine together and pat each others’ backs for maintaining the illusion. You confuse wedge issues with real difference.

By: tiponeill

tiponeill — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 03:51:00 +0000

>
And I think if you had the courage of your convictions to do a write-in and spread the word via your blog, you would see very different results.

You seem to think a lot of things that aren’t backed up by reality