• Nevada Democrats block open primary bill
    13 replies, posted
[URL]http://www.rgj.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/27/nevada-democrats-block-open-primary-bill/99701074/[/URL] [QUOTE]State Senate Democrats are blocking a bill introduced by a Republican that would switch from partisan to open primaries, allowing all registered voters regardless of party in Nevada to participate. Senate Bill 103 introduced by state Sen. James Settelmeyer, R-Minden, would have created an open primary process where the top two vote-getters in the primary move on to the general election. Currently, Nevada holds partisan primaries where only registered party members can vote, essentially keeping around 28 percent of registered voters – about 413,000 people – from participating. Despite Democrats’ policy outline – called the “Nevada Blueprint” – expressly stating they would “Fight to ensure that voting is free, fair, and accessible for all eligible voters in Nevada,” Senate Majority Leader Aaron Ford, D-Las Vegas, said Settelmeyer’s bill won't get a hearing. “We don’t feel it’s worthy of a hearing. Next question,” Ford said during media availability on Friday, cutting off the inquiry as to why he felt that way. Democrats have held hearings on several election reform proposals, all introduced by caucus members, including restoring the voting rights of ex-felons and awarding electoral college votes to whomever wins the popular vote. They also voted along party lines in both chambers to approve an initiative petition that would’ve automatically registered people to vote when updating their Department of Motor Vehicle information. The new registrants would’ve been marked as nonpartisan unless they declared a party. Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican, vetoed the measure, which will now appear on the 2018 ballot. Settelmeyer said he didn’t think his bill was being killed for partisan reasons. “I think he just doesn’t like the idea for some reason,” he said. “I like the idea of trying to let people to vote.” Doug Goodman, an election reform advocate, said not allowing nonpartisans and minor party registrants to participate in primary elections disproportionately affects younger voters. According to figures from the secretary of state’s office, around 38 percent of voters aged 18 to 34 are nonpartisan or minor party, outpacing the 23 percent of Republicans and close to the 40 percent of Democrats. [/QUOTE] Anyone else get a kick out of the "Democratic" party voting against a bill that would make elections more democratic?
They must be afraid that the party won't be in charge of the corporate democrats anymore if this goes through.
Well, how else will our wonderful political system continue to work if we can't split the voter base into only two sides and polarize them to the extreme?
These partisan hacks are no better than our senators and reps. There's no reason to be against this unless you're scared of losing clout in your clique
I can only hope the "Clinton"/blue dog sect of the dems is replaced by the fiscal left before 2020.
[QUOTE=AugustBurnsRed;52024433]These partisan hacks are no better than our senators and reps. There's no reason to be against this unless you're scared of losing clout in your clique[/QUOTE] Exactly this. It's a direct betrayal of both Democratic and democratic values. Complete hacks.
""democrats""
[QUOTE=AnnieOakley;52024450]I can only hope the "Clinton"/blue dog sect of the dems is replaced by the fiscal left before 2020.[/QUOTE] Ellison's relative success gives me hope that that'll be the case. i mean he didn't win but when you consider - he was directly courting the Democratic establishment - who completely gave his faction and supporters the shaft less than a year ago - and he'd basically only had a few months to build support - and he'll have a senior position at the DNC for the next 4 years anyway i think he went down phenomenally well, and if the fiscal left keeps building steam at this rate then 2020's looking pretty interesting
[QUOTE=Cone;52024514]Ellison's relative success gives me hope that that'll be the case. i mean he didn't win but when you consider - he was directly courting the Democratic establishment - who completely gave his faction and supporters the shaft less than a year ago - and he'd basically only had a few months to build support - and he'll have a senior position at the DNC for the next 4 years anyway i think he went down phenomenally well, and if the fiscal left keeps building steam at this rate then 2020's looking pretty interesting[/QUOTE] Agreed, the swell of left-wing activism is clearly being felt at the highest levels of the DNC, even if they (of course) resist it.
[QUOTE=HappyCompy;52024611]Agreed, the swell of left-wing activism is clearly being felt at the highest levels of the DNC, even if they (of course) resist it.[/QUOTE] The Current Portion of the Party IS what the GOP have claimed they are,
[QUOTE=AnnieOakley;52024450]I can only hope the "Clinton"/blue dog sect of the dems is replaced by the fiscal left before 2020.[/QUOTE] Blue Dog democrats and Hillary Clinton don't have that much to do with one another?
At the end of the day, this is why some people think there is no real difference between the two ruling parties. Regardless of political affiliation, politicians will do anything in their power to game the system or make lean more in their favor; even to the detriment of the country. It's not the poor who leach off of society, but the rich obstructionist career politician.
[b]TBH this bill they are vetoing is a pretty fucking stupid bill, and I'll tell you why[/b] [quote=Article]Senate Bill 103 introduced by state Sen. James Settelmeyer, R-Minden, would have created an open primary process where the top two vote-getters in the primary move on to the general election[/quote] I dunno whether Nevada is a swing state or leans Democrat or Republican, but let's assume they are a state that leans towards the Democrats; generally, more people vote for the Dems than the Repubs. Assume in a primary that there are more Dem candidates, because the Dem party is larger (say, three candidates). While the Repubs may have a smaller list of candidates (eg, just two). Assume that 54% of people vote for Dem candidates, 46% for Repub candidates, and the votes between candidates of each party is split evenly. The outcome of the primary would be: Dem A: 18% Dem B: 18% Dem C: 18% Repub A: 23% Repub B: 23% Both of the Republican candidates would make it to the general election, despite more people voting for Democrat candidates. Democrat voters, at the general election, would be forced to choose between two Republican candidates, or not vote at all. Now, that open primary system wouldn't be as much of a problem if preferential voting was used, but then you would have to ask, why not use that preferential voting system for the general election instead? [editline]29th March 2017[/editline] This exact thing happened in California, where for a Senate primary, two Democrats made it through to the general whereas no Republican made the cut, because (through no fault of their own) there was a crowded field of Republican candidates where the votes were spread thinly. [url]https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/us/08california-senate-primary.html?_r=0[/url]
[QUOTE=BF;52025032]TBH this bill they are vetoing is a pretty fucking stupid bill I dunno whether Nevada is a swing state or leans Democrat or Republican, but let's assume they are a state that leans towards the Democrats; generally, more people vote for the Dems than the Repubs. Assume in a primary that there are more Dem candidates, because the Dem party is larger (say, three candidates). While the Repubs may have a smaller list of candidates (eg, just two). Assume that 54% of people vote for Dem candidates, 46% for Repub candidates, and the votes between candidates of each party is split evenly. The outcome of the primary would be: Dem A: 18% Dem B: 18% Dem C: 18% Repub A: 23% Repub B: 23% Both of the Republican candidates would make it to the general election, despite more people voting for Democrat candidates. Democrat voters, at the general election, would be forced to choose between two Republican candidates, or not vote at all. Now, that open primary system wouldn't be as much of a problem if preferential voting was used, but then you would have to ask, why not use that preferential voting system for the general election instead? [editline]29th March 2017[/editline] This exact thing happened in California, where for a Senate primary, two Democrats made it through to the general whereas no Republican made the cut, because (through no fault of their own) there was a crowded field of Republican candidates where the votes were spread thinly [url]https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/us/08california-senate-primary.html?_r=0[/url][/QUOTE] Good breakdown, I didn't account for the shittiness of FPTP.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.