Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

alp227

(32,019 posts)
Thu Jan 23, 2014, 04:25 PM Jan 2014

Schumer: Two-party primary undercuts tea party

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Chuck Schumer, the No. 3 Senate Democrat, said Thursday that a two-party primary would undercut the tea party movement, ensuring the election of moderate Republicans and independents willing to work pragmatically for an effective government.

In excerpts of a speech, the New York lawmaker sought to highlight what he described as the divide between tea party elites, such as the David and Charles Koch, who cast government as the enemy, and grass-roots tea party members who genuinely favor individual government-run programs such as Medicare.

...

"The way to lessen the grip of the tea party on the electoral process would be to do what a handful have done and have a primary where all voters, members of every party, can vote and the top two vote-getters then enter a runoff," Schumer said. "This would prevent a hard-right candidate from winning with 22 percent of the vote and force even the most extreme candidates to move further to the middle to pick up more moderate Republicans and independents in order to get into the top two."

...

Schumer, who was delivering his speech at the Democratic-leaning Center for American Progress, argued that the wealthy Koch brothers, who have bankrolled organizations critical of Democrats, don't share the same outlook as tea party members.

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/schumer-two-party-primary-undercuts-tea-party

17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

leftyohiolib

(5,917 posts)
2. yes b/c we are the greatest democracy in he world we get 2 and only 2 choices for the people
Thu Jan 23, 2014, 04:28 PM
Jan 2014

who will rule our lives, in a dictatorship you only get 1choice but not in the greatest democracy in the world we get 2fucking options only.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
3. Maybe you're speaking with hyperboly ...
Thu Jan 23, 2014, 04:38 PM
Jan 2014

but you, and everyone else, has the freedom to vote for any of the about 300,000,000 potential candidates. You can write in the name of your choice.

Progressive dog

(6,900 posts)
6. They only get one job
Thu Jan 23, 2014, 04:53 PM
Jan 2014

and as was pointed out, there is a write in option. I think some Senator got elected recently in Alaska as a writ in.

Xithras

(16,191 posts)
10. It's fundamentally just a runoff system. It works well here in California.
Thu Jan 23, 2014, 05:19 PM
Jan 2014

Basically, you have one "general" election in which anyone can run, followed by a "runoff" election in which the top two vote getters get to square off against each other. Because it's impossible to win without getting a majority of voters on your side (it eliminates the concept of winning with 25% of a split vote), candidates are forced to appeal to the majority of voters. The system tends to chew up extremists, favoring moderates who can appeal to a much wider voting base.

Voters aren't limited to "two choices". They can vote for anyone in the primary. It's just picking TWO winners from that election instead of one, and forcing them to run against each other again in a second election.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
12. Every time I have voted since JFK there have been numerous party choices. It is not a matter of how
Thu Jan 23, 2014, 05:29 PM
Jan 2014

many parties. It is a matter of the strength of those parties and so far we have not had very much competition from any of those parties. Probably the closest that we could say actually had a chance was the socialist party prior to the Great Depression. They had enough of a threat to help FDR get elected.

Bernardo de La Paz

(49,000 posts)
4. Duopolies are almost as bad as monopolies.
Thu Jan 23, 2014, 04:49 PM
Jan 2014

The two main parties rig the system against third party entrants. Period.

Arguments claiming "wasted votes" and "powerless third parties" and "factions" are bogus.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
14. Why have a primary if it's for everybody?
Thu Jan 23, 2014, 06:22 PM
Jan 2014

Why vote twice? Just let the guy who gets the most votes the first time win.

And I can't quite believe Schumer is advocating for open primaries.

karynnj

(59,503 posts)
16. Assume there are 5 candidates where 4 are roughly the same place on the political
Thu Jan 23, 2014, 07:28 PM
Jan 2014

spectrum. Assume that the different one gets 30 percent of the vote and the other 4 split the 70 percent. If no run off, someone that 70% would vote against wins.

(I know this is simplistic, but it serves its purpose.)

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
17. Yeah, actually the new California system seems to work well.
Thu Jan 23, 2014, 07:36 PM
Jan 2014

I think I'm just being whiney because the old primary system annoys me. Best two go forward gives a better winnowing of the field, as long as it's open to anyone to run or vote.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Schumer: Two-party primar...