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
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)That would be my vote.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)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)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)and as was pointed out, there is a write in option. I think some Senator got elected recently in Alaska as a writ in.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Xithras
(16,191 posts)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)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)The two main parties rig the system against third party entrants. Period.
Arguments claiming "wasted votes" and "powerless third parties" and "factions" are bogus.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)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)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)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.
Sgent
(5,857 posts)isn't a gaurentee -- see Louisiana