This is the "Primary Problem" in our Country -- https://www.uniteamerica.org/primary-problem. And, it's the problem that's underneath ALL of the other problems that are not being adequately addressed because common sense problem solving is not rewarded.
I think a national primary day will be useful, but if the primaries are closed, and the state (or district) is recognized by the typical voter as either firmly red or blue, is there evidence beyond the simulations that were run that national primary day will increase voter turn-out? It seems to me that open primaries (whether or not coupled with IRV/RCV) are the primary driver for voter turn-out. Then, national primary day is like icing on the cake?
I'm not sure how the Princeton team treated open vs. closed primaries. We definitely need open primaries with or without National Primary Day; it's absurd that independents are barred from voting in taxpayer-funded primary elections.
Living here on the west coast, and repeatedly watching elected officials override the will and votes of the people, I would venture to guess this confusion is created intentionally, similar to gerrymandering. On top of that, we have “rules” like “top 2 vote earners” move on from the primary - this leads the minority party members of that state feeling quite helpless. We need to have consistent rules and I do agree with a single primary day concept.
I actually think the top-two system is interesting, although I've never used it. It lets people vote for minor parties without accusations of "spoiling" the election. And I think when the general election is two candidates from the same party, the more moderate one has a better chance of winning - at least in an open seat (see Sam Liccardo in California's 16th district). Maybe it should be top four instead of just two. What do you think?
This is the "Primary Problem" in our country, and neither party cares about it at all. Too many Americans have no idea that in 2024, 87% of our current Congress was elected by only 7% of Eligible voters. As such, we've gone from smoke-filled rooms and "party bosses," to the most extreme partisan, "party bases" deciding everything. The solution -- it's shockingly simple, but so difficult to enact in our hyper-polarized environment ... fully open AND UNIFIED, primary elections where ALL voters can vote for the best candidate, regardless of party affiliation.
This is the "Primary Problem" in our Country -- https://www.uniteamerica.org/primary-problem. And, it's the problem that's underneath ALL of the other problems that are not being adequately addressed because common sense problem solving is not rewarded.
Thanks for the recommendation, Eric! I'll check this out.
I think a national primary day will be useful, but if the primaries are closed, and the state (or district) is recognized by the typical voter as either firmly red or blue, is there evidence beyond the simulations that were run that national primary day will increase voter turn-out? It seems to me that open primaries (whether or not coupled with IRV/RCV) are the primary driver for voter turn-out. Then, national primary day is like icing on the cake?
I'm not sure how the Princeton team treated open vs. closed primaries. We definitely need open primaries with or without National Primary Day; it's absurd that independents are barred from voting in taxpayer-funded primary elections.
Living here on the west coast, and repeatedly watching elected officials override the will and votes of the people, I would venture to guess this confusion is created intentionally, similar to gerrymandering. On top of that, we have “rules” like “top 2 vote earners” move on from the primary - this leads the minority party members of that state feeling quite helpless. We need to have consistent rules and I do agree with a single primary day concept.
I actually think the top-two system is interesting, although I've never used it. It lets people vote for minor parties without accusations of "spoiling" the election. And I think when the general election is two candidates from the same party, the more moderate one has a better chance of winning - at least in an open seat (see Sam Liccardo in California's 16th district). Maybe it should be top four instead of just two. What do you think?
The confusion involved in primary dates and who votes is not conducive to a real and fair primary election results.
Only the most politically-involved people know when the dates are, and they tend to be the most partisan people too. It's a real problem.
This is the "Primary Problem" in our country, and neither party cares about it at all. Too many Americans have no idea that in 2024, 87% of our current Congress was elected by only 7% of Eligible voters. As such, we've gone from smoke-filled rooms and "party bosses," to the most extreme partisan, "party bases" deciding everything. The solution -- it's shockingly simple, but so difficult to enact in our hyper-polarized environment ... fully open AND UNIFIED, primary elections where ALL voters can vote for the best candidate, regardless of party affiliation.