[TreesAndBirds]

[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=14611.msg156608#msg156608 date=1455597590]
Stupac, wouldnt it be simpler to adopt the California voting system ( the two candidates with the largest number of votes in the primary meet in the general election, regardless of party) to encourage candidates to aim for the middle to attract voters from the other party. I dont know if there is any evidence yet on how well its working, but in theory it seems like a good response to gerrymandered districts that result in more extreme candidates from the dominant party.

Not sure I really love the top two candidate primary in California.  It seems like both parties are now so afraid that three or four strong candidates will split the vote that the result has become that each party really forces the issue by allowing only one or two candidates.  Those candidates need to be loyal members of the party to get that entry ticket.  So now the real primary is just happening behind the scenes.  I guess the process provides more moderate types, but it seems the process really just rewards ultra-loyal members of the political machines. 

I used to enjoy the trying to pick between a dozen options in down ballot primaries.  Sigh.
[/quote]

We have different experiences. In the San Jose area no Republican has a chance and Mike Honda was the incumbent representative. Democrat Ro Khanna (teaches econ at Stanford) got 28% in the primary compared to Honda's 48%, but Khanna got 48% in the general election. In other words almost the entire Republican vote went to him in the general election and he just missed upsetting an incumbent by appealing across party lines. I think this system has lots of potential.

[TreesAndBirds]

[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=14611.msg156608#msg156608 date=1455597590]
Stupac, wouldnt it be simpler to adopt the California voting system ( the two candidates with the largest number of votes in the primary meet in the general election, regardless of party) to encourage candidates to aim for the middle to attract voters from the other party. I dont know if there is any evidence yet on how well its working, but in theory it seems like a good response to gerrymandered districts that result in more extreme candidates from the dominant party.

Not sure I really love the top two candidate primary in California.  It seems like both parties are now so afraid that three or four strong candidates will split the vote that the result has become that each party really forces the issue by allowing only one or two candidates.  Those candidates need to be loyal members of the party to get that entry ticket.  So now the real primary is just happening behind the scenes.  I guess the process provides more moderate types, but it seems the process really just rewards ultra-loyal members of the political machines. 

I used to enjoy the trying to pick between a dozen options in down ballot primaries.  Sigh.
[/quote]

We have different experiences. In the San Jose area no Republican has a chance and Mike Honda was the incumbent representative. Democrat Ro Khanna (teaches econ at Stanford) got 28% in the primary compared to Honda's 48%, but Khanna got 48% in the general election. In other words almost the entire Republican vote went to him in the general election and he just missed upsetting an incumbent by appealing across party lines. I think this system has lots of potential.