[Farm93]

[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=14611.msg156612#msg156612 date=1455598664]
[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.
[/quote]

You do realize the lesson the DNC will take is that NEXT time it will be important to make sure any runner-up on the Democratic side is also far to the left.  Can't risk letting a moderate win in a VERY blue district.  Same rule applies in Red districts.  The risk-averse party machines just can't afford the chance that five or six dreamers split the vote on one side allowing two relatively strong players from the other party to claim the final two spots.

I remember in the 90s the primaries had a half dozen candidates from each party, now it seems as if it is always one or two.  Certainly never 6, 7 or 8.

My only point was the new system rewards the party machinery that is capable of controlling the number of names on the primary ticket.

[Farm93]

[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=14611.msg156612#msg156612 date=1455598664]
[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.
[/quote]

You do realize the lesson the DNC will take is that NEXT time it will be important to make sure any runner-up on the Democratic side is also far to the left.  Can't risk letting a moderate win in a VERY blue district.  Same rule applies in Red districts.  The risk-averse party machines just can't afford the chance that five or six dreamers split the vote on one side allowing two relatively strong players from the other party to claim the final two spots.

I remember in the 90s the primaries had a half dozen candidates from each party, now it seems as if it is always one or two.  Certainly never 6, 7 or 8.

My only point was the new system rewards the party machinery that is capable of controlling the number of names on the primary ticket.