Today's Poll: Should NYS go to an open primary (top two) system?

Wouldn't it be more sensible to have the poll after the other side gets to explain why a top two system is a bad idea? Top two has been studied by the League of Women Voters of two states (Arizona and Washington). Both concluded it is bad policy. The ACLU of both Northern and Southern California opposed it in 2010 because it shuts out minor party candidates from the general election campaign season. In 2012, the top-two system disenfranchised the majority party in the 31st US House district in San Bernardino. Even though the district was strongly Democratic, it was forced to elect a Republican to the US House, because the Democrats split up their votes in the primary among 4 Democrats, and only 2 Republicans were running, so they came in first and second.

If the top-two system had been in effect for presidential elections in 2008, the only two candidates who would have been able to run in November would have been Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. They both polled over 17,000,000 votes in all the presidential primaries put together; no Republican polled as many as 10,000,000 votes, because the Republican field was split up among so many candidates.

So, Chuck the Schmuck argues that America should accept a system which would only advance his conscienceless party's political fortunes: I'm shocked.

If you are under the impression that the corrupticrats and corrupticans give a single solitary damn about the American People, you are grossly mistaken.

Primaries are a device used by a political party to determine which of the available candidates might actually represent the voter's views and priorities.

If the opponents of the party are allowed to be players in this internal argument... Well, that is an evil little bit of manipulation that suits those who feel that they have the right, and the responsibility, to direct the lives of others, regardless of the wishes and the humanity of those that the "enlightened" wish to control. And, never forget, this is very, very, much about control.

Ask yourself a question: Do I want to have a representative or do I want to have a chieftain? Chucky proposes a return to the tribalism of Ireland, Scotland and Afghanistan (Among other cultures throughout history).

I Will Not Submit: I am an American. We only do Republics here.

I don't think people fully understand what this entails, or there would not be so many "yes" votes.

Just saying.

My kneejerk reaction was if Schumer is for it, I must be against it. However, every idea deserves fair consideration. I'd be interested in your views Phil, I have a great deal of respect for your political acumen. On a side note, I had the opportunity to meet Chuck Schumer a week ago and of all the things I have always imagined bringing up when given the opportunity, I simply thanked him for his efforts in acquiring the Veterans cemetery.

Thanks for that, Jeff!

Any idea that changes our current model is sadly, a step in a better direction, but this concept, while appearing sound in theory, does not actually address what's really wrong with the system itself, and opens up the potential corruption even further. I don't want to go on some long diatribe here, so I'll try and summat what is wrong in our election process in this: Ballot Access, Campaign Finance and Debate Access.

There are many tendrils that work off of each of these, and I think that many have gone on about campaign financing, but before all of that, is the sham of getting on the ballot itself. There is no greater scam of political control than this. It is the ultimate picking of winners and losers before you even get started. Each state structures their laws differently, but in NY State for a "party" to achieve this distinction, they must receive 50,000 votes in a Gubernatorial race. Why 50,000? Because it's extremely difficult to get when you don't have candidates who can get ballot access!!!

Essentially, under the Ballot Access laws, a non affiliate party, has to obtain in most cases double the amount of signatures to get on the ballot, in other cases, ten to a hundred times as many in local elections.

At a state level, they have to get the same as the major parties, even though their resources are obviously less. In addition, the major parties will challenge every non affiliate petition that comes in as a way to keep that party off, or to cause them to deplete their resources defending it. It is a vicious cycle that continues. That means, the only way that a non affiliate party can get on without much delay is by getting double the amount of signatures required to ensure access. This usually comes, again, at a great cost.

IMHO, anyone should be able to have access on a ballot with no signatures, outside of their own, at all. Does that mean there could be a 1,000 choices? Maybe, but who cares? It is every voter's responsibility to find out who is running, and what they stand for. It is every candidate's responsibility to tell people what they stand for! Personally, I don't think that you would have a ridiculous amount of people running if you made it easier. Yes, you would definitely have more, but I see that as a good thing.

Having a party recognized should be the same as setting up a corporation. They need to be a legal entity, elect officers, designate a HQ, and be legally liable for what they say and do.

Like I said, I think that is long enough, but I love to discuss these topics!!

Well done Phil. A very accurate description of the situation. I would disagree about ballot access, I think its fair to have every candidate get a certain number of signatures. The same number for all candidates for the same position. It should be as minimal as possible. If you can't get at least a few people to support your being on the ballot, then you just shouldn't be on it. Candidates should all run as individuals, not a product of a primary. Any party can endorse any candidate and I agree about the candidate having the responsibility tell voters what they stand for, rather than having the party make the platform.

In any case, you are correct, probably any change would be a step forward.

Excellent points Phil. I like the idea of freedom to choose candidates from a much lager pool and who may not(and in most cases, certainly not) be entrenched in business as usual politics. Your homerun statement: "It is every voter's responsibility to find out who is running, and what they stand for. It is every candidate's responsibility to tell people what they stand for!" Simple, but it speaks volumes.

I am always hesitant to edit my posts so as not to interrupt the flow so my previous post is supposed to say "larger pool" not "lager pool". Beer and politics probably shouldn't mix.

Haha, it's a time honored tradition Jeff.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/12384/swilling-planters-bumbo-how-george…

I like the sound of a lager pool anyway......