Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It is a far more modern system (if not perfect)
In most states, Super Tuesday is all about selecting the top Democrat and the leading Republican for a November matchup.
Not in California. Under the state’s top-two primary system, the first and second place finishers advance, regardless of their party affiliation — a system voters enacted over a decade ago, over the strenuous objections of both parties.
In a few critical races, candidates are striving to avoid a same-party top two. Lockout fears loom in competitive seats, where too many challengers threaten to fracture the vote. For candidates in safe seats, getting an opposite-party opponent would be a victory that effectively ends the contest in March.
Comment:
This means that CA could have two Democrats running against each other in the general election.
It means that a Democrat would always win the election.
How is this "democracy"?
How is this competitive?
How is this fair?
This is a one-party government system like in Cuba, North Korea, China, Venezuela...... Ukraine.
No... This is a simple run off systemmmCan you imagine all the shit that would fly from the left if dark red states instituted the very same system whereby no democrat would even be in the general election? They scream gerrymandering now in red states but the California system is the apex of gerrymandering. The left would be screaming vote suppression at the top of their lungs and that red states would be taking democracy away.
Taz,
The "simple run off system" stops people from being able to vote for anything different than just one party in the general election. If deep red states did the very same thing, not allowing any democrats in the general election, you would be screaming at the top of your lungs and not saying it is a "simple run off system". You would be screaming vote suppression.No... This is a simple run off systemmm
Get your brains out of a the two party system...
In the deep red area it might be GOP candidate v Libertarian Candidate.... If they are the top two...
This is actually far more representative that the FPTP...
The "simple run off system" stops people from being able to vote for anything different than just one party in the general election. If deep red states did the very same thing, not allowing any democrats in the general election, you would be screaming at the top of your lungs and not saying it is a "simple run off system". You would be screaming vote suppression.
Nope...The "simple run off system" stops people from being able to vote for anything different than just one party in the general election. If deep red states did the very same thing, not allowing any democrats in the general election, you would be screaming at the top of your lungs and not saying it is a "simple run off system". You would be screaming vote suppression.
I just don't think they are getting this whole democracy thing....Louisiana has the same system.
And all Americans who want Democracy should be against both.Louisiana has the same system.
And all Americans who want Democracy should be against both.
You have a short memory. States change. The South used to be owned by the Democrats, now it is owned by Republicans. If you are for this system then you should also be for gerrymandering, letting one party control the votes in the future. Electorates do change in states, if you have a system in place which lets them. The swing states of today are not the same as the swing states from 20 years ago.Nope...
I have already stated in a Deep Red state let it be a GOP v Libertarian OR GOP v MAGA....
I have no pretence that they are going to vote for a Democrat, so they might as well get what they want... It is called Democracy
We were talking apples but now you have switched the conversation to oranges. What qualifications do you think there should be to get on the ballot?I'm not arguing for or against it, but what qualifications should there be to get on the ballot?
I don't think you get it...You have a short memory. States change. The South used to be owned by the Democrats, now it is owned by Republicans. If you are for this system then you should also be for gerrymandering, letting one party control the votes in the future. Electorates do change in states, if you have a system in place which lets them. The swing states of today are not the same as the swing states from 20 years ago.
You still haven't told us what wrong with run off elections except a GOP is not guaranteed a spot in the run off... Are you that stuck on 2 party politics...We were talking apples but now you have switched the conversation to oranges. What qualifications do you think there should be to get on the ballot?
The way it should work is that we have one party running against another party or parties, not a democrat running against a democrat where only a democrat can win. This takes democracy away. I thought you guys were for democracy.I don't think you get it...
This is a run off system... It just takes the top two from first poll and puts them head to head...
You are the one saying that one has to be from the GOP....
Here is the French election
Here are the Candidates
View attachment 913100
This is the first round
View attachment 913099
Macron and Le Pen gets through to the second and final round
View attachment 913102
View attachment 913103
Macron wins second round and France doesn't a racist bitch as President...
So you want to get rid of candidates and just vote for parties...The way it should work is that we have one party running against another party or parties, not a democrat running against a democrat where only a democrat can win.
LOL. Your are the one advocating for just one party to vote on!So you want to get rid of candidates and just vote for parties...
How do think that makes it more democratic?
I don't think you get that we vote for candidates not parties... There would need to be some major changes to the constitution...
So we vote for a party and the party will tell us who they have selected afterwards....
I am loosing you here, explain how this is more democratic again...
I am not...LOL. Your are the one advocating for just one party to vote on!
And if you get a deep red state or a deep blue state, in the general election, you will only be given a choice of one party rule. It is the general election which counts, not the primaries. If there is only one party you can vote for in the general, you are taking democracy away. Democrats would be quick to point out that this is taking democracy away and vote suppression, unless of course it happens in a blue state, in which thee deflect with nonsense.I am not...
I am saying the electorate selects the two top candidates and I don't care what party they are from..
By the way, two candidates who are Democrats competing is a far better choice for an area that would be voting 66%+ Democrat....
To shut out GOP Democrats have to have over 66% of the vote and then be evenly divided...
I don't think you understand it...And if you get a deep red state or a deep blue state, in the general election, you will only be given a choice of one party rule. It is the general election which counts, not the primaries. If there is only one party you can vote for in the general, you are taking democracy away. Democrats would be quick to point out that this is taking democracy away and vote suppression, unless of course it happens in a blue state, in which thee deflect with nonsense.
