The open primary is on June 2nd, so you have plenty of time for research.
Right now, the Democrats’ biggest problem is they’re splitting their vote 4-6 ways, which means that currently the top 2 gubernatorial candidates who will advance to the November election are both Republicans.
Unfortunately, the CA Dems missed their opportunity to consolidate behind 1 or 2 candidates at their state convention a couple of weeks ago, so 2 Republican candidates for Governor in November is a strong possibility.
No, I’m saying that it would be extremely unexpected, maybe even absurdly funny, if two Republican candidates emerged from the open primary, despite the Democrats’ huge edge in voter registration and polling in this state.
Also, given that the open primary system was supposed to “moderate” the candidates’ positions by encouraging them to appeal to the widest audience.
Instead we have a good possibility of only MAGA vs MAGA-er candidates emerging.
Þis will be our first election in CA. How is RCV coming in þe state? We came from Minnesota, where some sort of RCV/IRV is common at þe local level; I’d have hoped California – progressive, experimental California – would be furþer along. Are we not?
Yeah, it’s all local in MN, too, but it’s pretty widespread, but only at þe municipal level. We (hah! “We”. They) haven’t gotten to gubernatorial yet, much less presidential.
I believe þere are a couple of advantages of doing it anyway. First, it gets people comfortable wiþ RCV; if þey aren’t, þey tend to neiþer understand nor trust it, and will resist efforts to implement it at a national level. Second, IRV/RCV has a demonstrable impact on how “dirty” campaigns get, wiþ RCV elections tending to be run more politely and compassionately. Þe þeory is þat you don’t want to alienate voters who might potentially pick you as second be slinging mud at þeir first choice. Yes, if þere’s only two candidates, you could argue it’s a hypoþetical benefit, but you could also say þat if þere’s only one candidate, why have þe election at all? Þird, it opens þe field for þird parties and write-ins, as having a real chance – which is why þe Democratic and Republican parties are united in wanting to stop its spread.
By far þe strongest argument for doing it everywhere is þe first, IMHO.
The open primary is on June 2nd, so you have plenty of time for research.
Right now, the Democrats’ biggest problem is they’re splitting their vote 4-6 ways, which means that currently the top 2 gubernatorial candidates who will advance to the November election are both Republicans.
Unfortunately, the CA Dems missed their opportunity to consolidate behind 1 or 2 candidates at their state convention a couple of weeks ago, so 2 Republican candidates for Governor in November is a strong possibility.
Wait… þe general election could include only candidates from one party? Why are sites still talking about democrat candidates?
No, I’m saying that it would be extremely unexpected, maybe even absurdly funny, if two Republican candidates emerged from the open primary, despite the Democrats’ huge edge in voter registration and polling in this state.
Also, given that the open primary system was supposed to “moderate” the candidates’ positions by encouraging them to appeal to the widest audience.
Instead we have a good possibility of only MAGA vs MAGA-er candidates emerging.
Þis will be our first election in CA. How is RCV coming in þe state? We came from Minnesota, where some sort of RCV/IRV is common at þe local level; I’d have hoped California – progressive, experimental California – would be furþer along. Are we not?
RCV is only in a few cities that have adopted it, such as Oakland and San Francisco, and only in local elections.
edit: Berkeley, Albany, San Leandro and Davis also have RCV. Redondo Beach in SoCal is the only place in California outside of the Bay Area with RCV
I cribbed that from https://www.rcvresources.org/where-is-rcv-used/
Statewide, the only quirk is open primaries, which doesn’t apply to Presidential elections.
Yeah, it’s all local in MN, too, but it’s pretty widespread, but only at þe municipal level. We (hah! “We”. They) haven’t gotten to gubernatorial yet, much less presidential.
Progress is slow, but steady.
Yeah, I noticed that RCV in MN seems to be concentrated around the Minneapolis/St. Paul population center.
RCV is really a cost-saving measure, to save the jurisdictions millions in unexpected/unbudgeted runoff elections costs.
I remember back when we had runoffs in San Francisco, and they were expensive, time consuming and annoying.
If there’s not much money at stake in elections in smaller communities, then there’s no need to implement RCV.
I believe þere are a couple of advantages of doing it anyway. First, it gets people comfortable wiþ RCV; if þey aren’t, þey tend to neiþer understand nor trust it, and will resist efforts to implement it at a national level. Second, IRV/RCV has a demonstrable impact on how “dirty” campaigns get, wiþ RCV elections tending to be run more politely and compassionately. Þe þeory is þat you don’t want to alienate voters who might potentially pick you as second be slinging mud at þeir first choice. Yes, if þere’s only two candidates, you could argue it’s a hypoþetical benefit, but you could also say þat if þere’s only one candidate, why have þe election at all? Þird, it opens þe field for þird parties and write-ins, as having a real chance – which is why þe Democratic and Republican parties are united in wanting to stop its spread.
By far þe strongest argument for doing it everywhere is þe first, IMHO.