Jeff Girard, who specializes in interviewing people about poltical and social issues while he and the guest are seated together in his car, has interviewed Richard Winger about election law issues.
Jeff Girard, who specializes in interviewing people about poltical and social issues while he and the guest are seated together in his car, has interviewed Richard Winger about election law issues.
So cool!
A little too stereotype – is that a cat carrier behind the gay man?
#2 If that’s not a cat carrier, I don’t know what is. It shows that Jeff Girard is a man of taste!
Awesome!!! So which one’s you? 🙂 😛
He actually explains its not his car, although it might still be his cat carrier :p
I watched the entire 1 hour 17 minutes of it and thought it was really good, although I have to admit I was still pondering on what you thought of the whole interview until your final thoughts!
Although this interview was slated specifically about US federal and state elections and Jeff’s personal interest in legislation regarding homosexual rights, I think much of it could be translated into other issues in other countries and was glad you highlighted things such as individuals to correspond with elected officials.
I’ll be forwarding this on to several other groups.
Richard looked a little tense though. In such close quarters sitting shoulder-to-shoulder, I think he might have been wondering if Jeff was going to lean over and plant one on him.
It was hot that day, and when a car sits in the sun with the windows down, we all know it really heats up. But if we rolled down the windows then we got traffic noise.
As a teenager I joined the Socialist Labor Party and helped with the Presidential campaign of Jules Levin in 1976. The bumper sticker on my car “What’s Capitalism Done For You Lately? Vote SLP” got me arrested by a New York State Trooper. His first words to me when he stopped me and walked up to the car were “Do you know who I voted for for President? George Wallace”.
Very good interview Richard!
Fine interview, Richard. Proud of you.
It’s always interesting to hear someone speak who you have read for so long. This was a great interview!
But Mr. Winger, please, reconsider your support for instant runoff voting. It doesn’t eliminate spoilers, it doesn’t help alternative parties to win elections, and it’s not a stepping stone to proportional representation.
Canada–which you mention–and the UK and France all currently have substantial representation of more than two major parties in their plurality-elected seats. Meanwhile, Australia, in IRV-elected seats, does not (yes, I’m counting the Lib/Nat coalition as one party.) This is despite the fact that Australia has an effective system of proportional representation for its upper house, which keeps many alternative parties in the public’s eye, but even this doesn’t help them overcome the two-party-dominated effects of IRV.
Cultural/language barriers and parliamentarianism are much more significant boons to alternative parties than IRV is (look at India for an extreme example) but if single-winner elections are necessary, the most-helpful election method isn’t IRV, but approval voting.
Thank you again for sharing the interview, and thank you for dedicating so much of your time to provide us with Ballot Access News.
GOP prez field news: George Pataki, former Governor of New York, might run for president. The moderate Republican probably doesn’t stand a chance in the GOP field, but he might be a possible AE nominee because he’s pretty moderate. Pataki/Huntsman 2012 for AE? More likely Bloomberg/Sanchez or Pataki/Sanchez.
It is the Democrats and Republicans who challenged Top 2 in Washington. It was the teacher’s union in Oregon who ran the smear campaign against its version of the open primary because they felt that they would have more influence under a system of segregated partisan primaries.
Under the blanket primary in California, voters were more likely to vote for 3rd party candidates in the primary than they were the general election. And Louisiana has one of the largest shares of independent legislators in the country.
It is because of the government-run partisan primaries that political parties think of themselves as being part of the government.
#13, in California in 2000 (the only presidential election year in which California had a blanket primary), Ralph Nader got 112,345 votes in the primary and 418,707 votes in the general election. Harry Browne, Libertarian, got 20,825 votes in the primary and 45,520 in the general.
In the US Senate race in California in 2000, Medea Benjamin, Green, got 99,716 votes in the primary and 326,828 in the general. Gail Lightfoot, Libertarian, got 120,622 in the primary and 187,718 in the general.
#14 In those races where there were not any nomination contests, so that voters were asked to vote in the primary between:
Debbie Dawson to be the Democratic nominee;
Randy Rourke to be the Republican nominee;
George Gonzales to be the Green nominee;
Andrew Ingram to be the American Independent nominee;
Larry Lee to be the Libertarian nominee;
Natalia Lawton to be the Natural Law nominee; or
Roberta Roberts to be the Reform nominee.
and in the general election between
Debbie Dawson the Democratic nominee;
Randy Rourke the Republican nominee;
George Gonzales the Green nominee;
Andrew Ingram the American Independent nominee;
Larry Lee the Libertarian nominee;
Natalia Lawton the Natural Law nominee; or
Roberta Roberts the Reform nominee.
Voters were more likely to vote for the minor party candidates in the primary.
While there might be some federal judges in Michigan who would reason that they would never voter for Natalia Lawton, but would vote for her so that she would be on the general election ballot, most voters would simply vote for whichever candidate they favored.
In the races you cited voters were involved in the determining the primary winner, and were attracted to the Democratic and Republican primaries. The cross-over voting for the presidential primary is available on the statement of vote to illustrate this effect.