Kari Chisholm, founder of BlueOregon, a leading politics blog in Oregon, has this column on how, if Oregon had had a top-two system in 2010, the general election might easily have had no one on the ballot for Governor except for two Democrats.
Kari Chisholm, founder of BlueOregon, a leading politics blog in Oregon, has this column on how, if Oregon had had a top-two system in 2010, the general election might easily have had no one on the ballot for Governor except for two Democrats.
Nonpartisan App.V. for electing all elected executive officers and all judges – pending Condorcet head to head math.
This BAN posting and a previous one this week linked to four very good arguments against “Top Two.” It is unfortunate that the commentators waited so long to make their good comments given the general increase in early voting. And, isn’t Oregon completely mail-in voting nowadays? If so, these arguments may have gotten out to the public too late!
The article is just another piece of “evidence” of what Top Two will do to our electoral system.
It should be obvious to all, Democrats and liberals are behind Top Two. Call it conspiratorial theory or paranoid or whatever one wants. But I can see where Top Two is going, just as those who promote it, see their long term objective.
When one witnesses the non-stop illegal immigration – not just from Mexico – but from other South American countries – and a government which looks the other way, as they know those millions who eventually get to stay in the United States will eventually grow up and become Democrats.
There is only one party the overwhelming majority of these new “citizens” will vote for – the Democratic Party. By 2020, the Democratic Party will be so entrenched nationally, there will be no where for Republicans, Libertarians, populists Independents and others who believe in “traditional America” to turn.
God have mercy on us all!
That’s called “majority rule”. If Democrats and Independents make up 50% (plus one vote) of the votes then why shouldn’t the voter have a chance which single candidate would gain the 50% (plus one vote)’s nod?
Were there a three-member executive, then there would be a guarantee that 75% (plus three votes) of the voters would pick those three. But that’s not a multi-winner election. A 50% (plus one vote) majority should be able to pick between two candidates, and if the 50% (plus one vote) were Republicans or some other combination of Independent and third parties, then that 50% (plus one vote) would choose between the top two.
The good thing about Top Two is that after the primary, the 50% (NOT plus one vote) would then still be able to help decide which of the two preferred by the 50% (plus one vote) will succeed. Therefore, if you want a Governor who is conciliatory towards your issues then you help pick which candidate from the majority party of 50% (plus one vote) wins the single seat.
The minority party of 50% should NOT dictate to the 50% (plus one vote) majority and Top Two insures that no matter which party (or independent) is part of the 50% (plus one vote), the winners are who gets to represent 50% (plus one vote) and they are elected from the 50% (plus one vote) camp.
Top Two = biggest majority decides.
What this Top Two really amounts to is who wants to try to work across partisan (and independents) lines and who just wants to dictate, fuss and fight.
All those who want to dictate, fuss and fight show their colors more than ever and those who are interested in trying coalition building and cooperation are trying to continue with a slightly easier system called pair-testing.
Those who love to fight and talk smack simply try to be more vocal and those who see teamwork and collaboration can do that more too.
But in the end, to whom do the general voting population, THE VOERS, gravitate?
The VOTERS want people who can work together and solve problems and I believe they’re tired of continual bickering and fighting.
Top Two helps the VOTERS decide which is the best team player through pair-testing.