J. D. Vance won the Ohio Republican primary with only 32.20% of the vote. Here is a link to the Secretary of State’s website, which has election returns.
J. D. Vance won the Ohio Republican primary with only 32.20% of the vote. Here is a link to the Secretary of State’s website, which has election returns.
NOOOO extremist primaries.
NONPARTISAN execs / judics using Approval Voting – pending Condorcet = RCV done right.
Roughly twice as many Republican votes as Democratic votes. Vance had almost as many votes as the Democrat Tim Ryan who received 69.72% of the vote in the Democrat primary.
Because Ohio does not have formal party registration, voters can choose a party when they vote.
Ohio should eliminate partisan primaries and adopt a N/(N+1) runoff system, where N is the fewest number of candidates that receive at least N/(N+1) of the vote. In this case the Top 6 received about 89.9% of the vote which is greater than 6/7 (85.7%)
Copy and paste from retard Thomas Jones.
Incumbent DeWine didn’t receive 50% either. Not a great governor but better than communist Nan Whaley, who can’t even run Dayton.
How many states have plurality-winner primaries? (In Texas, there would be a runoff.)
Vance will be a great Senator.
Approval voting is best for primaries, IMO
USA Senate — evil and vicious minority rule regime since 1789 — replaced rotted 1775-1789 olde Congresses – 1 vote per State
— approves rotten laws, treaties and various exec/judic party hacks.
Abolish the rotted USA Senate.
Thomas Jones has no clue what he is talking about yet again.
Wow. What a moron.
USA Senate- 1791-1861 free/slave state machinations also.
Got 750,000 DEAD in 1861-1866.
Minority rule gerrymander hacks in States choosing corrupt USA Sens to 1914-1918 — 17th Amdt.
Troll M-O-R-O-N-S love all the ANTI-Democracy rot and machinations.
We’re a Republic, not a mob rule democracy,moron. The Senate represents the States, which is why it should go back to being elected by legislators. .Lincoln’s unnecessary war of aggression is what got all those people killed. The states had every right to secede. Slavery would have ended anyway.
1861-1865 Union Army and Navy had every right to blow out the brains of the EVIL tyrants J. Davis, RE Lee, etc. to liberate the slaves.
ROT since 4 July 1776 — inherited from rotted Brits and their slavery since 1619.
“1861-1865 Union Army and Navy had every right to blow out the brains of the EVIL tyrants J. Davis, RE Lee, etc. to liberate the slaves.”
Total nonsense.
1. Liberating the slaves was not the goal of the war. Lincoln offered to enshrine slavery permanently in the Constitution through a proposed amendment. Some of the Union states were slave states. The emancipation proclamation was not issued until 1863, and even then did not apply to Union slave states or areas under Union control.
2. Lincoln wanted to deport freed slaves to Africa.
3. Slavery would have ended without the war because fugitive slave laws would no longer apply in the north, and because European trade partners were increasingly unwilling to do business with Christian nations which still allowed slavery.
4. If the Union side wanted to preserve the union and end slavery, they could have done it sooner and for less monetary cost by simply paying slave owners for the economic loss of what had been legally held property. That’s not even counting all the people killed and maimed on both sides and the tremendous destruction of other property in the course of the war.
5. According to the logic of the 9th and 10th amendments and the explicit vote of some state legislatures in joining the union to begin with, states had every right to leave the union.
You are trying to retroactively justify the suppression of a war of independence because slaves were freed at the end of the war, even though there was no such goal at the start of the war, it was illegal under the Constitution, and the slaves would have been freed anyway – indeed, could have been freed sooner and more cheaply without the war.
Had the British suppressed the American Revolution and then freed the slaves, would that have justified their suppression of the American rebellion? They would have been on more solid ground than Lincoln, because at least there was nothing in the British law that would have made them wrong in doing so.
Took a while from 1765 Stamp Act Congress to 4 July 1776 for some American folks to make BRIT machinations deemed intolerable.
Among the Brit Rot – letting slaves exist in the Brit colonies.
See 2nd and last paras of 4 July 1776 DOI.
Troll MORONS love olde ROT since it is olde — went on for centuries.
Britain was getting rid of slavery in the 1770s. Not yet in the colonies but some there saw it as a threat on the horizon. You failed to address the historical what/if.
What if PR and Approval Voting and Condorcet existed in 1776 ???
No idea. You still haven’t answered though.