victrola wrote:

Our election system sucks. There should be a non-partisan primary where, if nobody gets above 50%, then the top 2 candidates go into a runoff.

Problem with top 2 entering second round system is that, if you have 10 candidates, 8 with similar strength competing for the middle 60% votes, while 2 other candidates each secured the most radical 20% votes on each sides, then it will be the two most radical that win the election.

c933103 wrote:

victrola wrote:

Our election system sucks. There should be a non-partisan primary where, if nobody gets above 50%, then the top 2 candidates go into a runoff.

Problem with top 2 entering second round system is that, if you have 10 candidates, 8 with similar strength competing for the middle 60% votes, while 2 other candidates each secured the most radical 20% votes on each sides, then it will be the two most radical that win the election.

A highly unlikely scenario. Extremist candidates benefit far more from partisan primaries than non-partisan primaries. If you are in a Republican primary and you are up against an extremist right winger, you are unable to gain more votes by appealing to the center because the center is split between 2 different parties. If you are a Democrat going up against an extreme left winger, you are unable to tack to the center either, because the center is split between the two parties.

No moderate Republican needs to worry about getting primaried from someone to the left of him and no moderate Democrat needs to worry about being primaried by someone to his right. So, the current system with partisan primaries favors the most extreme candidates at the expense of the most moderate candidates. So, in the current system of partisan primaries, moderates are screwed. I would venture to say that vast majority of Americans are slightly to the left of center or slightly to the right of center. This moderate majority is severely underrepresented in political office.

victrola wrote:

c933103 wrote:

victrola wrote:

Our election system sucks. There should be a non-partisan primary where, if nobody gets above 50%, then the top 2 candidates go into a runoff.

Problem with top 2 entering second round system is that, if you have 10 candidates, 8 with similar strength competing for the middle 60% votes, while 2 other candidates each secured the most radical 20% votes on each sides, then it will be the two most radical that win the election.

A highly unlikely scenario. Extremist candidates benefit far more from partisan primaries than non-partisan primaries. If you are in a Republican primary and you are up against an extremist right winger, you are unable to gain more votes by appealing to the center because the center is split between 2 different parties. If you are a Democrat going up against an extreme left winger, you are unable to tack to the center either, because the center is split between the two parties.

It almost happened in the recent French presidential election with Macron won ~30% votes in the first round but Le Pen also won ~30% and another leftist also won ~30%. It was only a few percent points lead that landed Macron into second round, partially caused by several leftist candidates splitting votes among themselves.
The situation would have been completely different if those with other candidates splitting the votes were those more moderate instead of leftists.

I am judging the "top 2 enter second round" system on its own instead of comparing it to the American system. There are tons of different election systems around the world, one being bad doesn't mean another is perfect.

No moderate Republican needs to worry about getting primaried from someone to the left of him and no moderate Democrat needs to worry about being primaried by someone to his right. So, the current system with partisan primaries favors the most extreme candidates at the expense of the most moderate candidates. So, in the current system of partisan primaries, moderates are screwed. I would venture to say that vast majority of Americans are slightly to the left of center or slightly to the right of center. This moderate majority is severely underrepresented in political office.

But Democratic party frequently concern about "electability" in their primaries, to consider their candidate's ability to earn moderate votes in the eventual election, and radical candidates will never earn such points, even if they win state primaries they still wouldn't win the party's nomination as those politicians who control the nomination process know that a radical candidate can win votes within their party doesn't mean they can win vote in national election. With democratic party candidate almost guarantee to be a more moderate one, if Republican party is to pick a more radical candidate as their nominee, then this would be effectively the same as handing the presidential seat to the Democratic party.

But Democratic party frequently concern about "electability" in their primaries, to consider their candidate's ability to earn moderate votes in the eventual election, and radical candidates will never earn such points, even if they win state primaries they still wouldn't win the party's nomination as those politicians who control the nomination process know that a radical candidate can win votes within their party doesn't mean they can win vote in national election. With democratic party candidate almost guarantee to be a more moderate one, if Republican party is to pick a more radical candidate as their nominee, then this would be effectively the same as handing the presidential seat to the Democratic party.[/quot


Well, the Republican party picked a more radical candidate in 2016 and he won. Our system is skewed towards radical candidates and moderate Repubicans and Democrats hold their noses and vote for whomever their party nominates.

The NC Election Board has certified the Green Party to participate in the 2022 midterm elections. Their investigation identified an additional 481 fraudulent or late signatures, but they still were 1,600 above the minimum required.

A judge must now decide on August 8th, if the Green Party can be listed on the ballot, since they missed the July 1 deadline. The board has said there is still time to add them before printing. The Democratic party is still arguing against inclusion.

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/01/11148746 ... asley-budd

LittleFokker wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The Democrats are doing this for a good reason, at least. With the election setup (first by the post, if I'm not mistaken), a Green candidate will simply ensure a GOP win. Is it democracy if the majority is left wing but the right wins in that case ?

If the election could be over 2 turns like is the case in some places, or with jungle primaries, things like that, it would be much less of an issue.

As much as I want to see every single Republican voted out and thrown in jail, this is too much of an "ends justifies the means" argument. I don't want to see anyone unfairly kicked off the ballot, even if the outcome might be detrimental. It's rotten when Republicans cheat to win, but Dems should run on ideas and give voters a reason to vote for them, not pull dirty tricks and claim to be better than Republicans.

Except Michelle’s “when they go low, we go high” nonsense hasn’t worked at all. The right doesn’t understand taking the high road, so let’s give them something they do understand. Sometimes you have to meet your enemy in the gutter where they’re comfortable. It’s time for democrats to get dirty. We no longer have a choice.

Avatar2go wrote:

The NC Election Board has certified the Green Party to participate in the 2022 midterm elections. Their investigation identified an additional 481 fraudulent or late signatures, but they still were 1,600 above the minimum required.

A judge must now decide on August 8th, if the Green Party can be listed on the ballot, since they missed the July 1 deadline. The board has said there is still time to add them before printing. The Democratic party is still arguing against inclusion.

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/01/11148746 ... asley-budd

This exposes the game right there. The Green Party clearly should have been listed. I have been saying that what should have happened was for the Green Party to be on the ballot, and then if the investigation turned up funny business, then and only then should they have been excluded. Instead, the party was excluded first, and now the Board found very little funny business and decided after the deadline that they should be included. That should be the end of the story, but the democrats going to court over this just shows what was behind this in the first place, and its disgusting.

Avatar2go wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Is it really election fraud when signatures to get a candidate on the ballot are being challenged? Republicans are doing the same thing by challenging voters on voter rolls all over the country. Why no outrage over that as well?

Election fraud is one person voting twice, usually for the same person.

Signature fraud is a form of invalid signature. In North Carolina it's a Class 2 misdemeanor for the person who signs, and a Class 1 felony for the gatherer who swears on the collection.

You're correct that this is not election fraud in the sense of vote fraud. But it is a form of fraud related to the ballot.

Typically up to 25% of signatures are ruled invalid for petitions, so gatherers collect more than required. In this case the rate was closer to 50%, which is what triggered the investigation.

https://ballotpedia.org/Fraudulent_signature

The high rate of signatures getting thrown out is one reason why I vote in person usually during early voting. Plus it is much easier than applying for an absentee ballot by mail. Seriously I have only voted absentee twice in my life when I couldn't be in my county of residence for either early voting or election day.

apodino wrote:

This exposes the game right there. The Green Party clearly should have been listed. I have been saying that what should have happened was for the Green Party to be on the ballot, and then if the investigation turned up funny business, then and only then should they have been excluded. Instead, the party was excluded first, and now the Board found very little funny business and decided after the deadline that they should be included. That should be the end of the story, but the democrats going to court over this just shows what was behind this in the first place, and its disgusting.

To clarify, the judge will rule only on the deadline issue, as to whether an exception should be made. Since the election board now endorses inclusion and there is no issue for printing ballots, it should happen.

The Democrats are urging the election board to reverse its decision, their claim is that enough signature fraud was uncovered to make the whole thing suspect. Over 7,000 signatures of the 22,000 collected were disqualified. That's higher than normal but if they meet the requirement, that's all that matters.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Is it really election fraud when signatures to get a candidate on the ballot are being challenged? Republicans are doing the same thing by challenging voters on voter rolls all over the country. Why no outrage over that as well?

Election fraud is one person voting twice, usually for the same person.

Signature fraud is a form of invalid signature. In North Carolina it's a Class 2 misdemeanor for the person who signs, and a Class 1 felony for the gatherer who swears on the collection.

You're correct that this is not election fraud in the sense of vote fraud. But it is a form of fraud related to the ballot.

Typically up to 25% of signatures are ruled invalid for petitions, so gatherers collect more than required. In this case the rate was closer to 50%, which is what triggered the investigation.

https://ballotpedia.org/Fraudulent_signature

The high rate of signatures getting thrown out is one reason why I vote in person usually during early voting. Plus it is much easier than applying for an absentee ballot by mail. Seriously I have only voted absentee twice in my life when I couldn't be in my county of residence for either early voting or election day.

But this was not an election. This was petition gathering. Completely different.

seb146 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

Signature fraud is a form of invalid signature. In North Carolina it's a Class 2 misdemeanor for the person who signs, and a Class 1 felony for the gatherer who swears on the collection.

You're correct that this is not election fraud in the sense of vote fraud. But it is a form of fraud related to the ballot.

Typically up to 25% of signatures are ruled invalid for petitions, so gatherers collect more than required. In this case the rate was closer to 50%, which is what triggered the investigation.

https://ballotpedia.org/Fraudulent_signature

The high rate of signatures getting thrown out is one reason why I vote in person usually during early voting. Plus it is much easier than applying for an absentee ballot by mail. Seriously I have only voted absentee twice in my life when I couldn't be in my county of residence for either early voting or election day.

But this was not an election. This was petition gathering. Completely different.

It's the same group of people making judgements about the validity of the signatures. I have friends on the local ballot board. They reject quite a few signatures.

I also am at lots of meetings where petitions are circulated for candidates. In Texas it's required for statewide candidates get a certain number of signatures from each state senatorial district. Other candidates can get lower filing fees if they have more signatures. Each signature has to be accompanied with printed name, address, birthdate, and voter ID number. It is also required that the person signing must have voted in the previous party primary of the party for which the candidate is filing. We don't have partisan voter registration.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

The high rate of signatures getting thrown out is one reason why I vote in person usually during early voting. Plus it is much easier than applying for an absentee ballot by mail. Seriously I have only voted absentee twice in my life when I couldn't be in my county of residence for either early voting or election day.

But this was not an election. This was petition gathering. Completely different.

It's the same group of people making judgements about the validity of the signatures. I have friends on the local ballot board. They reject quite a few signatures.

I also am at lots of meetings where petitions are circulated for candidates. In Texas it's required for statewide candidates get a certain number of signatures from each state senatorial district. Other candidates can get lower filing fees if they have more signatures. Each signature has to be accompanied with printed name, address, birthdate, and voter ID number. It is also required that the person signing must have voted in the previous party primary of the party for which the candidate is filing. We don't have partisan voter registration.

AFAIK, it is not illegal to sign a petition twice. I was asked to sign a petition for like term limits or taking money out of politics or something that I really believe in. I signed once in Portland and was asked again a couple of weeks later in Eugene to sign the same petition. I could have with no consequence except one of my signatures would have been thrown out. We, too, must sign and print our name and give our full legal voting address on the petition form. That information is taken when we register with DMV for either a license or a state ID card, once it is shown we are valid citizens.