Excitable Juan Williams: Brokeifornia’s New Election Rules Are Super Awesome

In case you didn’t hear, the brokeyest broke state in the Union has new election rules. On one hand, Juan Williams has some interesting point about them. On the flip side, ugh

(The Hill) Polarization and gridlock have paralyzed Congress. But now, a bright ray of hope for ending those twin curses is emerging from election results in California.

The optimism begins with changes in the system for electing lawmakers in the Golden State, home to the largest congressional biggest delegation.

In 2010, a diverse group of the state’s biggest political stakeholders — including the California Chamber of Commerce, the AARP and then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger — united to support a ballot proposition creating a bipartisan commission that redrew the geographic lines for California’s congressional districts.

Hey, bipartisan! Sweet…but

Out of California’s 53 House races, seven incumbents lost their seats as they ran in more diverse districts — in which candidates had to appeal to more diverse neighborhoods and political groups.

So, they were gerrymandered in order to create more Democrat friendly districts. Two Republicans are in 50-50 races right now. Here’s where it gets more interesting

The proposition also changed the rules for the general election.

The old system pitted the winners of the party’s primaries against each other. The new system provides for the two candidates with the most votes in an open congressional primary to move on to the general election — even if they belong to the same party.

On one hand, this is a good way to clean out the incumbents. As Juan noted, 7 lost their seats (it should be noted that 2 incumbents lost in newly created districts and were competing against another incumbent, in both cases Democrat). However, under the new rules there were 6 districts where only Democrats were on the ballot and 2 where only Republicans were on the ballot. Let’s look at a few

  • In the 31st, there were 4 Democrats and 2 Republicans for the primary. It ended up R vs R. So, no Dem competing in the General
  • In the 35th, 2 Dems and one Green. The Green was not on the General election ballot
  • In the 30th, 3 R’s, 3 D’s, and one Green. The General ballot featured 2 Democrats.
  • The 8th, 10 R’s, 2 D’s, one Independent. The General ballot featured 2 Republicans

Granted, in all of these the chance of the other party (or 3rd Party) winning the district was mostly zip. However, should the people of Brokeifornia not have the chance to vote for a different party on the ballot during the General Election? This limits democracy.

Under this new system, the 24/7 news cycle and partisan bloggers, which encourage the loudest and most extreme voices, are not as able to define the race and control the outcome.

How dare you darned news folks and jammie wearing bloggers push your opinions!!!!!!1!!!!

The bottom line is that voters have more choice among candidates competing for the middle ground, not to be a champion of one political extreme.

Exactly how is limiting the number of people on a ballot creating more choice? How is shutting out competing parties “more choice”?

This also applies to the State legislature races, in which featured 19 same party races. None of the state or House races have seemed to “create more moderates”, as was the intention.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

3 Comments

Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2012-11-12 10:47:12

Under this new system, the 24/7 news cycle and partisan bloggers, which encourage the loudest and most extreme voices, are not as able to define the race and control the outcome.

Ummm… this doesn’t do any such thing? This does not stop people from expressing their opinions. For now at least.

Well, to be truthful, this is pure democracy and local elections have always been majority rules. To me, if that is what they truly want to get at, then why have primaries? Just put everyone in a single pot and then the person with the most votes wins. Isn’t that “democracy”?

And that should also cut down on the political infighting as candidates would have to focus more on defining their own message than attacking one or more political targets. They would have to find a way to stand out from the crowd.

But, as Juan Williams and all the other squishies don’t get, politics is nothing about acceptance and compromise. If it was, then we would not have campaigns and elections where candidates (and their parties and associated groups) vociferously attack the other candidates.

Why is it ok to be uncompromising and single-minded and to point to other people’s flaws during an election, but then the squishies demand compromise and cohesion afterwards?? Odd that, huh?

 
Comment by Phineas Subscribed to comments via email
2012-11-12 13:33:40

Dear Juan: I live here. You’re high.

Perhaps Juan likes it because this same “bipartisan” primary system (pushed by a liberal Republican governor and a left-liberal legislature. Bipartisan) resulted in a state legislature that now has 2/3rds Democratic majorities in both chambers, so they can enact new taxes, which require 2/3rds votes to pass, without having to take into account those meddling kids…er… Republicans. In effect, we have total one-party rule.

That’s something to cheer about, Juan?

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2012-11-12 13:41:14

But Phineas, that reduces the political divide that is corrupting our discourse.

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 13187 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE