As Expected - the Corrupt Never Fail to Cheat

Originally posted by: O2bnVegas

Thanks to all for a good discussion following David's initial post.  I sounded off before appreciating the issue and various opinions about the election processes involved in various states.  Thanks for informative and polite back and forth.  I'm better informed now.  God Bless America.

 

Candy


There are occasions when a Miller post, meant only to spawn arguments and give him the opportunity to insult people, generates a rational and thoughtful discussion. Not unlike when a dog shits in the yard and a fruit tree grows on that spot.

 

The rationale for a primary system like those in California and Washington can be endlessly debated, but I see it as a positive in any polarized state where a Democrat or Republican candidate would pretty much automatically win. That effect makes the primaries (under the usual system) be the actual election, with whatever happens from then until November mostly pro forma. So for instance, the California governor election will actually be contested, whereas if it had been top Democrat versus that unhinged Republican fool (I forget his name), the election would already be over.

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

Whoever governs California will have been elected to that office by the voters. That's democracy.

 

Only a supporter of fascism would complain about that. And only a fool would complain about the governance of a state a thousand miles away.


 The resulting complaints of " democracy " are valid when the elected democracy fails to govern intelligently for the voters - as has been and is seen in every DemocRATic controlled city and state in America.

Originally posted by: David Miller

 The resulting complaints of " democracy " are valid when the elected democracy fails to govern intelligently for the voters - as has been and is seen in every DemocRATic controlled city and state in America.


Even if that was absolutely true, the fact remains that those who were voted for are those who govern. And if the voters don't like their governance, they will vote to replace them.

 

Democracy.

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

Even if that was absolutely true, the fact remains that those who were voted for are those who govern. And if the voters don't like their governance, they will vote to replace them.

 

Democracy.


 When "Democracy" is utilized correctly you have governance that benefitss the voters, conversely when you use "Democracy" unwisely you have today's DemocRATic party.


Originally posted by: David Miller

 When "Democracy" is utilized correctly you have governance that benefitss the voters, conversely when you use "Democracy" unwisely you have today's DemocRATic party.


Nope. Who is elected is who governs. Any benefit or lack thereof happens after the election is decided.

 

My third graders understand this. Do you?

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

Nope. Who is elected is who governs. Any benefit or lack thereof happens after the election is decided.

 

My third graders understand this. Do you?


  Even your 3rd graders know you are lying and are full of shit.

Originally posted by: David Miller

  Even your 3rd graders know you are lying and are full of shit.


So you think somebody other than han the person who is elected becomes governor?

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

So you think somebody other than han the person who is elected becomes governor?


 What the hell are you talking about?

Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW

I can't speak for the DNC but the Washington State Democrat party likes it. Or at least they heavily went to bat for it in the past. 

 

I mentioned State Democrat Party favoring  the system because that is the party in power in the only two states that have it. Basically the system heavily favors whatever party has the majority when it's implemented. In a deeply red state the State Republican party would probably favor it too. 

 

The reason Washington went to a top two primary is because the open primary system they formally had was found unconstitutional. 

 

Voters didn't want a closed primary where they had to officially declare party affiliation. 

 

Someone came up with the top two  system as an alternative. I would prefer top five at least. Having only two choices on a general election ballot seems ridiculous to me. Even in elections that are more or less down to two people anyway. 


You always have many more than two choices. You can write the name of literally anyone else on the ballot.

 

In a deep blue state, the critical choice would be not between a Democrat and a Republican--that would make the election a foregone conclusion, and frankly, sort of pointless--but between two Democrats who have different policies in mind. And no one, in any system, has to "officially declare party affiliation." For one thing, you don't have to vote at all, and for another, to vote for one candidate isn't any such declaration.

 

Originally posted by: David Miller

 What the hell are you talking about?


You told us that the person who is elected governor isn't governor if they're a Democrat. I tried to teach you what my third graders know: that people who win elections assume elected office. You failed, sad to say.

 

Now go back to losing. I thought you pompously proclaimed that you wouldn't be here very much because you were going to win kabillions in Vegas. What went wrong?

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now