BigCliff wrote:Thought this was interesting for its uniqueness if nothing else- 34 candidates ran for Boxer's open senate seat, and now the top two vote getters will be the sole options on the ballot in November. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/calif ... -democrats Using the same system, I could easily see two republicans making the runoff in Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, etc
I suppose I'm also bringing it up for my own entertainment, to see the reactions from some of y'all at the prospect of only having female Dem's on said ballot...
Louisiana has an open - free for all primary system like that. If a candidate wins more than 50% of the vote in a primary, they get the office. If not, the top 2 vote getters go to a runoff. They can be of the same party, different parties, same sex, different sexes, sexually fluid or what the fuck ever. It is what it is, and I fail to see what's the big deal about it being 2 females, minority or otherwise. Why get fixated on gender and or race? Vote on their platform and/or record.... of course even if you vote on the issues, people will accuse you of voting based on race/gender etc.
The problem I see with that is the turnout difference between primary elections and mid term or presidential. Don't know what y'all's look like over in LA, but Texas avg's about 60% for Presidential elections, 40% for mid terms, and frequently well under 20% or even for primaries. I mean sure, its the fault of the voters for sitting out primaries, but allowing elections with such low turnout to determine who becomes the people's representative doesn't seem ideal.
I wasn't trying to make a big deal out of the fact that its two women on that ballot, but rather that the result was two democrats and nobody else. Then again, other than Hillary, I've never seen the Right devote more hate to a politician than they have Pelosi, Boxer and Feinstein...
Buy better hooks and bourbon.