The insidious Proposition 121 (live in, design, office)

[Voebe]

At least, I think that's what it is. I just realized that this is what I posted about a year ago.

https://www.city-data.com/forum/phoen...elections.html

It's one of those things that makes sense for a brief moment - and then you realize the implications, that it could potentially reduce things to a one-party election.

Luckily, there seems to be a lot of force marshalled against it.

[johnp292]

Originally Posted by Voebe

At least, I think that's what it is. I just realized that this is what I posted about a year ago.

https://www.city-data.com/forum/phoen...elections.html

It's one of those things that makes sense for a brief moment - and then you realize the implications, that it could potentially reduce things to a one-party election.

Luckily, there seems to be a lot of force marshalled against it.

Agreed. It sounded like a good idea to me at first, too. Then I thought about it for a few minutes...

[pbenjamin]

A potential one party election is part of its design.

If, for example, you live in a heavily Republican district, and you happen to not be a Republican, you get no voice under the current system. Your elected representative will be the winner of the Republican primary. That Republican will tend to be the one farthest from the center. Under the top two you can vote for who you wish in the open primary but if the top two end up being Republicans, you have a voice in who gets elected, and the district might just elect someone whose views are closer to the collective views of the district.

Substitute Democrat for Republican in the above and the same holds true.

The idea is that we would get people who were a bit more moderate elected to office. The polarization and extreme views that grip our legislature need to go.

The one example that we have of this sort of thing is the Russell Pearce recall election. In that we had two Republicans, in a Republican district, running in an election that all voters could participate in. The voters chose Jerry Lewis, somebody who arguably better represented the people in that district. (There was a third candidate but she failed to get enough votes to make a difference.)

[fennec2009]

Or we could just get rid of partisan elections so that candidates actually have to demonstrate an ability to do the job instead of relying on everyone voting on strictly party lines and running smear campaigns against their opponents oh who am I kidding.....

[Bondurant]

I've been against Top Two for a long time. I still want to know the true motivation Paul Johnson and Company have. It has been a disastrous system in Washington, Louisiana and now in California so why would they want to bring it here. It does not accomplish any of the things it claims it will. The excuse is that it "works over time". All it will do is further entrench Democrats and Republicans with a lot of money to spend. In a general election Arizonans would only have two options. This simply is not acceptable.

[PoppySead]

Originally Posted by fennec2009

Or we could just get rid of partisan elections so that candidates actually have to demonstrate an ability to do the job instead of relying on everyone voting on strictly party lines and running smear campaigns against their opponents oh who am I kidding.....

I'm with you on this. I wish we would all throw a stick in the well greased wheel and go Independent. Then the candidates would be forced to run based on issues only. But yes, who am I kidding, I think most people like a team sport.

Maybe we could do a show called "Battle of the Lobbyist"

[Jaggy001]

Originally Posted by PoppySead

I'm with you on this. I wish we would all throw a stick in the well greased wheel and go Independent. Then the candidates would be forced to run based on issues only. But yes, who am I kidding, I think most people like a team sport.

Maybe we could do a show called "Battle of the Lobbyist"

Great point.

We live up in Coconino and we are so disgusted at the negative campaign run by Paton and Kirkpatrick that we have voted for the Libertarian (in early voting). It is almost impossible to work out what either of these clowns stand for because all they do is trash the other guy.

[stephen431]

Originally Posted by pbenjamin

A potential one party election is part of its design.

If, for example, you live in a heavily Republican district, and you happen to not be a Republican, you get no voice under the current system. Your elected representative will be the winner of the Republican primary. That Republican will tend to be the one farthest from the center. Under the top two you can vote for who you wish in the open primary but if the top two end up being Republicans, you have a voice in who gets elected, and the district might just elect someone whose views are closer to the collective views of the district.

Substitute Democrat for Republican in the above and the same holds true.

The idea is that we would get people who were a bit more moderate elected to office. The polarization and extreme views that grip our legislature need to go.

The one example that we have of this sort of thing is the Russell Pearce recall election. In that we had two Republicans, in a Republican district, running in an election that all voters could participate in. The voters chose Jerry Lewis, somebody who arguably better represented the people in that district. (There was a third candidate but she failed to get enough votes to make a difference.)

This is why I voted for it.

[Ponderosa]

Yes on 121!

[pbenjamin]

Originally Posted by stephen431

This is why I voted for it.

As did I.