2014 Gubernatorial Election: GOP Nominee?

[Beenhere4ever]

The most electable would be someone like Arne Carlson or Elmer Anderson. Now, they might not get ENDORSED, but they've been able to win primaries against the endorsee. The wild card is as always some self-labeled "moderate" running as a third candidate. That is what elected Jesse Ventura and Tim Pawlenty. In a simple two way race, either party will win with a middle of the road candidate. Someone who doesn't alienate everyone but the Tea Party.

[Globe199]

There will be a third-party vanity campaign. For some reason the Independent Party keeps getting state funding even though they haven't won an election in 15 years. There ought to be stricter rules about that. The IP should also ask themselves why they can only attract nihilist voters.

The only question is, which direction will that candidate lean? In other words, from which other candidate will the third party siphon votes? Tim Penny and Peter Hutchinson gave us eight years of Timmy. Tom Horner probably gave us four years of Mark Dayton.

We really need ranked-choice or some form of runoff. You shouldn't be able to win an election with only 41%. Typically Democrats are in favor of these changes, but the DFLers in the state legislature are too busy being jellyfish right now.

[Asderfut]

Originally Posted by Globe199

We really need ranked-choice or some form of runoff. You shouldn't be able to win an election with only 41%. Typically Democrats are in favor of these changes, but the DFLers in the state legislature are too busy being jellyfish right now.

Forgive me if this is a misinterpretation, but I think that that sort of thing kind of violates the "one voter, one vote" principle. A ranked runoff system would really give one group of people a disproportional vote, if they mark their first choice as an IP or third party candidate who got rejected in the general election, and then essentially get to cast a different vote for their second choice, while others are only allowed their first choice.

[Beenhere4ever]

Originally Posted by Asderfut

Forgive me if this is a misinterpretation, but I think that that sort of thing kind of violates the "one voter, one vote" principle. A ranked runoff system would really give one group of people a disproportional vote, if they mark their first choice as an IP or third party candidate who got rejected in the general election, and then essentially get to cast a different vote for their second choice, while others are only allowed their first choice.

Winner take all has been violating that principle for the entire history of the nation. And district gerrymandering does, too. Where are to complaints about those? And why should states with a few hundred thousand voters have the EXACT same number of senators as California, Texas, and New York. Once you bring that issue up, the country needs huge overhauls.

[Asderfut]

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

Winner take all has been violating that principle for the entire history of the nation. And district gerrymandering does, too. Where are to complaints about those? And why should states with a few hundred thousand voters have the EXACT same number of senators as California, Texas, and New York. Once you bring that issue up, the country needs huge overhauls.

On the issue of Senators, that's just the Connecticut Compromise from the Constitutional Convention. Each state is given equal representation in the Senate and proportional representation in the House. As for the Electoral College, I agree that it tends to be a bit unrelated to the national popular vote, but really, our system of government is representative, and that's what our Founders agreed on.

On the other hand, a ranked runoff system doesn't provide unequal representation, it just treats votes for different candidates differently, and that's the root of it's total unfairness. In an election split with 45% Candidate 1, 40% Candidate 2, and 15% Candidate three, Candidate 1 has a plurality and wins. Candidates 2 and 3 simply weren't able to muster enough votes to beat them. But if only 1/4 of Candidate 3's voters ranked Candidate 1 as their second choice, then Candidate 2 would win by a margin of 7.5% second choice versus 5% first choice.

[Beenhere4ever]

No, your first choice is given exactly the same treatment as anyone else's. But what it does do is provide a runoff in an economical way. You can run as many candidates as you want, but ultimately, the last two are going to get support from people whose first choice didn't support them being in the final count. By American standards, it is way more representative than these winner-take-all contests. In those elections, no matter HOW few votes you get, if you get one more than second place, you are called the winner. So you might only represent a small minority. One thing to always keep in mind is that the Constitution wasn't written with political parties in mind. Winner-take-all has been invalidated by history but it serves the wealthiest and most powerful so it is treated as sacred.

[Asderfut]

I'm not sure I understand your enthusiasm for a ranked runoff system here. It seems like a huge cause for uncertainty, without really solving the issue of domination by parties. I think what you're looking for is a party-blind primary, like in Louisiana.