Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes I know but the likelihood that any of them would garner enough votes to make a difference makes me think that I will just have to pick the lesser of two evils.
Three words:
Ranked choice voting.
This system, also known as "instant runoff" voting, lets voters rank the candidates on the ballot in order of preference.
The ballots are counted, and a figure is set that equals n+1, n being the number of votes needed to gain 50 percent of the total ballots cast in a race for a single seat. (This can also be used for elections where more than one seat is to be filled; the number then becomes n + 1 where n = (1/number of seats to fill) x (total ballots cast).
If no first-choice candidates clear the figure on the first round, the votes for the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes are redistributed among the candidates according to their second choice. This process continues until a candidate / all candidates to be elected have passed the threshold.
Maine votes this way in statewide elections, and several cities use it for local elections.
I think the most important electoral changes made that impacted judicial races this year and in the future are :
1. Partisan races. Candidates now have an "R" or a "D" by their name, so people can now vote the party.
2. No more straight party voting. You have to actually mark each box, no simple marking all "D" or "R" races that mark the ballot for you.
I don't know if having judicial races as partisan is a positive change. If it's extremely apparent what a judge's political bent is in their decisions, odds are that they are being too influenced by their own political beliefs. People can still find out a judge's political affiliation if they're willing to spend a little extra time doing that research, but having the party affiliation by their name encourages people to vote for them just because they are in the same party, rather than how they'd do their job. That's not necessarily a good thing in my opinion.
We already have partisan candidates for positions such as the county Register of Deeds that are largely administrative and shouldn't be conferring an impression of broad political discretion.
By the way, NC hasn't had straight party voting since 2014:
I don't know if having judicial races as partisan is a positive change. If it's extremely apparent what a judge's political bent is in their decisions, odds are that they are being too influenced by their own political beliefs. People can still find out a judge's political affiliation if they're willing to spend a little extra time doing that research, but having the party affiliation by their name encourages people to vote for them just because they are in the same party, rather than how they'd do their job. That's not necessarily a good thing in my opinion.
We already have partisan candidates for positions such as the county Register of Deeds that are largely administrative and shouldn't be conferring an impression of broad political discretion.
By the way, NC hasn't had straight party voting since 2014:
I think the new partisan races have specifically helped the Republicans in judicial races.
Judicial races are typically the last on the ballot, and most people have no idea who to vote for. Now that they are listed as a party, it makes more sense.
Seriously. I can't wrap my head around 25 yr old Madison Cawthorn (R) (who visited Hitler's bunker as part of his bucket list) vs Col. (ret) Moe Davis (D) (decorated 6 times over, plus served as a National Security Advisor to Congress). It wasn't even close. Sooo partisan.
What's wrong with visiting Hitler's bunker (assuming it was a visit to see a part of history and not as some pilgrimage of a neo-Nazi)?
Jeff Jackson is seriously considering running for Burr's seat. He says he will let folks know in Jan after the holidays and after he talks it over with his family.
That would be nice, but he's got all the crazy QAnon and other conspiracy nuts on his side.
Maybe Jeff Jackson will run for Burr's seat.
I may have missed something and this post is a few weeks old, but I'm just curious who was the bolded part in reference to?
Regrettably, there seem to be so many in office right now who would fit those characteristics, it's hard to keep up!
I'm getting a good impression about Jeff Jackson and so far he seems like a solid, level-headed, "Can do for North Carolina" kind of person.
Last edited by Jowel; 12-12-2020 at 08:37 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
