Russell Pearce trounced by Bob Worsley

[HX_Guy]

This may be a dumb question but bear with me as I'm not big on politics...but why do we even have to register one way or another? Why not be unregistered and then vote with whoever you think is best when the time comes to vote?

[Jukesgrrl]

Originally Posted by Potential_Landlord

...The 1960-1965 born are the most conservative people since modern-day polling... We can observe extremist behavior among this 1960-65 cohort in all public offices. This is particularly prominent in legislatures of course.

Hmmm. The Kecksburg, Pennsylvania, UFO crash — the biggest thing outside of Roswell — took place in 1965. Maybe that explains it.

[Potential_Landlord]

Originally Posted by Jukesgrrl

Hmmm. The Kecksburg, Pennsylvania, UFO crash — the biggest thing outside of Roswell — took place in 1965. Maybe that explains it.

Sure. It's always the aliens or my mother-in-law. Besides that I think it is a natural reaction to the prevailing mood of the time. In 1960-65 it was all about liberal ideas - hippies, Great Society, flower power etc. The kids born then and growing up amid the "liberal excess" intuitively rejected this and pursued the opposite direction. Likewise, kids born 2000-2010 will reject the conservative excess in our days. They in turn may create the next liberal excess around 2050 and so on...
One additional point I find very important is the ability or inability to compromise depending on if you remember first-hand the last crisis. The last make-it-or-break-it crisis in the US was the combination of the Great Depression and WW2. Those who lived through that period developed an attitude of it is always better to compromise than let a situation escalate out of hand. They knew how bad things can really get. Almost none of us living today have this first-hand experience. The younger members of congress are so far away from such an experience that they are willing to let a situation let get out of hand (budget, immigration, social agenda items such as abortion, etc.) rather than compromise. It's my way or the highway. That's also why nothing gets done.

[pbenjamin]

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

This may be a dumb question but bear with me as I'm not big on politics...but why do we even have to register one way or another? Why not be unregistered and then vote with whoever you think is best when the time comes to vote?

That is the system that has been chosen here. It doesn't have to be that way. I first registered to vote in Michigan in 1972 then in Virginia in 1975 and it wasn't until I moved to Arizona in 1979 that I was asked to register a party preference. I liked the way it was in Michigan (may have changed since). On primary day everybody got the same ballot, you just could only vote in one party's section of it. I am hoping that Arizona will end up adopting the "Top Two" system that the folks in power are trying so desperately to keep off of the ballot.

[JoeC]

Originally Posted by pbenjamin

...I am hoping that Arizona will end up adopting the "Top Two" system that the folks in power are trying so desperately to keep off of the ballot.

I'm not entirely sure the "Top Two" system is the best option. Excerpt from this New Times article:

An African-American Republican versus an openly LGBT Democrat and one-time Ralph Nader-enthusiast will make for an entertaining race to follow. However, it would have not have been so interesting if former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson's Open Elections/Open Government initiative had been in play.

Essentially, the proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution would create an open primary, from which the top two vote-getters, regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof, would advance to the general election.

Election officials say the proposal doesn't have the signatures necessary, while its supporters are going to court, betting that a judge will reverse the decision to keep it off the November ballot.

Proponents hope that the measure removes partisanship and extremism from the battlefield, and increases voter participation, noble goals to be sure.

Thing is, in CD 9, if the top two proposal had been law, and the same candidates were vying for those two slots, voters would have been given two liberal Democrats to chose from in the general: Sinema and her former colleague in the state Senate, David Schapira.

I like the idea of having opposing viewpoints to choose from. Not sure if having both candidates from the same side of the aisle wouldn't create a "bad vs. worse" scenario - although I'm having some difficulty trying to figure out how that would be any different from what we have right now...

[HX_Guy]

Thing is, in CD 9, if the top two proposal had been law, and the same candidates were vying for those two slots, voters would have been given two liberal Democrats to chose from in the general: Sinema and her former colleague in the state Senate, David Schapira.

Why is that a problem?

[JoeC]

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

Why is that a problem?

In this case, there is no problem - I'd like to see a number of Dems added to the legislative mix as a moderating influence; however, the choice could easily end up being one of two extremists - from the same party.

[stephen431]

Originally Posted by JoeC

I like the idea of having opposing viewpoints to choose from. Not sure if having both candidates from the same side of the aisle wouldn't create a "bad vs. worse" scenario - although I'm having some difficulty trying to figure out how that would be any different from what we have right now...

In several districts you would have had the same situation in favor of Republicans. The candidates in CD4 would be Paul Gosar & Ron Gould, in CD5 it would still be Matt Salmon & Kirk Adams, CD6 would still be Schweikert & Quayle.

... of course, without some epic scandal a Republican is always going to win the general in those districts regardless...

[JoeC]

Originally Posted by stephen431

In several districts you would have had the same situation in favor of Republicans. The candidates in CD4 would be Paul Gosar & Ron Gould, in CD5 it would still be Matt Salmon & Kirk Adams, CD6 would still be Schweikert & Quayle.

... of course, without some epic scandal a Republican is always going to win the general in those districts regardless...

Good point.

[pbenjamin]

Originally Posted by JoeC

I'm not entirely sure the "Top Two" system is the best option. Excerpt from this New Times article:



I like the idea of having opposing viewpoints to choose from. Not sure if having both candidates from the same side of the aisle wouldn't create a "bad vs. worse" scenario - although I'm having some difficulty trying to figure out how that would be any different from what we have right now...

The presumption in the article is that in a top two system the same 10 candidates would have run and people (with no party constraints) would have voted the same way. In my mind that is a stretch, but I also think that the real impact of the proposal would be in districts that, unlike CD9 which is pretty competitive, one party or the other is fairly dominant.