Bob Neer at Blue Mass Group has a post here about California's move to change the primary election system for state elections.
Could this be good for our Commonwealth? It might add some competitive races.
I have not made up my mind ...
... if the change would be good or bad. What do you think?
Friday, June 11, 2010
California reforms primaries. Is this a good idea for Massachusetts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
NO! If that happened we would turn into S.C
If one party doesnt have a contested primary, they can vote for the other party's weakest candidate.
Alan Greene of SC is a perfect example...no website,no fundraisers, no NOTHING nd he wins STATE WIDE. BIG PROBLEMS!!
If one party doesnt have a contested primary, they can vote for the other party's weakest candidate?
You have to be a registed Democrat or unenrolled to vote in a Democrat primary. It was not Republicans voting for Green, it was Democrats and unerolled voters. Please take your conspiracy theories elswhere.
The practical effect of jungle primaries in Massachusetts would be to make the state legislature more conservative. What we would have in most places is a primary in which the two serious candidates are both Democrats but where everyone of any voter registration status gets to pick among them. The introduction of Republicans to this electorate would mean more conservative candidates would do better.
I don't, however, think it would be more competitive, in the sense of making Republicans more viable. We'd just end up with slightly more conservative Democrats. If you like that outcome, then you should support jungle primaries!
For myself, I think the Commonwealth would be better served by becoming the first state to introduce proportional representation to its legislature.
Post a Comment