<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Fred Gohlke <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fredgohlke@verizon.net" target="_blank">fredgohlke@verizon.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><div> </div><div>Fred:</div>
<div> </div><div>Before I reply, let me mention that, as you've probably heard, the U.S. state of California has recently enacted a law that replaces its partisan elections with a Runoff system, which takes away the official status of parties in California elections. Parties can endorse, but have no official status, and are effectively removed from the electoral system in California.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class="gmail_quote"><p>Good Morning, Michael<br>
<br>
I'm glad to see you. I hoped this topic would attract thoughtful comment. I may have misunderstood your point, though.<br>
<br>
I think you are suggesting that party primaries be open to the public? </p><p> </p></blockquote><div>No. With a good voting system, such as Approval, there needn't be any primaries. I propose Approval, with no primaries.</div>
<div> </div><div>But, if you want a separate pre-election choice of parties' candidates, then sure, public primaries are one of several perfectly good ways of choosing a party's candidates. Public primaries are common practice now in the U.S. Myself, I oppose letting parties have any official status in elections. I don't believe in government sponsored party primaries. In fact, as I said, primaries are entirely unnecessary, when the voting system is something better than Plurality.</div>
<div> </div><div>Alternatively, in list PR countries, there can be open list elections. That system is well-established in several European countries that use PR.</div><div>I described open-list PR in my previous posting to this thread. </div>
<div> </div><div>In the U.S., one advantage of a better voting system, such as Approval, is that primaries are unnecessary. Just have, on the ballot, the names of all of the candidates who want to run. Maybe there have been endorsements of some candidates by some popular people in the party.. Maybe different party notables will endorse different candidates. That will probably usually be the case. But that doesn't amount to undemocratic party candidate-selection. It's just exercise of free speech by individuals.</div>
<div> </div><div>A party needn't be anything more than a group of people who say, "We advocate this set of policies. This is our platform:..."</div><div>How can you object to that? Is it really bad to say that you agree with other people?</div>
<div> </div><div>> Is that your intent? </div><div> </div><div>No. My intent is Approval as our single-winner method, to replace Plurality. Approval, with no primaries. As described above.</div><div> </div><div>You continued:</div>
<div> </div><div>.> If so, would the attending non-partisans have to vote for one of the party's candidates?</div><div> </div><div>First, I don't advocate primaries. But, when there are public primaries, there's no need to let someone vote in a party's primary unless they're registered with that party.</div>
<div> </div><div>So, to summarize:</div><div> </div><div>I advocate, for all of our single-winner elections, Approval, with no primaries.</div><div> </div><div>I ask if there's anything wrong with expressing agreement with other people. ...and if there's anything wrong with that agreeing group of people publishing a platform, and with people running for office in support of that platform if they want to. ...With the understanding that you don't have to vote for any of them unless you want to. There will surely also be independent candidates who don't support any party's platform, but who instead, publish their own platforms.</div>
<div> </div><div>Or, say you agree with most of party X's platform, but disagree on one or a few key or minor points. You can say that in your campaign messages. Or maybe you completely support the party X platform, so you can say so. Or you can say that you support some subset of their platform, but that you differ in specified ways, on certain specified issues. Or you can publish your own platform. If it has significant similarity to that of party X, you might want to say so. Or you can publish a platform with no resemblance to that of any party.</div>
<div> </div><div>And, as a voter, you can make a point of never supporting a candidate who mentions a party, if such is your preference.</div><div> </div><div>Mike Ossipoff</div><div> </div><div> </div>
<div> </div><div><br>
<br>
I'm anxious to examine your ideas, but want to be sure my understanding is correct.<span><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Fred</font></span></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class="gmail_quote"><div><div>
<br>
----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="http://electorama.com/em" target="_blank">http://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>