Open Primaries by Another Name is MOB RULE, and Therefore Unacceptable!
Updated: May 10, 2019
An Investigative Essay by John M Jones III (5/7/19)
The push for open primaries is just another attempt by left wingers to try and flip florida using mob rule. Here's a thought how about you run a moderate candidate who people WANT to vote for. Having closed primaries allows each side to pick their candidates who THEY want to run against each other. It also, like the national electoral college, keeps high population urban areas predominantly one party from ram-rodding their candidates into office at the expense of the other voters. An open primary system or ops is an invitation for one side to stack the deck and disenfranchise millions of florida residents, rig elections, and commit massive voter fraud. Those who know the open primary system nothing but mob rule, which is akin to socialism, communism, and fascism and we should keep it from infecting our political system any more than it already has!
“Just as they did in 2015, the non-profit All Voters Vote on Tuesday submitted petition forms to the Florida Secretary of State for review, reigniting an effort to bring “jungle primaries” to Florida and open the August elections to all of the state’s 13 million voters.” (0)
One of the major issues with an ops is that one party can easily manipulate the process by illegally voting for a candidate they think would or could lose to their own preferred candidate in the general election. The second type of manipulation is for a party to get two of their candidates to be in top two so they BOTH advance to the general election thereby eliminating ANY Real opposition from an opposing political party. Furthermore, those same voters committing these fraudulent acts wouldn't have to change their party affiliation thus leaving NO paper trail and no evidence of their treachery.
In 2016, there were nine counties out of 65 voted for a state-wide specific candidate. (9) Those counties produced 4.5 million votes for one candidate while the remaining 56 counties produced 4.6 million votes. (9) Translation: nine or 13% high population single party dominant counties almost outvoted 87% of the rest of the state in the last presidential election. It is also well known that a certain number of these high population single party dominant counties, during and after elections, mysteriously find 10’s of thousands of ballots in trunks, in closets found or in other places. Imagine if all they needed to do was ‘produce’ a few thousand extra votes to affect the outcome, so their candidate wins? Is it really that inconceivable considering what we already know about these areas?
According to the washington post, in 2010, California approved an open primary system. (2) Proponents claimed the open primaries would do three things: Give voters more choices, boost turnout in primary campaigns, and, most importantly, lead to the election of more moderate Democrats and more moderate Republicans. What they did not anticipate was that American politics would become even more deeply polarized over the next eight years. (2) This article showed that the california ops failed because it not only selected people from the same party to run in general elections, but those people were actually MORE partisan not LESS.
In 2009, the latimes had this to say about how the ops would give voter more “choice”: “In a very liberal district, say an urban area like Los Angeles, the top two candidates in November likely would be two Democrats; in a conservative district, the top two probably would be Republicans. Third-party candidates and independents almost never would appear on the November ballot. Once again, choice is reduced.” (2a)
The latimes also had this to say about ops boosting voter turnout. “(In 2008) With 98 (Washington) State House races, only five were won by a competitive margin (defined as a 4-percentage-point difference between the top two candidates). Sixty-five races (66%) were won by landslide margins of 20 points or higher. In the 26 state Senate races, the results were very similar, with 62% won by landslides and only two races fitting into the competitive category. That's a level of competition that hasn't changed much from past Washington results, and is no better than what we have now in California.” (2a)
The latimes went further to say: “In terms of electing more moderates, the Washington elections were a failure. The term "moderate" is a relative one, with different definitions from state to state, so a better way to examine this is to look for how many opportunities were available for moderates to get elected. One way to do that is to see how often the system pitted two Democrats against each other in November, or two Republicans, so that the voters from the other party could act as a moderating influence against either the most conservative Republican or the most liberal Democrat.” (2a)
“In Washington's House races, only six out of 98 (6%) had two candidates from the same party, and in the Senate, two out of 26 races (8%) did. So in only a handful of races did moderates have an improved opportunity to get elected.” (2a)
“On a positive note, for the handful of races in Washington decided by competitive margins, candidates didn't have to worry about spoiler third-party candidates. But is essentially banning third parties from participating in November elections really the best way to achieve this? A better way would be to use "instant runoff" voting, under which you could rank a first, second and third choice from among all comers, and, if your first choice doesn't win, your vote goes to your second choice as your "runoff" vote. This would rule out spoiler candidates but would preserve voters' choices.” (2a)
Results from Washington state's elections show that a top-two primary did not result in more competition or many opportunities for moderate candidates to get elected. It gave voters more choice in the primary, but at the cost of reducing their choices in the November election. The winners won by majorities and it got rid of the spoiler problem, but at the price of greatly restricting third parties from the November ballot.” (2a)
The la times ended with this cautionary statement we should ALL remember: “When it comes to reform, be careful what you ask for.” (2a)
Recently Maine instituted a variant of the ops by calling it ranked choice voting or rcv. Usa today explains it thusly: Under Maine’s system, voters can rank their choices among the candidates on the ballot — first, second, third, etc. First choices are then tallied. If no candidate gets 50 percent or more, the bottom candidate is dropped, and the second choice of those voters gets added to the tallies of the remaining candidates. If there is still no candidate with 50 percent or more, then the procedure is repeated, until there is a candidate who has the support of at least 50 percent of the voters. The results at each stage are reported, so early leads are known. But in the end, the ultimate winner has the support of at least half of voters — not a terribly radical idea in a democracy. (3)
Did you notice the last word in their explanation they used the phrase “not a terribly radical idea in a democracy.” The main problem with rcv is that it’s just a variation of the ops and therefore a system of mob rule by another name a more pleasant sounding one at that. The second problem is that the USA is a republic NOT a democracy. Democracies are ruled of by the power of mob rule and therefore rcv cannot coexist with our current representative political system!
RCV supporters admitted as much in their successful attempt to get the measure passed. “So transformative is RCV, according to the question 5 campaign, that it will restore the crumbling bedrock of democracy: majority rule.” (4) Democracy= mob rule AND Majority rule equals mob rule! “On paper, RCV ensures that no one can win unless she receives more than half of the vote. But what works on paper doesn’t necessarily on ballots.” (4)
Twin Cities Pioneer Press had the following to say about ranked-choice voting: First, a great merit of real majority rule is that it confers legitimacy on whomever wins the election. (Winning means getting more votes than anyone else when the voters understand that they each have one vote — and therefore rank the candidates in their own minds before casting that vote). This avoids fighting in the streets and keeps us from being Syria. If the winner turns out to be no good, then the best way to get someone better is the same process at the next election. (5)
Second, some people like to play games. Ranked-choice voting lets extremists game the system. If you think Jones is the best candidate, and grudgingly admit that Smith is well qualified, too, then, if you’re the snaky sort, you don’t even think of making Smith your second choice. You rank Smith last. That way you think you’re assuring Jones’ victory. But if every voter does this with their real second choices the whole table will end up eating cottage cheese. If they’re lucky. (5)
Third, voting should be easy. If you really believe that democracy should be broadly based, why discourage people from voting? The ranking of candidates may seem simple to the Stanford professor who supports it, but it could confuse others. And a scheme that keeps even more people at home on Election Day is nothing to be proud of. (5)
Fourth, the new rules may themselves determine the outcome of the election. This is the most serious flaw of ranked-choice voting. Rules should assure that the voters get who they want, not who the rule writers want. (5)
Fifth, ranked-choice voting promotes strident and negative campaigns. In a sense, the recent presidential election was a little liked ranked-choice voting, because many, perhaps most, voters cast ballots for someone they didn’t think would do a good job as president, but who did seem less horrible than the alternative. All we heard about was the evil of two lessers. Ranked voting, where who you rank worst can count as much as who you rank best, promotes the effort to really attack the character of your chief rival. It will make last year’s painful acrimony the new norm. Why would anyone want to do that? (5)
That ALL being said I agree that our party system IS flawed but only because the two major parties refuse to allow third- or other-party candidates to participate because they consider them spoilers. BOTH parties think that 3rd, 4th, and 5th party candidates will steal votes meant for them. While that may or may not be true if you as an elected official or candidate have done your job, if you put America first, if you do what you promised then you shouldn’t have anything to worry about, right? However, if you pandered to people to get votes, if you put your own petty or political party interests above the nations, if your bank account is more important than MY bank account you SHOULD be voted out, run out of town and covered in tar and feathers as the door hits you as you leave!
As educated voters it is our duty not to vote for or vote out ANYONE who put themselves above America and her citizens no matter which party they represent! You can start making these slime balls accountable by reading and sending your politicians the “All Voters Matter Voter Pledge” and by following the “AVM Voter Code of Conduct” We CAN take our country back but first we must rid ourselves of these leeches that have latched on to the government teat and who are attempting to destroy our country and who make millions off the backs of John & Jane Q public taxpayer who trade millions of dollars in exchange for votes and who put the rights of illegal aliens above the citizens of the States of America!