Just some clarification. Georgia has had some form of primary system since 1898. Then in 1917, the legislature introduced the racist “county unit system” which suppressed Black voters in urban areas like Atlanta. In 1962, the system was struck down by the courts. It was replaced by the runoff system, which instead of a plurality requires a strict majority. That too was conceived to suppress Black voters, but it’s not really effective in that respect anymore.
Going to ranked voting would eliminate runoffs but I don’t think it would have the effect David is looking for. MTG would have been elected under a ranked system, or any system really. She’s that popular in her district.
What we really have in Georgia is a due diligence problem (not just Georgia and not limited to the GOP). We also have a voter trust problem, a voter information problem, and--well a heap of problems that changing election rules can’t fix.
One of the issues with primaries is that the most active members of the party are the ones that determine the winner: and those tend to be the extremes, which are generally a minority view of the voter base.
Perhaps combining RCV and the non-partisan blanket primary (aka the jungle primary) would be a better way forward.
"We aren’t talking about cutting spending when we talk about default, we are talking about refusing to pay for spending that is already authorized or money that is already spent."
I can agree that we must pay for current debts but not necessarily for authorized spending. Any budget items not already implemented should be subject to cutting, cancelling or delaying on a case-by-case basis. Corporations frequently cut capital spending (even cancelling or delaying projects under construction) and lay off employees not necessary for survival. The government could and should do the same.
Could be but I don't see it that way. I see us saddled with a $1.7 trillion spending bill supported by "moderate" Republicans in the Senate. After that we are now at the debt limit with Biden and the democrat Congress vowing there will be no negotiating on spending cuts. I'm positive that much of that $1.7 billion could be cut with little effect. Of course, even if there were negotiations, democrats would insist on cutting military spending.
Just some clarification. Georgia has had some form of primary system since 1898. Then in 1917, the legislature introduced the racist “county unit system” which suppressed Black voters in urban areas like Atlanta. In 1962, the system was struck down by the courts. It was replaced by the runoff system, which instead of a plurality requires a strict majority. That too was conceived to suppress Black voters, but it’s not really effective in that respect anymore.
https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/counties-cities-neighborhoods/county-unit-system/
Going to ranked voting would eliminate runoffs but I don’t think it would have the effect David is looking for. MTG would have been elected under a ranked system, or any system really. She’s that popular in her district.
What we really have in Georgia is a due diligence problem (not just Georgia and not limited to the GOP). We also have a voter trust problem, a voter information problem, and--well a heap of problems that changing election rules can’t fix.
My $0.02.
One of the issues with primaries is that the most active members of the party are the ones that determine the winner: and those tend to be the extremes, which are generally a minority view of the voter base.
Perhaps combining RCV and the non-partisan blanket primary (aka the jungle primary) would be a better way forward.
"We aren’t talking about cutting spending when we talk about default, we are talking about refusing to pay for spending that is already authorized or money that is already spent."
I can agree that we must pay for current debts but not necessarily for authorized spending. Any budget items not already implemented should be subject to cutting, cancelling or delaying on a case-by-case basis. Corporations frequently cut capital spending (even cancelling or delaying projects under construction) and lay off employees not necessary for survival. The government could and should do the same.
Could be but I don't see it that way. I see us saddled with a $1.7 trillion spending bill supported by "moderate" Republicans in the Senate. After that we are now at the debt limit with Biden and the democrat Congress vowing there will be no negotiating on spending cuts. I'm positive that much of that $1.7 billion could be cut with little effect. Of course, even if there were negotiations, democrats would insist on cutting military spending.