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.
It's definitely a dilemma. It might be impossible to convince many conservative voters that a moderate democrat would be a better choice than MTG. Mainly because it appears there is no such thing as a moderate democrat in congress. They all vote as a bloc except in a few specific instances such as Sinema and Manchin on the filibuster rule. It might be equally impossible to convince the voters in MTG's district to vote for a moderate Republican. Moderate Republicans do not get any reciprocal cooperation after they join with democrats to break the logjam and make something happen. The results just turn off any voters who are very conservative.
I think the Republican primary problems could be lessened by up-front leadership in recruiting and financing viable candidates. I will never get over the Georgia GOP presenting Herschel Walker as a Senate candidate. I believe someone like Doug Collins or David Perdue could have easily won that race.
I do think there’s hope. MTG’s GOP primary opponent (John Cowan, a brain surgeon!) came within 11,000 votes of winning. However...the perverse incentives that Democrats have using MTG to campaign in other places have made them spend millions on her race with zero chance of beating her. This overwhelms any potential Republican going against her in a primary challenge because of the way the party works and because of outside money. The GAGOP needs to fix itself. Also, the legislature had opportunity to redistrict MTG out of Congress but preferred to split Democrat districts to get more secure red seats. Short term gain, long term stupid.
I would have voted for the neurosurgeon, but I lived all the way across the state. The Georgia GOP definitely needs to fix itself. I agree that there might have been a better way for the GA legislature to redistrict. Not much chance of them losing in northern Georgia if they did not have to include too much of metro-Atlanta.
The real problem is GOP leadership. I have an acquaintance (my age) who currently is a Republican statewide office holder. He can change his position on any given subject in a matter of hours. He has also won as a democrat, but the Republican party is now his safe haven.
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.
I think that idea has merit. A jungle primary combined with ranked choice and a guarantee that at least one candidate from each major party would be considered by voters is idea that I like.
I wouldn't want it to devolve into a choice between only two Dems or two Republicans in the very partisan states.
"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.
It's a matter of degree when it comes to raising taxes. It's a matter of where to focus when cutting spending. There is such a divide that I do not see enough middle ground to make a difference, but you are on the right track. Long term planning that I will never see is the only real answer. Addressing entitlements must start with citizens in their thirties. Forming long-term alliances and reliable supply chains is necessary to address military spending. Domestic spending on social matters will require some tough love. Immigration and border security should be easy to solve - just enforce the laws already on the books and streamline amnesty processing.
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.
It's definitely a dilemma. It might be impossible to convince many conservative voters that a moderate democrat would be a better choice than MTG. Mainly because it appears there is no such thing as a moderate democrat in congress. They all vote as a bloc except in a few specific instances such as Sinema and Manchin on the filibuster rule. It might be equally impossible to convince the voters in MTG's district to vote for a moderate Republican. Moderate Republicans do not get any reciprocal cooperation after they join with democrats to break the logjam and make something happen. The results just turn off any voters who are very conservative.
I think the Republican primary problems could be lessened by up-front leadership in recruiting and financing viable candidates. I will never get over the Georgia GOP presenting Herschel Walker as a Senate candidate. I believe someone like Doug Collins or David Perdue could have easily won that race.
Curtis, I think you disproved your argument.
“ They all vote as a bloc except in a few specific instances such as Sinema and Manchin on the filibuster rule.”
“ Moderate Republicans do not get any reciprocal cooperation…”
Right now, there are about 2-3 swing votes on either side.
I do think there’s hope. MTG’s GOP primary opponent (John Cowan, a brain surgeon!) came within 11,000 votes of winning. However...the perverse incentives that Democrats have using MTG to campaign in other places have made them spend millions on her race with zero chance of beating her. This overwhelms any potential Republican going against her in a primary challenge because of the way the party works and because of outside money. The GAGOP needs to fix itself. Also, the legislature had opportunity to redistrict MTG out of Congress but preferred to split Democrat districts to get more secure red seats. Short term gain, long term stupid.
I would have voted for the neurosurgeon, but I lived all the way across the state. The Georgia GOP definitely needs to fix itself. I agree that there might have been a better way for the GA legislature to redistrict. Not much chance of them losing in northern Georgia if they did not have to include too much of metro-Atlanta.
The real problem is GOP leadership. I have an acquaintance (my age) who currently is a Republican statewide office holder. He can change his position on any given subject in a matter of hours. He has also won as a democrat, but the Republican party is now his safe haven.
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.
I think that idea has merit. A jungle primary combined with ranked choice and a guarantee that at least one candidate from each major party would be considered by voters is idea that I like.
I wouldn't want it to devolve into a choice between only two Dems or two Republicans in the very partisan states.
"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.
I agree. I’m in favor of cuts but a default should be off the table.
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.
Cut some, and raise taxes too. But: make sure the things that are cut make a difference and don't result in more negative than positive.
It's a matter of degree when it comes to raising taxes. It's a matter of where to focus when cutting spending. There is such a divide that I do not see enough middle ground to make a difference, but you are on the right track. Long term planning that I will never see is the only real answer. Addressing entitlements must start with citizens in their thirties. Forming long-term alliances and reliable supply chains is necessary to address military spending. Domestic spending on social matters will require some tough love. Immigration and border security should be easy to solve - just enforce the laws already on the books and streamline amnesty processing.