Star Voting and Primaries
Sara Wolf
Public
Seen by 381
One of the best things about STAR Voting is that it's accurate with any number of candidates and so you don't need a primary. Skipping the primary shortens the election season and saves tons of time and money for both the voters/taxpayers and the candidates which in turn can make running more accessible and help to start to level the playing field.
On the other hand there are times you might want a primary and if so it's totally an option. As Stephano asked on the Equal Vote comment section, "Question: Suppose an alternative voting system (like STAR*) does get implemented somewhere. Once people realize the election is no longer a lesser-of-two-evils vote (i.e., single Democrat vs. single Republican) and the field is much more open, a LOT of new contenders might enter the race: nonpartisan candidates, minor-party candidates, multiple candidates from each major party, and so on, none of whom need to survive a primary election to appear on the general ballot.
Voters could be faced with a bewildering multitude of questionable choices; this won’t endear them to the new system, and might even put the new system in danger of repeal. To keep SRV elections manageable for the electorate, should election authorities raise the bar for who appears on the ballot, to filter out all but the most serious, competent, and generally viable?"
So what do you think? Are there situations where we want a primary and if so when and how should that be applied?
*STAR Voting is the new name for Score Runoff Voting, specifically using a 0-5 scale. STAR stands for Score-Then-Automatic-Runoff)
Sara Wolf Sun 5 Nov 2017 7:18PM
Mark has really good points and I agree with them. I'm all for our legislation as we have it written for county! It's a non-issue for smaller non-partisan races. ... Still, I have a few reservations looking forward. I'm not saying I want to have primaries with STAR for some races, but I think it's worth talking about.
The hitch is that even if we skip the primary and don't include it, the parties will still do it on their own. If there is going to be a primary don't we want it done right? I do think now is a good time to think ahead as for me the Multnomah and Lane County reforms are a model for future more far reaching legislation. When we go for state we need to have this worked out. For me as an Independent and for the roughly 1/2 the country that isn't stoked on the existing parties, I think that leaving candidate selection up to parties without including swing voters is a colossal mistake. One look at the news these days tells you that much. If we don't have a multi-winner unified primary with all voters allowed to pick whoever they like best the parties will do primaries themselves and likely continue to botch things up royally like they did last election season.
I'm a design nerd. I've done enough Permaculture and other design work to know that sometimes the endgame design effects the first steps. Visualization -> Catylization -> Manifestation.
William WAUGH Tue 7 Nov 2017 3:35PM
"The hitch is that even if we skip the primary and don't include it, the parties will still do it on their own."
This is only a problem for the parties themselves, not for their opponents (us). If the general election is fair, we shall be able to support our favorite candidates.
Clay Shentrup Sat 11 Nov 2017 6:51PM
The hitch is that even if we skip the primary and don't include it, the parties will still do it on their own.
I don't see the problem with this. If "Bernie Sanders" doesn't get the endorsement of the Democratic Party, he can safely run in the general anyway.
The added press from being in the primary goes a long way for building momentum for the general.
I don't follow. If there's no official primary, then you're just talking about the press from the parties having their "endorsement elections". This kind of thing happens right now in San Francisco under IRV. E.g. the Harvey Milk Democratic Club has endorsement elections, and the candidates who win them get a boost.
There are all kinds of ways for people to help advance their political views. They can form parties and do endorsement elections, or form political clubs and have endorsement elections, or fund PACs or go knock on doors. What's special about having "political parties doing endorsement elections" that it requires government intervention?
Clay Shentrup Sun 5 Nov 2017 7:26PM
@sarawolf Hey where's the legislation? Can I read it?
I do wonder if it should be written so as to implement RRV, as a paean to PR advocates. That is, if multi-member districts went into effect, RRV would immediately be active. Unnecessary complexity, or olive branch?
Sara Wolf Sun 5 Nov 2017 8:01PM
People really want PR! It's definitely dominating the conversation and driving RCV right now all up and down the west coast and in BC. Let's start another thread on that. I think that's the thing to do if we were running STAR in Portland since city council's at large elections could be a great test place to use PR.
The ballot text is linked from here. Click where it says Lane and Multnomah in the 2nd paragraph. http://www.equal.vote/reform
Sara Wolf Tue 7 Nov 2017 8:23PM
No. It's an advantage for the major parties and a problem for swing voters. There is a reason that candidates and the primary season is currently so drawn out. The added press from being in the primary goes a long way for building momentum for the general. Thus, candidates that aren't included in that debate process are at a real disadvantage. I'd prefer if if there were no primaries at all, and I'm fine with primaries for all, collectively with a fair system like STAR, but having primaries for some and not others is not ideal.
If this is a necessary stepping stone I get it. We are working on a staged plan. But we should at least recognize if some people will benefit more than others.
William WAUGH Wed 8 Nov 2017 9:51PM
<< The added press from being in the primary goes a long way for building momentum for the general. >>-- The press! The press! I concede your point. So maybe what to campaign for is that no party should receive any privileges. No public support for a primary for just that party, and no ballot access with lower barrier than other candidates.
Sara Wolf Sun 12 Nov 2017 5:29AM
For me, I'd like to vote for my favorite candidate as early on as possible, especially if they are in a primary or caucus or something. I have no idea what party they might run under at this point (fledgling parties forming left and right ideally) so making it so that voters have to pick a party before they know who they support sucks. Think independent. Does that make sense?
Chris Callan-Hinsvark Tue 14 Nov 2017 2:44AM
"Political parties doing endorsement elections" requires government intervention because it uses public funds while requiring voters to be part of a party in order to participate. When I first registered to vote I didn't choose a party because I didn't feel drawn to one. But after not being able to vote in the primaries I choose a party so I could be a part of the early candidate selection process. This mechanic that forces voters into parties in order to take part in the primary is very unfair to unaffiliated candidates and independent voters and is a large part of the system feeling rigged. People should join parties because they believe in their platforms and candidates not just so they can participate in a primary and exercise their right to vote.
Clay Shentrup · Sun 5 Nov 2017 6:42PM
Yeah I agree with Mark.