Top 2 primary and gun laws.

Simonpie · Aug 31, 2014

Coming up on the Oregon ballot is an option for "Top Two" primaries, where anyone can vote for anyone on the ballot, and the top 2 get to run off, regardless of party. Both Democratic and Republican parties are against it.

So, would this help or hurt? I don't think it will change anything in the strongholds of Portland or far east Oregon. In the more divided areas, are we more likely to get a Betsy Johnson style pro-gun Democrat, or a waffly Republican soft on the gun issue? A true independent? Green? Libertarian?

Is there anyone out there with actual political science training?

mkwerx · Aug 31, 2014

bad idea. As poor as the party system is - a "no party" primary where anyone gets to vote for anyone is going to screw us like a $2 hooker. It allows a slim minority to foist "their" candidates upon all of us - rather than giving opposing viewpoints a chance to debate and have a real contest to win hearts and minds. "Top 2" is going to push Oregon further and further to the left because in many areas we won't even have the choice to vote for a conservative candidate - it will be a contest to see who becomes the bigger D.

I understand the frustration behind the driving force - the guy pushing this idea is more of a conservative/libertarian guy - but he's as wrong as nipples on an earthworm on this issue and is blinded by his own idea to realize that if this passes, conservatism and libertarianism are going to be curb stomped at the ballot box - you will have no choice unless you can organize a giant write-in campaign.

Even in Oregon - home of the laziest voting bloc in the country where you get weeks to fill out and mail your ballot and we still can't even get all the registered voters to vote - you won't see a real chance for a write-in candidate. If your two ballot choices in a certain race have (D) by their names - people will either not vote, or they're going to vote a (D) in either way.

Top Two is the illusion of choice without choice. That's like asking if you want punched in the face, or the balls. Either way you're getting punched, and you're not given the option of not getting punched.

It's a bad idea - if "primary reform" is what is needed - allow the independent and other-party candidates to have their own primaries - weed out the air wasters in the primary so that there are fewer "third party" candidates on the general ballot, and the "best" candidates are who we get to vote for.

Letting republicans vote in democrat primaries is just as wrong as democrats voting in republican primaries, and if you're an independent/third party voter and want your say in candidates from one or the other party during a primary - then register as such. You still get to vote your conscience during the general. Democrats and republicans already do this to a small extent - registering as one party and voting as the other (though I'd wager there's more dems attempting to shape the republican primaries than the other way around)

Top two is a bad idea.

deadeye · Aug 31, 2014

Lets be sure to stay on topic of how it may or may not effect our firearms rights.

The Heretic · Aug 31, 2014

The problem is that a dem could then vote for the republican that they want to run against their democratic candidate, then in the final election vote for their democratic candidate - thereby assuring the weaker republican candidate lose.

OTOH, I am a libertarian, so I should be able to vote for whoever I want in office - and that is how I do vote.

However, each party should be able to decide who they want to run in the final election.

It is open to machinations.

Personally, I believe mandatory term limits for any state or national congressional office would do a lot more to help out our current situation. Both parties are corrupt, and most politicians are too - especially those who have made a career out of politics. The problem is that the voting public is corrupt too - continuing to vote for the candidate who promises them the most loot and/or the most power, instead of voting for a leader.

mkwerx · Aug 31, 2014

That's an easy one Deadeye - in a state like ours where the liberals have a majority, and a big majority in the populace centers, top two leads to a choice between two liberal candidates and a race to see who can be more "progressive" - a big part of that agenda being nonsense like "Universal Background Checks", gun registration schemes, the end of private face to face transfers, restrictions on your rights to carry a firearm, what kind of firearms and accessories you may have, magazine capacity limits, banning open carry completely, ammunition restrictions ala lead bullet bans, and other crazy anti-gun schemes. While conservative or libertarian candidates are sometimes "wrong" on the gun rights issue, it's not nearly as often as the candidates the left throws at us.

A top two system could accelerate turning this state into simply North California or California 2.0 - "assault weapons" bans, registration, waiting periods, may-issue rather than shall issue, etc.

Dave Workman · Aug 31, 2014

It hasn't worked out too well in Washington, depending upon the district.

1337BaldEagle · Sep 1, 2014

The Heretic said:
The problem is that a dem could then vote for the republican that they want to run against their democratic candidate, then in the final election vote for their democratic candidate - thereby assuring the weaker republican candidate lose.

^This is the real issue behind it.^

Further, (not to step on any toes) but it is not hard to see where the 2 majority party lines stand on the issue. And that's all I will say about that on the issue.

Knowing this, allowing one party to manipulate (intentionally, or unintentionally) a ballot that may result in a less qualified candidate being chosen. That is not to say that the majority chosen now are a "qualified candidates."

Eagle