Okay. We are getting some chatter about how we pick our elected officials. Splendid.
The only fair way would be to hold open primaries South Pittsburgh Reporter
The local paper ran a letter to the editor about our election law and the special election process. Click to see the contents.
However, the article has a few technical elements that are not really right on the mark. There are plenty of ways to hold better elections than what we have now. There isn't ONLY one way.
Plus, with a special election, the OPEN PRIMARY would not work. The endorsement was the primary, so to speak. And, because some were able to gather signatures to enter the ballot as a memeber of a political body, while still being a member of a political party -- we have what is very near to an open primary anyway.
Instant run-off elections would be way better than what we have now.
For the record, I'm a member of a political party. I'm a Libertarian. I'll be listed as the third one on the election day ballot. Mark Rauterkus, Libertarian, goes after the Republican and before the Green.
Generally, I like to find real-world solutions to problems and this one was put forth from a friend who is a Democratic Committee Member. He suggested that those who go before the Dem Party Committee to seek an endorsement from the Dem Committee who don't get the endorsement should be banned for the next five years from ever going back to the committee for anything else.
Really, what we've got now is a party problem. The problems are folks who claim to be one thing but are really just being two things at the same time. So, this new, proposed Dem rule, far from me to introduce it, by the way, would raise the stakes so if one does NOT get the Dem endorsement and runs anyway -- they'd not win again. So, real Dem candidates would need to be and stay in the Dem party.
Pat S and Eileen C both ran for the seat -- and then had the grace to get out. Same too with Ed J. Meanwhile, Matt and Mike ran for the seat and had the grace to get out of the Dem party too -- before the endorsement. Nothing wrong there either.
I'd like the Dem party to be more strict with its housekeeping as it would make the alternative party choices more viable. When you can be this one day and then be something else the next day -- while still being that the day prior too -- its double trouble for the voters and confusion sets in.
Clear rules help. Rules within the party and within the election generally.
Let's talk democracy and how to fix it. Ever hear or proportional voting? Ranked voting works wonders too. If there are eight choices, rank candidates 1, 2, 3, and so on.
Now we are in a race where people are voting for the anti-whatever -- and that gets to be really, really goofy when eight are in the race.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
In a big field, with one vote, you got to choose who you want and you got to hope and understand that there are many others out there that think the same way you do.
Everyone wins when Liberty wins. Everyone understands that. And, everyone who has been a kid is sure to vote for me too. So, (wink, wink), I think I'm the most viable. So, if you're not happy with the way things have been and want to put up a vote that is more anti-establishement than the others, vote for me again.