Comments on: Suppose the U.S. Used “Top-Two” for Presidential Elections? http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/03/29/suppose-the-us-used-top-two-for-presidential-elections/ Mon, 22 Mar 2010 07:55:57 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Jim R http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/03/29/suppose-the-us-used-top-two-for-presidential-elections/comment-page-1/#comment-308645 Jim R Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:00:56 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/03/29/suppose-the-us-used-top-two-for-presidential-elections/#comment-308645 Steve Rankin #13: The candidate with the most votes would have been elected. Steve Rankin #13: The candidate with the most votes would have been elected.

]]> By: Steve Rankin http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/03/29/suppose-the-us-used-top-two-for-presidential-elections/comment-page-1/#comment-308330 Steve Rankin Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:13:15 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/03/29/suppose-the-us-used-top-two-for-presidential-elections/#comment-308330 Consider all the possible final choices in a "top two" 2008 presidential election: McCain v. Obama; McCain v. Clinton; McCain v. Huckabee; McCain v. Romney; Obama v. Clinton; Obama v. Edwards; Clinton v. Edwards; McCain v. Edwards; Kucinich v. Paul, etc., etc. Consider all the possible final choices in a “top two” 2008 presidential election: McCain v. Obama; McCain v. Clinton; McCain v. Huckabee; McCain v. Romney; Obama v. Clinton; Obama v. Edwards; Clinton v. Edwards; McCain v. Edwards; Kucinich v. Paul, etc., etc.

]]> By: Steve Rankin http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/03/29/suppose-the-us-used-top-two-for-presidential-elections/comment-page-1/#comment-308325 Steve Rankin Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:05:53 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/03/29/suppose-the-us-used-top-two-for-presidential-elections/#comment-308325 Jim R #4: What if there had been no majority winner in the second round? Would there have been a third round? (Since it was a "top three" system, I assume not.) Jim R #4: What if there had been no majority winner in the second round? Would there have been a third round? (Since it was a “top three” system, I assume not.)

]]> By: NE http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/03/29/suppose-the-us-used-top-two-for-presidential-elections/comment-page-1/#comment-307733 NE Mon, 31 Mar 2008 05:09:42 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/03/29/suppose-the-us-used-top-two-for-presidential-elections/#comment-307733 When you include the votes from the caucuses, Obama has the lead. When you include the votes from the caucuses, Obama has the lead.

]]> By: Tom Yager http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/03/29/suppose-the-us-used-top-two-for-presidential-elections/comment-page-1/#comment-307642 Tom Yager Mon, 31 Mar 2008 02:28:06 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/03/29/suppose-the-us-used-top-two-for-presidential-elections/#comment-307642 "Suppose this article used real numbers! http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html Popular Vote Total Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA Obama-13,689,521 / Clinton- 12,862,037 Obama +827,484 +3.0%" These numbers exclude Florida and Michigan, and Obama hopes that the final numbers will exclude them as well. His surrogates tried to get the media to run HRC out of the race before Ohio and Texas, because they were afraid she would win there. They want her to drop out now, because they're afraid that she will win Pennsylvania. Obama is trying to block revotes in Florida and Michigan, because he's afraid that winning in Pennsylvania will give her momentum and victories in these states as well. For all of this "new politics" of "hope" and "change", there seems to be an awful lot of fear of the will of the voters! I'm saying all of this in spite of the fact that I can't stand Hillary Clinton. “Suppose this article used real numbers!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Popular Vote Total Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA

Obama-13,689,521 / Clinton- 12,862,037 Obama +827,484 +3.0%”

These numbers exclude Florida and Michigan, and Obama hopes that the final numbers will exclude them as well. His surrogates tried to get the media to run HRC out of the race before Ohio and Texas, because they were afraid she would win there. They want her to drop out now, because they’re afraid that she will win Pennsylvania. Obama is trying to block revotes in Florida and Michigan, because he’s afraid that winning in Pennsylvania will give her momentum and victories in these states as well.

For all of this “new politics” of “hope” and “change”, there seems to be an awful lot of fear of the will of the voters! I’m saying all of this in spite of the fact that I can’t stand Hillary Clinton.

]]> By: Richard http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/03/29/suppose-the-us-used-top-two-for-presidential-elections/comment-page-1/#comment-307261 Richard Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:05:49 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/03/29/suppose-the-us-used-top-two-for-presidential-elections/#comment-307261 The Real Clear Politics web page is excellent, for what it does. But (as it makes clear) it combines caucuses and primaries. Also it omits the Washington primary results (as it again makes clear). Also, it relies on not quite complete totals from Massachusetts, Missouri, Tennessee, and Delaware. All the Ballot Access News state totals are final and official. And the Ballot Access News compilation is just primaries, not caucuses. The original point was to pretend that "top-two" was in effect in the whole USA, so to make the comparison as meaningful as possible (and there are lots of problems with the comparison), Ballot Access News just used primaries, not caucuses. The Real Clear Politics web page is excellent, for what it does. But (as it makes clear) it combines caucuses and primaries. Also it omits the Washington primary results (as it again makes clear).

Also, it relies on not quite complete totals from Massachusetts, Missouri, Tennessee, and Delaware.

All the Ballot Access News state totals are final and official. And the Ballot Access News compilation is just primaries, not caucuses. The original point was to pretend that “top-two” was in effect in the whole USA, so to make the comparison as meaningful as possible (and there are lots of problems with the comparison), Ballot Access News just used primaries, not caucuses.

]]> By: ProgressiveNotLiberal http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/03/29/suppose-the-us-used-top-two-for-presidential-elections/comment-page-1/#comment-307212 ProgressiveNotLiberal Sun, 30 Mar 2008 20:38:12 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/03/29/suppose-the-us-used-top-two-for-presidential-elections/#comment-307212 Suppose this article used real numbers! http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html Popular Vote Total Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA Obama-13,689,521 / Clinton- 12,862,037 Obama +827,484 +3.0% Suppose this article used real numbers!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Popular Vote Total Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA

Obama-13,689,521 / Clinton- 12,862,037 Obama +827,484 +3.0%

]]> By: Demo Rep http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/03/29/suppose-the-us-used-top-two-for-presidential-elections/comment-page-1/#comment-306551 Demo Rep Sun, 30 Mar 2008 04:47:48 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/03/29/suppose-the-us-used-top-two-for-presidential-elections/#comment-306551 NONPARTISAN Approval Voting NOW --- for executive and judicial offices --- pending MAJOR public education about YES/NO with Number Voting (1, 2, etc.) Vote for 1 or more, highest wins. Way too difficult for control freak party hacks. NONPARTISAN Approval Voting NOW — for executive and judicial offices — pending MAJOR public education about YES/NO with Number Voting (1, 2, etc.)

Vote for 1 or more, highest wins.

Way too difficult for control freak party hacks.

]]> By: Bob Richard http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/03/29/suppose-the-us-used-top-two-for-presidential-elections/comment-page-1/#comment-306498 Bob Richard Sun, 30 Mar 2008 03:24:06 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/03/29/suppose-the-us-used-top-two-for-presidential-elections/#comment-306498 If the general election were a top two runoff, all parties would still find a way to chose one candidate each -- perhaps by retaining the current state-run primaries in many states. So if Clinton and Obama were both candidates, one or the other would be running as an independent or the candidate of an as-yet-unnamed new party. More generally, the electoral formula really does matter. You can't infer people's votes under system B from the way they voted under system A. If the general election were a top two runoff, all parties would still find a way to chose one candidate each — perhaps by retaining the current state-run primaries in many states. So if Clinton and Obama were both candidates, one or the other would be running as an independent or the candidate of an as-yet-unnamed new party.

More generally, the electoral formula really does matter. You can’t infer people’s votes under system B from the way they voted under system A.

]]> By: Richard http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/03/29/suppose-the-us-used-top-two-for-presidential-elections/comment-page-1/#comment-306290 Richard Sun, 30 Mar 2008 00:46:52 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/03/29/suppose-the-us-used-top-two-for-presidential-elections/#comment-306290 Anybody who wants to see a state-by-state breakdown of the Dem presidential primary vote (for the top 8 candidates) and a similar chart for the Rep (also for the top 8) can see the paper issue of Ballot Access News for April 1. If you don't subscribe, tell me your postal address and I'll send you a copy. 22 of the 30 jurisdictions that already had a presidential primary let independents vote in the party of their choice, and that doesn't include California among the 22 (in Calif., independents could vote in the Dem primary but not the Republican one). The only states that have had a presidential primary so far this year that wouldn't independents vote in either major party primary have been Arizona, Delaware, DC, Florida, Maryland, New York, and Oklahoma (and I'm not sure about Louisiana, but I think independents could vote in the Dem primary but not the Rep one). Anybody who wants to see a state-by-state breakdown of the Dem presidential primary vote (for the top 8 candidates) and a similar chart for the Rep (also for the top 8) can see the paper issue of Ballot Access News for April 1. If you don’t subscribe, tell me your postal address and I’ll send you a copy.

22 of the 30 jurisdictions that already had a presidential primary let independents vote in the party of their choice, and that doesn’t include California among the 22 (in Calif., independents could vote in the Dem primary but not the Republican one). The only states that have had a presidential primary so far this year that wouldn’t independents vote in either major party primary have been Arizona, Delaware, DC, Florida, Maryland, New York, and Oklahoma (and I’m not sure about Louisiana, but I think independents could vote in the Dem primary but not the Rep one).

]]>