Jason Grill: Should the Primary Voting System Be Changed?

From Kansas City Fox 4 News:

The winners have been declared in Tuesday’s primary elections. On the heels of the results, a political analyst weighs in on how the results might have been different if the primary process was different.

Several states have blanket primaries or open primaries. Supporters say they could increase voter turnout and get the best two candidates to the general election regardless of the party. Opponents say there’s no proof of that.

Voters throughout the metro hit the polls for Tuesday night’s primary. Early Tuesday evening, Kansas City reported a disappointing turnout. Some say they’d like to say they would like to see the way primaries are held changed.

“Normally, these days there’s not one person that wants to vote straight ticket. It’s not the way it works anymore,” said analyst Jason Grill.

Grill’s answer is the blanket primary. Currently, in Missouri and Kansas, residents must vote on either the Republican or Democrat ballot containing only that party’s candidates. With a blanket primary, all candidates for each race would be on one ballot. People could vote for whomever they chose. Then the top two winners would advance to the general election. Even if they were of the same party.

“We’ve seen that primary elections have become so partisan with who gets elected,” Grill said. “Usually, the extremes of both parties get elected so you have extreme one, versus extreme two in the general election, and a lot of the general public more of the independent minded public doesn’t really feel a connection with each candidates.”

Both of the top two system isn’t without criticism. Opponents have been concerned about things like one party domination. Others say there’s simply no research proving these type of primaries bring out more voters.

Washington State, California and Louisiana have all used the Top 2 System for primaries. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled them constitutional in 2008.

 

Jeff Smith: Chanelling Richard Ben Cramer

Dana Milbank, covering Ryan’s 1st solo performance, channels Richard Ben Cramer observing Bush 41 stumping: [Washington Post]

The RP’s Weekly Web Gems: The Politics of Faith

The Politics of Faith

The Romney-Ryan ticket is making religious history, at least in presidential politics, by becoming the first major party’s ticket to not include a Protestant Christian. [CNN]

Some wonder if the evangelical principles in both Romney’s and Ryan’s respective churches might put the two candidates at odds. [TIME]

As the NFL pre-season gets ramped up, Tim Tebow talked about how his faith comes before football. [Fox Sports]

A Catholic-run business in Colorado received an injunction against the Department of Health and Human Services mandate to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives. The Catholic owners are asking the President to respect their beliefs. [Catholic News Agency]

Prominent religious history author David Barton’s “The Jefferson Lies” has been pulled from bookstores after the publisher determined there were many unsupported claims or factual errors in the book. [CNN]

John Y’s Musings from the Middle: Disorder in the Court

A new book, Disorder in the Court, jabs the legal practice with the verbatim words during legal proceedings as recorded by the legal reporter.

My favorite:

> ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?

> WITNESS: No.

> ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?

> WITNESS: No.

> ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?

> WITNESS: No.

> ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?

>WITNESS: No.

> ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
>WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
> ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
> WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.

Artur Davis: Obama’s Left Turn

It’s tempting to wonder how candidate Barack Obama would have performed in 2008 if he had campaigned on President Barack Obama’s agenda in the first seven months of 2012. Imagine if the Illinois Senator had gone on record favoring a rewrite of federal regulations to mandate Catholic institutions to cover contraceptives in their insurance plans; if he had endorsed same-sex marriage; if he had pledged to dismantle the work requirement at the centerpiece of welfare reform; and if he claimed the executive authority to alter federal immigration laws on his own without waiting for congressional approval.

The likely result is that the base of his party would have been thrilled at such a thoroughgoing progressive vision, but that Obama would have hardened his image as a Kerry/Dukakis like cultural liberal with a tin ear for Middle America. The McCain campaign certainly would have had ammunition fresher than the obscure William Ayers to cast Obama as an ideological risk and, perhaps, a path to divert conservative independents and blue collar Hillary Clinton voters from the crevasses in the economy.

In the real universe, and not this parallel one of progressive fantasies, Obama campaigned as someone quite different from the liberal warrior Republicans would have relished running against. To the extent Obama ventured into cultural politics at all, it was with the measured nuance of a Clintonian moderate: tolerant of civil unions, but opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds; respectful of the public divide on reproductive rights, and virtual silence on an immigration proposal that had dominated congressional debate just two summers earlier. Obama even described the welfare reform that he had opposed as a rookie legislator as an unmitigated success and its work requirement as a “centerpiece of any social policy.”

Read the rest of…
Artur Davis: Obama’s Left Turn

Jeff Smith: Foreshadowing the 2016 “Guns Control” Debate

If nothing else, this week has foreshadowed the main divide of the ’16 campaign — guns control:

The RP’s Weekly Web Gems: The Politics of Laughter

The Politics of Laughter

The facial expressions at the end of this are priceless. [MLB.com]

The Little Squeeze [Whomp!]

Super Heroes as Manatees [Geeks n Gamers]

Why fly when you can take a train! [picture]

Creepy Earth [Halorvic]

Cheeky move [.gif]

 

Mickey Edwards’ New Book: The Parties Versus The People

I’m excited to pass on word of an important new book written by my friend and mentor, former Republican Oklahoma Congressman Mickey Edwards.

As he writes compellingly, American politics has become a system “of the parties, by the parties, and for the parties.  Instead of a government of Americans working together to solve national problems, we have two rival governments — two private clubs — more interested in their agendas than America’s well-being.”

In his new book, The Parties Versus The People: How to Turn Republicans and Democrats into Americans, Edwards proposes serious, fundamental, specific reforms to turn our political system upside down and put power back in the hands of the American people.

I encourage you to purchase it.  And if you are in the DC area, Mickey will be the featured guest author at Politics & Prose on, Thursday, August 16 at 7:00 p.m, 5015 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, (202) 364-1919

John Y’s Musings from the Middle: New World Order

New World Order. As in new “fast food order”–in the post-Chick-Fil-A politicization of poultry world we now live in.

And everything has changed.

I was on a conference call today with two guys who live in a liberal northeastern state and I was asked to describe Kentucky’s politics. I blurted out, “We are a Chik-Fil-A state” and no further explanation was needed.

But tonight things took a personal turn.

I was hungry and tired and driving in my hometown Louisville, KY. I wanted to go to Chik-Fil-A. But I didn’t. At some deep level I felt like “my kind” wasn’t welcome there. You know the kind I’m talking about:  democratic heterosexuals who don’t spend a lot of time thinking about gay sex.

So I did what any good populist loving, bring-me-your-poor-and-huddled-masses democrat would do. I went to Taco Bell instead.  Which allowed me the extra political satisfaction of slyly making a subtle political statement opposing immigration too. I was self-satisfied from a political standpoint but as I ate my very masculine Crunchwrap Supreme from the Taco Bell parking lot I kept looking at the Chick-Fil-A sign from across the street. And getting angrier—and hungrier.

I imagined the chicken salad sandwich on toasted bread with cole slaw on the side and for a split second caught myself re-considering my views on civil unions. I was ashamed. And wanted to send Chick-Fil-A a message for putting me in this awful predicament.

I threw down my Crunchwrap Supreme and drove across the street and into the belly of the beast. As I pulled in I felt like I had just pulled into the Creationism Museum circa 1950 and hoped no one was on to me—a political subversive on the premises trying to score a chicken salad sandwich without being outed. So far, so good.

My plan was to order at the drive thru and then pause and ask if they were running any “Heterosexual discounts” today and then casually mention I just celebrated 21 years of marriage to my heterosexual wife to make them think I was one of them.

But as I pulled up to the drive thru a kind female voice asked how she could she “serve” me—and was sincere and patient and kind.  I was embarrassed. I couldn’t go through with my silly little prank. But I couldn’t just eat at Chik-Fil-A and not do something to show I wasn’t selling out my political convictions for a measly chicken sandwich. So I ordered “Waffle Potato Fries”—the gayest thing on the menu. No “Freedom fries” here. More like “Fairy fries” if you ask me. And as I enjoyed the delicious fries in the Chick-Fil-A parking lot I thought to myself, “These are Deee-VINE!!” An inside dig with myself as I sneered at the nice and helpful waitress inside.

And then I drove away—disappointed at my juvenile behavior but encouraged that Chick-Fil-A types and my type aren’t that far apart after all. We really never are, you know.

I mean….those fries may not be the gay marrying kind…but by the time Chick-Fil-A is finished with them, there’s nothing remotely heterosexual about them.

And then I got it. I think it Chick-Fil-A’s way of winking to the rest of us and saying,

“We may be traditionalist for the most part. But we still know how to get our gay on too!”

And that made me feel better about returning soon to Chick-Fil-A.

And made me smile to myself and think, “Maybe we really can all get along”

The RP’s Weekly Web Gems: The Politics of Pigskin

The Politics of Pigskin

The big news of the week came when the Dolphins cut WR Chad Johnson (formerly Chard Ochicinco) after he was arrested on domestic battery charges stemming from a confrontation with his new wife. LB Karlos Dansby has come out in strong opposition to the move. [ESPN]

There is a not insignificant amount of people who have been negative regarding the performance of the replacement refs since the normal crews have been locked out. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a deal get done very soon. [Football Nation]

According to a source, Plaxico Burress has been worked out by the Patriots. [ESPN]

Yep, you’re in denial about this one DRC. [PFT]

How in the world did this happen? T.O. has signed with the Seahawks. [Sporting News]

Just for fun this is NFL.com in 1996. [Wayback Machine]

 

The Recovering Politician Bookstore

     

The RP on The Daily Show