Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
I think you are referring to calgarygeologist's post - it wasn't mine! I do agree that money creates an advantage. But I also think that they money follows electable candidates. It's mutual reinforcement, and ultimately it's the more popular candidates that get reinforced. The progressive side in particularly tends to emphasize "ABC" and avoiding vote splits.
Also, don't primaries in general create polarization? A "party" establishment usually values electability (i.e. capturing the median voter) more than the party supporters, no?
|
Primaries create polarization so it’s not an ideal solution but it’s better than king making which promotes polarization AND king making.
Also if you had the open California primary model where everyone gets to vote at the best two candidates advance to final Ballot regardless of party and have a ranked ballot for it.
The main point is that King Making is bad. The public is not selecting between electable candidates. A small group of well monied people are.
For example the people in charge deciding whether new neighbourhoods get approved are being selected by the people who want new neighbourhoods. And the people who are selecting councillors are the same groups who would like to see success in union contract negotiations.