- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: LA moving toward closed primaries
Posted on 1/21/24 at 6:11 pm to doubleb
Posted on 1/21/24 at 6:11 pm to doubleb
quote:He already did. He said when the special session opened he supported closed primaries "in order to mimic states that have been more economically successful." "All of our fellow Southern states are succeeding,” Landry said. “They have a closed primary system."
I didn’t vote Landry so I’m not defending him. He really needs to explain his position,
That is a lie.
"Most of Louisiana’s neighboring states — Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas — all have what’s called an open primary system.
Generally, with open primary elections, states don’t require voters to register with a party, and voters are able to choose which party primary they participate in with each election cycle. It allows voters to switch back and forth from Democrat and Republican primary contests if desired."
WKRF.org
So if Landry has to lie in order to get an election change law passed, that alone tells me his real reason is to help himself get re-elected.
And that could be done without Landry even receiving a majority of votes in the closed primary.
Whoever gets the most votes in the closed primary will advance to the general election runoff even if the "most votes" represents only 30% of the votes cast.
And who in an election has the natural edge to get the most votes in a primary even if it's not a majority of votes? THE INCUMBENT!
One thing I learned by reading the WKRF article is that the change in primary voting law doing away with open primaries does not apply to local elections. Local elected officials — including district attorneys, sheriffs, coroners, clerks of court, police jury members, city council members, city court judges and others — will still use the primary system in place now.
3
Posted on 1/21/24 at 6:39 pm to doubleb
quote:
Maybe I’m missing something.
Yes, you are. Common sense, basic knowledge of the power of incumbency, and general voting trends in Louisiana elections all seem to be missing from your viewpoint.
Not only have you failed to present a convincing argument in favor of closed primaries, you haven’t even presented a single factor for the “pro” column.
Posted on 1/21/24 at 6:42 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
Because in a closed primary you as less likely to get milquetoast candidates like JBE. Someone who passes them off as semi-conservative, when theyre not, at all
They have to first get past the liberal wackos in their primary. So they then cant claim what they said in the primary, was just rhetoric
And there we have it: a desire for more extremism
Posted on 1/21/24 at 6:44 pm to LSURussian
quote:
So if Landry has to lie in order to get an election change law passed, that alone tells me his real reason is to help himself get re-elected.
It's very possible he doesn't understand the difference.
Posted on 1/21/24 at 7:52 pm to LSURussian
Good information, it appears Landry is full of bull.
But my backing of closed primaries has nothing to do with Landry. I even said he rushed things, we needed a real debate, and he needed to convince people why we need to change.
Obviously his economic reason is BS.
But my backing of closed primaries has nothing to do with Landry. I even said he rushed things, we needed a real debate, and he needed to convince people why we need to change.
Obviously his economic reason is BS.
Posted on 1/21/24 at 7:54 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Yes, you are. Common sense, basic knowledge of the power of incumbency, and general voting trends in Louisiana elections all seem to be missing from your viewpoint.
So tell me how the jungle system we have now has hurt incumbents and made it harder on them,
quote:
Not only have you failed to present a convincing argument in favor of closed primaries, you haven’t even presented a single factor for the “pro” column.
I have repeatedly (too often as Russian stated) , but you don’t care. Your rebuttal is nonsense.
Posted on 1/21/24 at 9:34 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas — all have what’s called an open primary system.
Which is retarded. Its how you end up with the Bush clan, Lindsey Graham, Lamar Alexander, Bill Frist, Asa Hutchinson, You know those staunch conservatives
quote:
Open Primaries
In an open primary voters may choose which party’s ballot to vote. This permits a voter to cast a vote across party lines for the primary election. Critics argue that the open primary dilutes the parties’ ability to nominate.
Thats what we want. DIMs, during a weak election cycle, help decide which (R) they face in the general. Its phenomenally stupid stupid
Posted on 1/21/24 at 11:07 pm to doubleb
quote:
Isn’t it that way now? Do Republicans get elected to anything in NO?
I know here in BR in done districts Republicans don’t run. They have no shot.
Do open primaries matter in those cases?
YES!
Reps would get to vote for the Dem they find more tolerable.
Posted on 1/21/24 at 11:17 pm to doubleb
quote:
Isn’t it that way now? Do Republicans get elected to anything in NO? I know here in BR in done districts Republicans don’t run. They have no shot. Do open primaries matter in those cases?
I think there is a difference between voting for the lesser of two evils, and not getting to vote at all.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 3:17 am to BigJim
quote:
However if Joe, the Libertarian, and Sue, the Independent ran, they would go straight to the general.
As long as they get 1,000 signatures they would go directly to the general. If they don’t get the 1,000 signatures then they wouldn’t be allowed on ballot.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 10:38 am to BigBinBR
quote:
As long as they get 1,000 signatures they would go directly to the general. If they don’t get the 1,000 signatures then they wouldn’t be allowed on ballot.
Another caveat is that the signatures must come from eligible voters who are not registered as Republican or Democrat.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 10:39 am to BigJim
quote:
YES!
Reps would get to vote for the Dem they find more tolerable.
But they would be moderate DEMs, and these people want a system that promotes more extremism.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 10:57 am to SlowFlowPro
Glass houses and throwing rocks guys. Our jungle primary is the way Edwards was able to sneak into the governor's mansion. Politics sucks, parties suck, but jungle primaries are just fricking stupid.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 10:59 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
I think there is a difference between voting for the lesser of two evils, and not getting to vote at all.
You make a good point.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 11:17 am to saints5021
quote:
Our jungle primary is the way Edwards was able to sneak into the governor's mansion.
This makes no sense at all.
The 2015 general election race is:
JBE (D)
Vitter (R)
Dardenne (R)
Angele (R)
The runoff is
JBE (D)
Vitter (R)
How is that not IDENTICAL to a closed primary system outcome? Same for the Rispone/Abraham election.
The only difference in the 2023 race is that Landry would have been forced into a runoff instead of winning outright.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 11:31 am to saints5021
quote:
Glass houses and throwing rocks guys. Our jungle primary is the way Edwards was able to sneak into the governor's mansion. Politics sucks, parties suck, but jungle primaries are just fricking stupid.
That is really not true.
EWE was elected Governor initially in 1972.
He won the Democrat primary by beating Bennett Johnston by about 4500 votes in the Dem runoff after beating Gillis Long, John Scwegmann, Jimmie Davis, and a host of others including Johnston in the Dem primary.
EWE then crushed Dave Treen in the general election. It wasn’t close and he didn’t sneak in,
In 1975 no Republican ran. Edwin got 62% of the vote against five Dems. The runner up was Bob Jones.
But Edwin didn’t like Treen getting to lay back and wait on the Dem’s to beat each other up and save his resources to beat the winner as he did in 1972. Thus, he got the jungle primary passed after he was re-elected.
1979 was the first election using the current system. Treen finished first with 21.79% and Louis Lambert was second at 20.74%. Jimmy Fitzmorris was third at 20.56% about 2,500 votes behind Lambert. Treen beat Lambert in the general election by about 9,500 votes, it was Treen who squeaked by.
In 1983 Edwards was able to run again. In the open primary he crushed everyone bringing in 62.31% of the vote. Treen garnered 36.39% and finished second. There was no general election.
Four years later the Republican candidate Bob Livingston finished third behind the first place Roemer and the runner up Edwards. Edwards bowed out seeing he couldn’t win and Buddy Roemer was elected Governor with only 33.11% of the vote.
In 1991 Buddy Roemer now a Republican, came in third missing the general election. EWE and David Duke another Republican beat him, Ewe wiped the floor with Duke in the general.
The Jungle Primary didn’t make EWE the king. He became that in the old system. The Jungle primary could have made the difference in 91, but it didn’t help him in 83 or in 87 Sg Ed n he withdrew.
This post was edited on 1/22/24 at 11:33 am
Posted on 1/22/24 at 11:35 am to BigJim
quote:
How is that not IDENTICAL to a closed primary system outcome?
doubleb says that if that election involved a closed primary, that Republicans for Edwards would magically have voted for Vitter in the runoff election. See, according to him, the jealously, pettiness, and infighting that caused Dardenne and Angelle's supporters to largely reject Vitter would have been poofed into thin air because only Republicans would have participated in the primary.
It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, but that is what he keeps saying. Closed primaries are the key to preventing GOP infighting--who knew!?
This post was edited on 1/22/24 at 11:37 am
Posted on 1/22/24 at 11:46 am to saints5021
quote:
Our jungle primary is the way Edwards was able to sneak into the governor's mansion.
How?
Show me the math.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 12:02 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
doubleb says that if that election involved a closed primary, that Republicans for Edwards would magically have voted for Vitter in the runoff election
Can you provide a link to that, or are you just making up crap to become relevant because the others here debating the issue seem to be able to come up with good points while you attempt to play the big bully?
I voted before we had open primaries. I was a Dem. The Democrat candidates all battled each other, but after the two leaders were picked the others got behind the winner or runner up of the first primary depending on the deals they made and the politics. I don’t recall large factions staying home because they were attacked.
It was all part of the process. Attacks were made, candidates were challenged and the various opponents went at it.
50 years have passed. Maybe Republicans are thin skinned. Maybe they will take their toys home if called out? But maybe they will behave as Dems did back in the day? You don’t know how they will react and neither do I,
Posted on 1/22/24 at 12:51 pm to doubleb
quote:
Can you provide a link to that
Absolutely! And don’t even have to provide a link. It’s in your post.
quote:
The Democrat candidates all battled each other, but after the two leaders were picked the others got behind the winner or runner up of the first primary depending on the deals they made and the politics. I don’t recall large factions staying home because they were attacked. It was all part of the process. Attacks were made, candidates were challenged and the various opponents went at it. 50 years have passed. Maybe Republicans are thin skinned. Maybe they will take their toys home if called out? But maybe they will behave as Dems did back in the day? You don’t know how they will react and neither do I,
“Will the Republicans magically act differently in an identical situation?? I mean, we just know know??”
I said everything SFP and others are saying several pages ago. We get it. You think that if someone calls it a closed primary that voters will change behavior. It’s unsupported nonsense.
This post was edited on 1/22/24 at 12:55 pm
Page 10 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News