- 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 1/17/24 at 1:19 pm to LSUFanHouston
Posted on 1/17/24 at 1:19 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
2) There is, as I read the bill, no provision for a primary runoff. The person with the most votes in the primary moves on to the general. If a candidate wins 30% of the primary, they move on to the general.
What about closed primaries with rank choice? This would at least eliminate an extra election for a run off.
This post was edited on 1/17/24 at 1:21 pm
2
Posted on 1/17/24 at 1:22 pm to BigJim
It is well past time for Louisiana to have closed primaries. Good job Jeff Landry in getting this done
Posted on 1/17/24 at 1:28 pm to Granola
Why do you prefer closed primaries?
Posted on 1/17/24 at 1:37 pm to LSUFanHouston
Independents, like me, will only be able to vote in the general elections.
Pretty much disenfranchises me for who I want to see in the general election.
ETA: I just looked and it seems there are about 800,000 "no-party affiliation" registered voters in Louisiana. So closed primaries means 800,000 voters will have no voice in who the candidates will be who get into the general elections.
Pretty much disenfranchises me for who I want to see in the general election.
ETA: I just looked and it seems there are about 800,000 "no-party affiliation" registered voters in Louisiana. So closed primaries means 800,000 voters will have no voice in who the candidates will be who get into the general elections.
This post was edited on 1/17/24 at 2:43 pm
Posted on 1/17/24 at 1:42 pm to cssamerican
quote:
What about closed primaries with rank choice?
Ranked choice voting triggers this board to a level only surpassed by abortion.
Posted on 1/17/24 at 1:46 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
LA moving toward closed primaries
So this explains why our new governor is going hard in the paint for Black redistricting. It's a Quid Pro Quo. This for that.
Posted on 1/17/24 at 1:48 pm to Tomatocantender
quote:
So this explains why our new governor is going hard in the paint for Black redistricting
Only very, very stupid people believe this narrative.
Drawing our own gerrymandered districts in a special session beats the hell out of Shelly Dick drawing the map.
Posted on 1/17/24 at 2:58 pm to cssamerican
quote:
What about closed primaries with rank choice? This would at least eliminate an extra election for a run off.
That’s a reasonable discussion to have, but you can’t have it when you are trying to shove this through a 7 day special with no advance warning
Posted on 1/17/24 at 2:59 pm to Tomatocantender
quote:
So this explains why our new governor is going hard in the paint for Black redistricting. It's a Quid Pro Quo. This for that.
He doesn’t really have a choice.
Posted on 1/17/24 at 3:01 pm to Witty_Username
quote:
I say whatever we've been doing for the last 50 years, lets try the opposite and see what happens.
You are unlikely to get more conservative state officials than the ones who just took office.
Before we blame open primaries for all our problems, let’s see what this conservative supermajority can do
Posted on 1/17/24 at 3:03 pm to kingbob
quote:
I invite everyone here to call their legislators and oppose this bill as well.
My new state rep is a pawn of the state GOP who won with tons of state and federal PAC money.
He’s likely 100 percent in favor.
Posted on 1/17/24 at 3:05 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
If you endorse me, I'll make sure your campaign debt is paid off, and snag you a cushy govt job" Yeah, thats they way to get better govt
You think closed primaries with no runoffs will stop this?
Posted on 1/17/24 at 3:20 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
This wasn't even really a big campaign issue. This should be saved for the regular session, where more time can be spent debating the issues.
This was a long time coming. This has been debated and the conversation is over. They just needed willing parties in the mansion
Posted on 1/17/24 at 3:45 pm to Herooftheday
quote:
This has been debated and the conversation is over.
When did that happen? NO one made this a campaign issue.
Posted on 1/17/24 at 3:59 pm to Herooftheday
quote:
This was a long time coming. This has been debated and the conversation is over.
In what circles?
Outside of the occasional topic in this board, no one has had any public discourse.
This was on no one’s “first 100 days” list not was it part of any platforms for office.
Posted on 1/17/24 at 4:08 pm to BigJim
quote:
Posted byMessageBigJimLA moving toward closed primaries by BigJimquote:My tax dollars go to public schools, libraries, parks, etc. I do not use any of those; however, for the good of the whole we all pay. Elections are no different.
The heck? Everyone can use public schools, libraries, parks, etc. Close to a 1/3 of the public cannot vote in the proposed closed primaries. Yet they will have to pay for the elections of political parties who specifically exclude them.
Everyone can’t attend public schools. I’m 62, I can’t. I don’t use BREC and I don’t go to the libraries. Sure I could, but I don’t.
If a political party wants to have a vote to select their candidate then what’s wrong with that? If I care what candidate is being chosen by a party then I should join that party so I am eligible to pick my party’s candidate.
When I first voted that’s how it worked. I registered as a Dem so I could have a voice in who my party chose. The GOP didn’t do that. They chose their guy if they chose to even run a guy.
Now I changed to Republican later on when it was a viable option, but before that it wasn’t. But I did vote for Nixon in 72, the first time I voted for president even though I was a Dem.
If you want to choose a party’s candidate join that party. The taxpayers will pay for it just like they pay for a lot of other things I don’t need or can’t access.
Posted on 1/17/24 at 4:17 pm to doubleb
There is widespread opposition to this among state legislators now. Both my state rep and state sen have assured me they will OPPOSE this change and both are pro-Landry Republicans.
Posted on 1/17/24 at 4:28 pm to BigJim
quote:
If the goal is to get rid of RINOs, only needing a plurality will undermine that.
Conservative district so two conservative R's run but only one moderate R thinks he has a chance. The two conservative cancel out and the moderate gets a plurality. Then, since it's a conservative district, the mod wins in the general against a democrat.
No runoffs = chaos
+1
Posted on 1/17/24 at 4:39 pm to BigJim
quote:
No runoffs = chaos
You need to have a runoff. If not I’m opposed.
Posted on 1/17/24 at 5:07 pm to doubleb
quote:
When I first voted that’s how it worked.
Jesus, you're old!
quote:
Everyone can’t attend public schools. I’m 62
You're being obtuse. Your parents could have sent you to public school if they wanted to. And schools, parks, libaries, fire, police, etc serve a public purpose even if not everyone person uses them (more educated population, etc).
But this bill creates a benefit exclusively for the members of the party, excludes a third of the population and then those members have to pick up the tab.
Seems wrong to me.
Page 2 of 10
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News