SC

Should SC Politics “Run Through The Jungle?”

SHOULD THE PALMETTO STATE ADOPT THE PELICAN STATE’S METHOD OF ELECTION? || By FITSNEWS ||  As we’ve made repeatedly clear, this website has precisely zero use for either of America’s major political parties.  Rhetoric aside, there is no real difference between Democrats and “Republicans” anymore – which is why we put the…

SHOULD THE PALMETTO STATE ADOPT THE PELICAN STATE’S METHOD OF ELECTION?

|| By FITSNEWS ||  As we’ve made repeatedly clear, this website has precisely zero use for either of America’s major political parties.  Rhetoric aside, there is no real difference between Democrats and “Republicans” anymore – which is why we put the “Republican” designation in baby quotes.  Mocking it.

You may also have noticed we no longer employ parenthetical designations when referencing politicians.  If a local, state or federal elected official does something we consider worth writing about (positive or negative), we simply print their name and leave the party designation alone … unless of course it’s a situation in which “Republican” mocking is in order.

Our logic behind this policy?  Simple.  Leaders – and their actions – need to be viewed in the context of things like facts, results, merits, etc.  They do not need to be viewed in the context of self-applied labels.

(Ahem, Mark Sanford).

In other words, we’re doing our small part to stop enabling a partisan structure that fuels senseless, surface discord – yet which is invariably united in slavish devotion to entrenched interests on the stuff that really matters.

Obviously we can’t stop candidates from calling themselves “Republicans” (or conservatives) … but we can stop subsidizing their unfair duopoly on the political process.

One possible way to do that?  Running Palmetto politics “through the jungle.”  Specifically the “jungle primary,” or the “nonpartisan blanket primary.”

Under this system – currently in place in Louisiana – all candidates for a particular office participate in the same primary election regardless of their political affiliation.  If a candidate gets more than fifty percent of the vote on the first ballot, they win the election.  If no candidate gets fifty percent of the vote on the first ballot, the top two finishers face off against each other in a second round race (even if they’re members of the same party).

We like this set-up for several reasons …

First, it saves money by reducing the number of elections (while at the same time getting the state out of the business of subsidizing party primary elections).  It also forces candidates to engage broader swaths of the electorate – and debate a wider range of issues.  Third it would likely elevate the stature of third parties and independent candidates – something the political marketplace desperately needs.

We need to do some additional research before endorsing the adoption of the Louisiana model in South Carolina … but it certainly strikes us as something to consider.

***

Related posts

SC

Cicada-Mageddon: Billions Of Insects To Emerge In ‘Synchronized’ Explosion

Andrew Fancher
SC

‘I Hate These People’: Bad Apples In South Carolina Schools Assail Parents

Will Folks
SC

South Carolina Restructuring: House Approves Health Care Consolidation Bill

Dylan Nolan

33 comments

pOgo July 7, 2015 at 4:11 pm

third parties and independent candidates –ELECT DEMOCRATS-something the political marketplace and AMERICA desperately DOESN’T need.

Bad idea.

Reply
vicupstate July 7, 2015 at 4:40 pm

No. The winner has to win a MAJORITY in the runoff. There are no plurality wins under this system. Two candidates could go to the runoff with low totals if there were lots of candidates, but that would apply to all candidates in all parties. The ultimate winner still has to win 50% plus one.

Reply
Richard Winger July 13, 2015 at 12:19 am

That system doesn’t really guarantee majority winners, because when there are two candidates from the same party, lots of voters leave the office blank. In California in November 2012 in the 31st district, there were only two Republicans on the ballot, even though it is a mostly Democratic district. So in November 2012, 23.1% of all the voters who cast a ballot just left US House blank. So the winner, Congressman Gary Miller, didn’t really get a majority of the votes cast.

Reply
Superfly July 7, 2015 at 4:17 pm

We need Libertarians to stop sucking off of the GOP tit, and run under their own party banner and utilize their own infrastructure. Libertarians are the real RINO’s. Reagan, Carroll Campbell were not libertarians.

Reply
TroubleBaby July 8, 2015 at 11:14 am

So how does Libertarian’s running under their own party/label help?

Reply
Finding the ignorant in S.C. July 7, 2015 at 4:18 pm

Does anyone read the bullshit this stupid son of bitch writes?
I love seeing how fucking ignorant the liberals, who comment on it, can be. It is a nest of stupidity and misguided thinking. But I read very little of the articles posted.
I find the writers dull, boring and predictable.
The only value is that this is a storehouse for fools.

Reply
euwe max July 7, 2015 at 4:27 pm

idiot.

Reply
You know who you are July 7, 2015 at 4:41 pm

Thanks for representin’ in the role call.

Reply
TontoBubbaGoldstein July 7, 2015 at 10:39 pm

Thanks for representin’ in the role call.

You’re on a *role*, like buttah, Chief!

Reply
euwe max July 7, 2015 at 11:31 pm

In the land of Republicans, the dipshit is king.

Mike at the Beach July 8, 2015 at 1:30 am

In the land of make-believe wherein one thinks that either of the major parties is without serious fault, the unicorn is king.

euwe max July 8, 2015 at 1:49 am

Recognizing degree of difference sometimes takes log-log paper.

Mike at the Beach July 8, 2015 at 10:00 am

My point precisely, amigo.

CharlieChan July 8, 2015 at 10:38 am

Surprisingly, from my time spent working in the hallowed halls of the State House… Everyone there LIVES on FITSNews. Good or bad, this site is a primary point of discussion in every lawmaker’s office. Scary, I know…

Reply
nitrat July 7, 2015 at 4:19 pm

I’m all for it.
But, it works best when an independent redistricting commission has drawn districts with a primary purpose to make them competitive. That’s what Arizona did.
That’s also why I’m sure California’s jungle primary works better than Louisiana’s which has legislative re-districting; that defeats the purpose of a jungle primary.
In the most important ruling of the term, the US supreme court ruled in the Arizona case last week that non-legislative redistricting commissions are constitutional.

Reply
vicupstate July 7, 2015 at 4:30 pm

In the most important ruling of the term, the US supreme court ruled in the Arizona case last week that non-legislative redistricting commissions are constitutional.

Yep. The Arizona GOP wanted the SUPREME COURT to overturn the will of the VOTER’S, so they could maintain control. See, Republicans LOVE an ‘activist’ court when it suits their desires.

Reply
Bible Thumper July 7, 2015 at 4:44 pm

Dems do the same gerrymandering in States where they are the majority.

Reply
Tom July 7, 2015 at 6:00 pm

So change them all. Get rid of gerrymandering. Get rid of Citizens United. Get big money out of politics.

Reply
vicupstate July 7, 2015 at 6:13 pm

And it doesn’t make for better governing in those states either.

Reply
Manray9 July 8, 2015 at 7:45 am

Gerrymandering is undemocratic no matter which party does it. Take at look at some states’ district maps. Maryland was drawn by Dems. Take a look at District 3. Ridiculous! I support public commissions.

Reply
vicupstate July 7, 2015 at 4:43 pm

Spot on. If redirecting was handled by a nonpartisan commission, as is done in several states, there would be FAR more competitive races. Ultimately there would be better officials, because a competitive environment brings about better results.

Reply
Manray9 July 8, 2015 at 7:46 am

I would say the goal isn’t making them competitive, but making them fair. New districts aren’t going to transform SC into a battleground state.

Reply
vicupstate July 8, 2015 at 8:35 am

The commissions draw lines based on common interests such as centers of industry or employment, or historic ties within a given region. This usually leads to more competitive districts than what we have currently, which are drawn strictly to partisan advantage. That should be the primary factor with competitiveness being the secondary consideration. .

Reply
Richard Winger July 13, 2015 at 12:16 am

California’s system does not work well at all. California has used it twice now, 2012 and 2014. The California primary turnout in 2012 was the 2nd lowest in state history, and then the 2014 primary was the lowest in state history. California is the only state in which general election turnout between November 2010 and November 2014 dropped by more than 30%. California’s dropped 33%. In November 2014 California voters were the only voters in the nation who had to either vote for a Democrat or a Republican for all the statewide offices, or not vote at all. So whereas the minor party vote in 2010 had been over 1,100,000, in 2014 it was zero, because it couldn’t be anything but zero. California even abolished write-in space in the general election.

Reply
Bible Thumper July 7, 2015 at 4:59 pm

Imagine if this Jungle rule applied to the 2016 Presidential race.
With only two major Democrats, Hillary and Bernie Sanders could be in the final election even though they didn’t get near 50% of the vote combined because the 14 Republican candidates divide up the remaining majority.

Reply
Old Honky July 7, 2015 at 5:20 pm

I can think of no better place to have a jungle election than a state with 28% of the population being negro.

Reply
9" July 7, 2015 at 6:12 pm Reply
Squishy123 July 7, 2015 at 9:15 pm

That’s racist, they’re called Section 8 housing units.

Reply
euwe max July 7, 2015 at 11:31 pm

haha… you said “section 8”!

Reply
afmajret July 8, 2015 at 7:21 am

I’m not so sure that we should look to the state that gave us Huey Long as a source of good political processes. Just sayin’.

Reply
Toyota Kawaski July 9, 2015 at 9:19 am

which is why we put the “Republican” designation in baby quotes. Mocking it.
EDIT: mocking it because my brain is small.

Reply
Victorious Secret July 12, 2015 at 11:11 pm

standing ovation

Reply

Leave a Comment