I am in Ohio, in Boehner’s district. I have never heard of a run-off election, so if there are more than two actually on the ballot and one fails to gain a majority, the one with a plurality will “win” and be the candidate in the general election.
When it comes time for the election, any opposition candidates best decide which among them has the best chance and the others drop out. I personally don’t see any of the others who have announced having a chance against Boehner, and its definitely a long shot. What will be interesting is if Democrats cross over as their candidate has no chance in this district - they could come over if there was a viable candidate just to knock Boehner out at the primary level - not recognizing that they may just get what they “asked for” - a real conservative.
How susceptible is your district to a D win if the Dems use their patented “Tea Party war on women, fund a libertarian to bleed R votes” in the November election?
I think runoffs originated in the South as a means to make it more difficult for blacks, liberals, or carpetbaggers to win elections. But runoffs now serve a great function of ensuring that the eventual winner will be the choice of a larger percentage of the voters than one vote with no runoff if no one receives a majority.
Maybe primary voters who oppose Boner will settle on one candidate before election day in Ohio. But the place runoffs are most needed is in presidential primaries. We usually have a ‘winner’ no more than halfway throught the state primaries, a winner who received around 1/3 of the total vote. And with four or five conservative candidates and a couple of RINOS, we end up with the RINO.
But that won’t change since it benefits the GOPe so much and gives us candidates like McCain and Romney.