Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Impy

California changed it to something very similar to the LA jungle primary, the only difference being that the CA jungle primary takes place on primary day, with the top two finishers going on to Election Day even if one got a majority, while in LA the junge primary is on Election Day and, if no one gets a majority, the top two go to a runoff in early December. The courts have upheld jungle-primary systems, but I would strike them down as violative of the First Amendment rights of citizens who form political parties to petition the government for redress of their grievances and who are denied by such law of the ability to select their party’s standardbearer for the election.


30 posted on 06/03/2013 10:46:10 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll defend your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: AuH2ORepublican; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj; randita

You may recall I was waaaaaay against the new system in Cali (and LA switching back to the jungle primary) but I hate it less now. Our candidates were helped by not having votes lost to 3rd parties and I really like the mathematic simplicity of the results. Plus it saved Gary Miller’s A$$, got rid of Pete Stark and almost saw Waxman lose his seat to an independent.

It’s still unconstitutional though and could easily screw us in the future.


31 posted on 06/05/2013 9:21:07 PM PDT by Impy (All in favor of Harry Reid meeting Mr. Mayhem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson