You're viewing a single thread.
I'd rather an electoral system where primaries aren't necessary to avoid in party spoiler effects
How do people not understand what you mean here?
I am baffled beyond baffling by how everyone swerved on this one
So the party picks the candidate every time?
Nah, "The Party" never picks candidates, it's just that spoiler effects are removed via reforms like STAR voting
If there is no primary, who do you think picks the candidate?
A petition submitted to the relevant municipal electoral committee?
....did you just entirely forget that you get on the ballot via petitions completely outside the primary process?
And if there is more than one person who has a petition going? Just whoever gets the most names on a petition? Because that sounds kind of like a primary.
....then they both get on the ballot?
I feel like at this point you're going out of your way to be obtuse about not understanding what is being explained.
Party infrastructure is involved at exactly no point in this process.
Multiple people from the same party would be able to share the ballot.
This is because the voting system is such that there would be no spoiler effect from two or more candidates from the same party running.
In fact, an ideal would be for parties to encourage multiple candidates to run, since there would be few offices in contest for which there would only be a single open seat.
The U.S. is a first past the post system. All you are suggesting is that whoever gets elected is still not the person most people want, except even less fairly.
Ok now I know you're intentionally being obtuse.
Read the fucking chain Sea Lion and quit arguing with a position you invented out of thin air.
Insulting me doesn't explain why your idea of a half dozen candidates in a first past the post system, meaning that a large majority of people don't get what they want, is better than what we have now.