Kyrsten Sinema, Vernon Parker and Why Top-Two Was and Is a Dumb Idea

 @GreenHornet .

@GreenHornet Stauffer is a former Republican, now independent. Penzone is a former Republican, now Democrat. They both have some good ideas and both would be a vast improvement on Joe, but having both of them on the ballot all but ensures Joe's victory. A top two primaryy would allow Joe's opposition to select one champion and coalesce around him, vastly improving the odds that Joe will be gone come November. I don't think you've thought this through all the way.

 @zhenry9  @Ross The one Lemons mentions, which would stick us with that idiot Sinema. Parker's no saint, but he's less annoying.

 @zhenry9  @LegitQuestions  @teknik really there are more than two views on abortion, gun control, etc.

either you support people the right to have automatic weapons and make stupid statements about everyday problems in life, and fantasize about using a gun to solve them, or you are against people being able to carry assault rifles.  

and in the abortion debate, either you are a baby killer or you want abortion to be a safe and legal choice for women. I esp dislike the GOP trying to redefine what rape is to push their 1899 world view upon everyone. 

Conservatives DO not like new ideas that is why they keep going back to the failed polices of the 1960s...

 @ptcgaz  @LegitQuestions  @teknik "I got one of them to see the error in the ways of the GOP and their hatred for everyone but the 1% and using the emotional issues to keep people voting for them"

Don't you see your role as the flip side of the coin?  Despite their outdated views on social issues, the GOP and in a broader sense conservatives  aremore than capable of coming up with good ideas in other areas.

A multi-party system would have more than one party representing polar issues like abortion etc.  There are some issues with two clear positions, but I think it's an error to think that most issues only have two positions.  Most issues allow for a very wide spectrum of positions.  As for which party most people would fit into: I would imagine it would change with the people represented and the problems at hand.  Ideally elections would be about individuals and ideas and not about parties.  The US is pretty unique in having only two major parties representing the entire country.

 @zhenry9  @LegitQuestions  @teknik sure it does because I know plenty of people who are "moderates" that vote with their heart on things like abortion, guns, and all the other crap a certain party of creeps brings up each year. I got one of them to see the error in the ways of the GOP and their hatred for everyone but the 1% and using the emotional issues to keep people voting for them. How would a four party system work? what would the parties be? and which one would most people fit into ? that's the problem, there aren't 4 positions on most things, there are two..

 @ptcgaz  @LegitQuestions  @teknik Just because someone is a moderate doesn't make them a fence sitter.  Most reasonable people are moderates interested in using the available facts to find solutions.

The problem with a two party system is it allows such easy polarization on social issues like guns, god, abortion, etc.  If we had a good four or so then people could vote with their heads instead of just voting for or against abortion or gay marriage or whatever every single time.  That's why I think the top two is good: it allows a wide open field and diminishes the influence of parties over the whole process.  There is some room for improvement, such as not listing a candidates party on the ballot.  Voters would actually have to research the candidate and their positions instead of just looking for the R or the D.

 @LegitQuestions  @zhenry9  @teknik the reason I dislike fence sitting moderates, is because they shift every few years from one stupid idea to the next. They follow fads. I don't like them because it's impossible to see what they are going to do. My comment has nothing at all to do with extremists shouting at the top of their lungs, more like it's anger at the people that listen to the extremists shouting at the top of their lungs and vote for stupid crap.. Sorta like this top two BS. 

And also the best path for progress at the moment is to fire all the people that are obstructing in the house and senate and filibustering anything, to make OBama look bad. ... I don't care where people sit politically it's this attitude of the GOP, which gets a lot of moderates to vote for them via their policies of guns, and god. Since many moderates are both religious and own guns. 

 @ptcgaz  @zhenry9  @teknik

 Fence sitting moderates are often pragmatics who see the best path to achieving progress.  Don't mistake their moderation for passion just because their not screaming at the top of their lungs like the lunatic fringe.

 @ptcgaz  @teknik Yes, it does level the playing field.  It allows all voters to have sway in a competitive general instead of allowing the dominant party to decide for everybody in the primary.

And it may yet make the ballot.

 @zhenry9  @teknik by excluding one party it makes the playing field level? I am sorry but I am glad this is not on the ballot because it's a stupid idea.

 @ptcgaz  @zhenry9  @teknik If Democrats have won in your district then they should have no problem getting through a top two primary.  I'd love to see an example in the current system of a candidate being outside the top two vote getters at the primary level going on to win a general.  It doesn't happen now and it won't happen after the change.  The change would level the playing field in districts where one party never wins.

 @zhenry9  @teknik why the fuck should I have to choose between two republicans? Democrats have won in my district.. despite being at a disadvantage in the numbers.

  @ptcgaz  @teknik I just don't think there is any point in having a Democrat on the ballot in districts where they are going to be trounced due to the D behind their name alone.  Under the current system Democrats have no influence and no chance in these districts.  The race is effectively decided in the Republican primary where nuts prevail.  Better to have two Republicans on the general ballot  and allow Democrats to pick the more moderate of the two.

 @LegitQuestions  @zhenry9  @teknik thanks, btw I would be worried if it was two left-wing nuts too, because while I dislike in general fence sitting moderates, I hate extremists more, on both sides. 

 @zhenry9  @ptcgaz  @teknik

 I agree with ptcgaz on this one - your analysis is flawed when you say that you "don't think it would be possible for two far right (or left) nuts to geth through the top two.  Don't underestimate the capacity of the voters to push extremist nuts into the general.

 @zhenry9  @ptcgaz  @teknik no, it would not work out that way at all. It would be two right wingers and no democrats in some of the districts, but not all.