In a race in which candidates from all parties run in the same primary, Democrats have raised concerns the crowded field could prevent them from appearing on the November ballot.
The answer is it isn’t a Democratic primary. Some states have jungle primaries where all candidates of either party run and the top 2 move to the general. California is one such state.
Honestly I agree with one addendum: there needs to be approval voting or at least STAR/RCV for the primary, and this is one of those situations that proves it. That two people who’ll get all of maybe 40% combined (more likely 35%) may advance to the general while those that made up the 60% won’t is absurd and absolutely worse than just having two separate partisan primaries.
Different states have different rules on who can run in a primary, with some states being very lax and letting anyone who can run no matter party affiliation. Also, in some states, people can vote in any party regardless of party affiliation.
This was done as several states recognized that the two party system didn’t always produce the best candidate. Instead of creating systems allowing for more parties, these states created systems that weakened the power of that state’s or the counties’ political parties.
Also, in some states, people can vote in any party regardless of party affiliation.
What does this mean? It sounds like you’re saying there are some (other) states where you do have to vote with whatever party you’re affiliated with. But that wouldn’t make sense with anonymous voting or, you know, democracy.
In party primaries, which are used to some states, the election of the party’s candidate in some states is a public election where anyone can vote, even people from other parties. Dove states require you to auto register for that party, but not all of them.
So your party’s candidate gets chosen by everyone, not just members of your party.
Not an American
How the fuck does a Republican openly run in a democratic primary???
The answer is it isn’t a Democratic primary. Some states have jungle primaries where all candidates of either party run and the top 2 move to the general. California is one such state.
As it should be.
not really jungle primaries are terrible and result in far right candidates leading democratic states
Honestly I agree with one addendum: there needs to be approval voting or at least STAR/RCV for the primary, and this is one of those situations that proves it. That two people who’ll get all of maybe 40% combined (more likely 35%) may advance to the general while those that made up the 60% won’t is absurd and absolutely worse than just having two separate partisan primaries.
Different states have different rules on who can run in a primary, with some states being very lax and letting anyone who can run no matter party affiliation. Also, in some states, people can vote in any party regardless of party affiliation.
This was done as several states recognized that the two party system didn’t always produce the best candidate. Instead of creating systems allowing for more parties, these states created systems that weakened the power of that state’s or the counties’ political parties.
This is not the answer.
What does this mean? It sounds like you’re saying there are some (other) states where you do have to vote with whatever party you’re affiliated with. But that wouldn’t make sense with anonymous voting or, you know, democracy.
In party primaries, which are used to some states, the election of the party’s candidate in some states is a public election where anyone can vote, even people from other parties. Dove states require you to auto register for that party, but not all of them.
So your party’s candidate gets chosen by everyone, not just members of your party.
through brazen bribes from zionists across the entire US government, and much of the christian church as well.