Comments on: ‘Top-2’ primary is like candy — offers quick satisfaction but ultimately rots teeth

By: Kathryn Kobor

Kathryn Kobor — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:34:22 +0000

Prop. 121 is a disaster waiting to happen.
It will abolish all equality in candidates.
It will get rid of minority candidates.
Prop 121 could be compared to Clean Electionsl–
a total failure and will undermine the voting process

By: Fred von Blume

Fred von Blume — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:05:28 +0000

This poorly conceived proposal is a monument to the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Currently Precinct Committeepersons are elected during Primary elections as representatives of their Precincts to the Political Parties. There is NO prevision made nor is their any obvious prevision TO be made.

If a sitting member of the self-selected “Tea Party but Really More-Or-Less Centrist but Still Pro-Choice” Party resigns, from what group is a replacement selected? Their one-member Party? Some other? By whom? What “Party” are they?

When the Jungle Election comes, how are Observers chosen? Not from “Parties” certainly. Will there be a drawing of who can be there and what candidate will lose out? The counting rooms are finite and there are fire codes. Will we stumbling over the flock of untrained observers?

There are countless more that are too complex to list like hand counts. Will the entire Legislative Session be spent patching the laws into a workable hash? This is an absurd sleight of hand by people not close enough to elections.

By: Donna Gratehouse

Donna Gratehouse — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 22:08:25 +0000

Tom Milton, contrary to the belief that seems to be prevalent among Top Two supporters, independent voters are not a monolithic bloc of socially liberal and fiscally conservative voters whose interests happen to line up perfectly with the Chamber of Commerce. Research on voting patterns has repeatedly shown that independents are actually just as partisan as registered Ds and Rs in their voting. The centrist business establishment people in this state grossly overestimate themselves and the popularity of their economic agenda for Arizona.

If you really want moderates there are plenty of them to vote for in Arizona. They’re called the Democrats. Of course, if Dems ever took over one or both chambers of the Legislature the rich plutocrats would face the horrifying prospect of not getting what they want 100% of the time, as they do now. What the wealthy backers of Prop 121 seem to want is less embarrassing right wingers, not actual moderates.

By: Frank Henry

Frank Henry — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 06:40:47 +0000

A YES vot for Prop 121 is a yes vote to the honoring and respecting equal rights
to all citizens of Arizona.

Prop121 will allow:

1. Equal access of all voters to be a candidate on our ballots.

2. Equal access of all voter to cast their votes at all elections.

3. Voters and citizens to contiue having PACs, political parties,
focucus groups,…etc.

By: Linda Macias

Linda Macias — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 01:06:50 +0000

The primary elections have a much smaller voter turnout than the general elections. It seems that there should be more choices than just two on the general ballot where more people will be voting. Ranked Choice Voting on the general ballot would save time. It would save money for both the elections dept. and for those running for office. One election instead of two. The voters would rank each candidate in the order of preference, 1, 2, 3… After the first count of the ballots if no one receives 50 plus one percent of the vote the run off happens immediately. No second election. The candidate with the lowest number of votes is not in the run off round of vote counting. Those who voted for that first looser as their first choice now have their second choice vote counted toward the candidate that the voter ranked as #2. Vote “NO” on 121 and hope that Ranked Choice Voting is implemented in our state.

By: Joe Cobb

Joe Cobb — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 22:40:16 +0000

It is amazing how many conundrums Ranked Choice Voting resolves. Dissolves. It is a way to avoid the mathematical problems when third candidates run, and nobody gets a majority. It helps communicate how many minority voters. Public policy benefits from more information about popular support and opposition.

By: Tom Milton

Tom Milton — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 19:37:07 +0000

We appreciate the League of Women Voters passion for wanting to see reform to the current election system that is inadequate for representing ALL of Arizona’s voters.

Prop 121 offers a reform that is similar to the proven system used in 90 out of 91 cities and towns in Arizona today (and for the past half century). You’ll notice that there is not a huge cry for reform from citizens represented by our municipalities and even the League is not pushing to change the system used by cities and towns. This is the same system that elected an Independent candidate into office in Arizona’s largest city just last year. Why haven’t cities experienced the type of “serious long-term harm” the League promises will occur?

We also fail to understand why smaller 3rd parties that represent less than 1% of all Arizona voters are considered sacred even though Independents, which more than 33% of Arizonans list as their preference, are left out. There has not been a Libertarian, Green Party, or Americans Elect candidate ever elected to a state-office in Arizona, despite the fact that they are given General Election ballot status each cycle in the current system.

The League recognizes that change needs to occur. Thus far they have not offered any tangible action for their reforms (with the exception of joining a lawsuit to keep this away from voters). They continue to offer lofty ideas, complex political science theories, and references to bad dental hygiene.

Please vote YES on PROP 121.