| || |
The R-triple-C has spent more than $4 million so far on this race. That's 99% national money. Not an issue.
As I said, I support runoffs even with the field is not this crowded. They're especially important ways for people to feel invested in democracy when there ARE this many people running. But that doesn't change the fact that a plurality is an achievement in this district for any Democrat.
I will be interested to see what the Republican leader says after tonight. Probably going to be veeery careful about it. "Let's beat Jon Ossoff" and leave it at that. They'll dodge the "So, about pluralities..." question, if any reporter or constituent manages to put them on the spot. It won't do to undermine the president's victory by advocating that majority vote should decide the winner for ONE DISTRICT ... which, when all's said, is nothing compared to the whole nation.
Again, my position is, most if not all races should have a means to keep people from taking office until a majority of the voters in the latest round of voting have backed them. That's how most of the world works, and it's how many of our non-federal races work.
And I don't think that's right. I think when you've got this crowded of a field, in either a primary or a bipartisan election, people deserve a chance to vote for their initial preference, let the herd get thinned out, then back one of two finalists.
The jungle primary system with all candidates running from all parties on a single ballot in anticipation of a runoff really works, IMO. I don't why Georgia does that ONLY for specials.
Last edited by Singularity; 18th April 2017 at 10:21 AM.