Interesting Election Reform Idea: Semi-Partisan Primaries

Over 100 years ago, Robert M. "Fighting Bob" LaFollette invented the primary system, which, for the first time, allowed rank-and-file members of each political party to choose who would run on the party's ticket in the general election.

However, the partisan primary system that is used nowadays in most states doesn't really allow people who don't strongly identify with a political party that has primary access (in most states, these are the Democratic Party and the Republican Party) to participate in the primary process, and the "top-two" primary system that is seen in states like California and Washington can result in a single political party getting both of the slots in the general election.

My proposal for semi-partisan primaries works like this:

• The government of each state that adopts the semi-partisan primary system would be responsible for maintaining registrations of all political parties in the state.
• Voters who are registered with a political party will get a ballot listing all of the candidates for public offices to be elected (i.e., state governor, U.S. Senator, U.S. Representative, state legislator, etc.), regardless of party affiliation, as well as the candidates running for party offices (i.e., state party chairperson, county party chairperson, precinct committeeperson, etc.) in the party that they are registered with.
• Voters who are not registered with a political party will get a ballot listing all of the candidates for public offices to be elected, regardless of party affiliation, but elections for party offices are not included on the ballot for those not registered with a political party.
• For presidential elections, voters who are registered with a political party that is eligible for presidential primary ballot access (i.e., the state party in question would have to be affiliated with a national party that nominates a presidential candidate, and the national party in question would have to hold its national convention sometime within a 3-5 month window specified by law) would get a ballot containing only the presidential candidates who are running for the nomination of the party that the voter is registered with. Voters who are not registered with a political party or registered with a political party that does not nominate a presidential candidate would get a ballot containing all of the presidential candidates who are running in a party that has presidential primary ballot access. Voters who are registered with a political party that is ineligible for presidential primary ballot access due to the party holding its convention outside of the legally-specified window for presidential primary ballot access are not allowed to vote in presidential primaries, and the party or parties in question would be required to use a caucus/convention system if it wishes to nominate a presidential candidate. Results for each party's presidential primary is tabulated separately, and pledged delegates are assigned to candidates based on the percentage of votes they receive among those running in their party.
• For other elections for public office in which only one office is to be filled, any independent candidate who receive at least 1% of the vote advances to the general election, and any political party whose candidates receive at least 1% of the vote combined sends the candidate with who receives the highest number of votes among those who are running within that party to the general election.
• For elections for public office in which more than one office is to be filled, the threshold for qualifying an independent candidate for the general election is 1%/n, in which n is the number of offices to be filled, and the threshold for qualifying a political party is 1%/n, in which n is the number of offices to be filled. Political parties who qualify for the general election are able to send a number of candidates to the general election equal to the number of offices to be filled.
• For elections for party office, the candidate(s) with the most votes are elected unless a preferential voting system of some kind (instant-runoff voting, single transferable vote, etc.) is used.
• For general elections for president, a "majority-take-all" system is used within each state to allocate electoral votes: should one presidential candidate get more than 50% of the vote in a particular state, the presidential candidate in question wins all of the electoral votes from that state. Should no presidential candidate get more than 50% of the vote in a particular state, the state's electoral votes are allocated to each of the candidates in proportion to the statewide popular vote in that state.
• For general elections for other public office in which only a single office is to be filled, instant-runoff voting is used should more than two candidates qualify for the general election, and first-past-the-post voting is used should one or two candidates qualify for the general election. Officially non-partisan elections for public office in which only a single office is to be filled use are done in this manner, but without the primary.
• For general election for other public office in which multiple offices are to be filled, single transferable voting is used should the number of candidates running be more than twice the number of offices to be filled, and single non-transferable voting is used should the number of candidates running be twice the number of offices to be filled or less. Officially non-partisan elections for public office in which multiple offices are to be filled are done in this manner, but without the primary.

The semi-partisan primary system is designed with the hopes of boosting primary turnout, allowing for greater participation in the political process in this country by those who don't strongly identify with a political party, allow minor political parties to participate in the primary process, and prohibit the strange occurrences that sometimes happen under a "top-two" primary system.

The Mainstream Media's War on Women

The Republican Party, anti-abortion groups, and other organizations and people who are opposed to women's rights are waging a war on women in this country, but, sadly, they're not the only ones waging a war on women. The mainstream news media in this country is also waging a war on women in this country.

One example of the mainstream media's war on women was CNN's Candy Crowley sympathizing with the two rapists in the Steubenville, Ohio rape case after they were found guilty:

Shortly after the guilty verdict in the Steubenville rape case was announced, Candy Crowley took to the airwaves to report it and connect with their reporter on the ground for more details. Her lead-in to the remote shot was shameful. 

Crowley was filled with sadness for two young men who took advantage of a drunk and possibly drugged young girl because the judge actually held them accountable for what they did. Instead of wondering aloud why they weren't tried as adults, she was instead very concerned that now they would have to register for the rest of their lives as sex offenders.

Never once did CNN or Crowley show any sympathy for the female victim of the rape, and me and many other people found that to be distasteful and offensive.

More recently, George Will, a conservative columnist for The Washington Post, wrote this post criticizing the federal government for cracking down on college and university administrators who aid and abet the far too pervasive rape culture in this country, falsely claimed that sexual assault never occurs on college campuses, and claiming that being a victim of sexual assault is a "coveted status".

Will's pro-rape culture column is the single worst piece that I have ever seen from the mainstream news media in this country. Dr. Jennifer Gunter, an obstetrician/gynecologist who was sexually assaulted while a college student two and a half decades ago, wrote this response to Will's column, where she criticized Will for defending rape culture and shared her own experience of being raped:

I was specifically moved to write to you because the rape scenario that you describe somewhat incredulously is not unfamiliar to me. Not because I've heard it in many different iterations (I have sadly done many rape kits), but because it was not unlike my own rape. The lead up was slightly different, but I too was raped by someone I knew and did not emerge with any obvious physical evidence that a crime had been committed. I tried to push him away, I said “No!” and “Get off” multiple times,” but he was much stronger and suddenly I found my hands pinned behind my back and a forearm crushing my neck and for a few minutes I found it hard to breathe. I was 22, far from home, scared, and shocked and so at some point I just stopped kicking and let him finish. Sound familiar? For several weeks I didn't even think about it as a rape because that was easier than admitting the truth. Again, sound familiar? 

When a man who is much stronger than you holds you down (Hey baby don’t fight, you know you want it) and forces your legs open the violence and power of those movements is horrifically violating and utterly disempowering. You think you screamed NO! at the top of your lungs but you were so scared and so shocked that when you went from yelling no! to pleading no to silently weeping no is hard to remember. Implied violence Mr. Will is a terrifying thing indeed.

One of the main reasons why sexual assault is tolerated by a large segment of this country's population is because the mainstream news media in this country aids and abets those who defend rape culture in this country.