Unintended consequences of the primary system

[pecksniff]

When most American states adopted the primary election system in the 1970s, it seemed like a pro-democracy reform: Let each party's voters, instead of party officials in the proverbial smoke-filled room, choose their candidate for the general election.

Here's the problem: Turnout for a primary is generally lower than for a general election. Therefore, it is dominated by the party's most motivated voters -- which usually means its most extremely ideological voters. This has the effect of making each party more extreme -- it is a real threat to any Pub incumbent to be primaried from the right, or (to lesser degree) a Dem from the left, so in office, they go more extreme to forestall the possibility.

Is there a better way?

 

[YDB95]

When I see the Dems getting anywhere near as extreme as the GOPers, then I'll worry about that. (I mean in reality, not in the fevered imaginations of the Lit deplorables.)

 

[jaF0]

We can hope the Primaries go so extreme (Orange) that the mainstream Republicans have no choice but to vote Blue in the General.

 

[butters]

not seeing anything on here about Andrew Yang's leaving the democratic party to start a 3rd, middle-ground one for moderates of all persuasions

his aim–even whilst acknowledging the unlikelihood of any representative being a direct challenger to either of the other parties' presidential candidates–seems to be:

• to attract enough middle-grounders to weaken the power in either house of extremists
  
• force both, more polarised sides to find a middle-ground more amenable to the majority of americans that can be supported, individually, by numbers voting on bills and proposals

this kind of thing goes on the the u.k but with questionable success

though i understand the need for as much democratic support as possible right now, this 'floating' 3rd party can lend support to either side and will all depend on the policies and bills pursued by the 2 main parties.

his book seems to layout some of his reasoning and thoughts about the way forward, the name of the new party being called The Forward Party which is kinda cheesy.

the book’s publisher, Crown, did give some clues about the type of platform Yang may pursue. It writes that the book is an indictment of America’s “era of institutional failure” and will introduce “us to the various ‘priests of the decline’ of America, including politicians whose incentives have become divorced from the people they supposedly serve.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/09/andrew-yang-third-party-511033

 

[pecksniff]

not seeing anything on here about Andrew Yang's leaving the democratic party to start a 3rd, middle-ground one for moderates of all persuasions

his aim–even whilst acknowledging the unlikelihood of any representative being a direct challenger to either of the other parties' presidential candidates–seems to be:

• to attract enough middle-grounders to weaken the power in either house of extremists
  
• force both, more polarised sides to find a middle-ground more amenable to the majority of americans that can be supported, individually, by numbers voting on bills and proposals

. this kind of thing goes on the the u.k but with questionable success

though i understand the need for as much democratic support as possible right now, this 'floating' 3rd party can lend support to either side and will all depend on the policies and bills pursued by the 2 main parties.

The Reform Party was the Perot Party -- it only existed to elect Perot, and he resolutely crushed any attempt to turn it into something more, as by nominating other candidates, for offices other than the presidency.

The question is whether Yang's new party will be anything more than the Yang Party.