Especially when the runoffs mean republican losses now...
-
-
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
You have absolutely no evidence to state that Perdue would have won without a runoff. The campaigns were based on the knowledge there might be a runoff. Voters voted with that in mind as well. Terrible article.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They literally have Jim Crow roots.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Hand marked paper ballots only
End of conversation
-
-
-
CALLED IT
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Run-offs serve an important function as part of the primary process. It's not a good idea to send a candidate to a general who received only, say, 20% of the vote in a primary. If we had them for presidential primaries, Trump would never have gotten the nomination.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"[Fla.] voters rejected a jungle primary, while [Mass.] voters rejected ranked-choice voting. Those were wise decisions." What's wrong with these reforms? I mean, besides not being "the normal, traditional American system." Have you taken full measure of the latter's flaws?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I disagree with what you say about CA and runoffs. I think it's a centralizing feature. If a gen election is between two Dems, it's still good for conservatives because they can help the less-extreme Democrat get elected.
-
Under a conventional system, winning the Democratic CA primary (even as a radical) is tantamount to winning the gen election, especially in Senate+House races. Also, a runoff system would make it much easier for a centrist third party candidate to win.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.