After implementation, Democrats calling for elimination of Amendment V Jungle Primary systems in other states as not “proper democracy.”

Be careful what you wish for, as you just may get it.

As part of Rick Weiland’s offensive Amendment V (as in Vile), the out-of-state liberals who kicked money into South Dakota to pass this measure included a provision in the measure that the top 2 vote recipients in the new jungle-style primary will be the only ones who advance to the general election. Not the top candidate from each party, facing off against each other, as well as independents, as we have now.

So what’s that going to look like across South Dakota?

There are states that currently have such a system, and as much as the liberal Democrats here complain about Republicans, listen to them complain when they’re shut out of most elections as they would be under Weiland’s Amendment V. From the Daily Kos’ Morning Digest:

Morning Digest: Washington’s borked primary system yields all-GOP general election for treasurer

WA Treasurer: On Friday, Washington’s secretary of state certified the results of the state’s Aug. 2 primaries, cementing an atrocious and under-reported outcome in this year’s open treasurer’s race. Thanks to Washington’s top-two primary, a pair of Republicans will advance to the November general election, meaning no voter will be able to cast a ballot for a Democrat—this in a state that hasn’t voted for a Republican for president since the Reagan landslide of 1984.

and…

We’ve seen this same phenomenon before, but this is the first single-party statewide election ever to take place in Washington. That’s just terrible for democracy. California also uses a top-two primary, and there, polls show that many Republican voters simply plan to sit out this year’s Senate race between Democrats Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez. But at least we know that California, a very blue state, would likely have elected a Democrat to succeed retiring Sen. Barbara Boxer anyway. Washington, by contrast, almost certainly would have voted in another Democrat as treasurer, so the situation here is particularly perverse.

Supposed “good-government” reformers naïvely believed that eliminating partisan primaries would somehow crank down partisan gridlock by forcing office-seekers to moderate their views in order to win. Not only has that not happened, but voters have repeatedly been denied the opportunity to vote for the party of their choice thanks to debacles like these. It’s long past time for proponents to acknowledge their mistake and advocate for a return to proper primaries—and proper democracy.

Read it here.

Yes, it’s THAT Daily Kos calling for proponents of election systems just like the one Slick Rick Weiland wants to introduce into the state to “acknowledge their mistake and advocate for a return to proper primaries—and proper democracy.”

And take note of the direct repudiation of the propaganda that South Dakota proponents are using as they try to push how the jungle primary “will moderate views” – “Supposed “good-government” reformers naïvely believed that eliminating partisan primaries would somehow crank down partisan gridlock by forcing office-seekers to moderate their views in order to win. Not only has that not happened, but voters have repeatedly been denied the opportunity to vote for the party of their choice thanks to debacles like these.

Slick Rick Weiland followers, and other mindless liberals, be careful what you wish for. You just may get it.

10 thoughts on “After implementation, Democrats calling for elimination of Amendment V Jungle Primary systems in other states as not “proper democracy.”

  1. Anonymous

    If it isn’t broke don’t fix it…sound advice in many situations.

    I am voting NO on V and I would encourage you to do the same.

  2. Anonymous

    It is broke; just ask Ricky. That is why he has never been elected, despite his many attempts. Why, all he needs is to hide from people the fact that he is a Socialist and his ideas won’t come off sounding so stupid and anti-American.

  3. grudznick

    I am thinking more about this Jungle Primary thing. If people just kept putting “R” on their signs, and pointing out the left-leaning of any opponents, wouldn’t this be a really good thing for the Republican party and sound the final death knell for the Democrat party? They’d not have many people even in general elections. It seems poorly thought out by this Slick Rick fellow, who is really a restaurateur if I understand correctly.

  4. Anonymous

    If you a 3rd party there is no doubt you should vote against this measure…there is no getting to the general election for 3rd parties if this Amendment passes.

    VOTE NO on V!

  5. Anonymous

    A jungle primary system reminds me of the Sioux Falls Mayors election.

    Bill Peterson – R
    Vernon Brown – I
    Mike Huether – D
    Bill Peterson – R
    Kermit Staggers – R

    Three Republicans, one Independent, and one Democrat. Having more than one Republican running from the establishment (Peterson and Costello) hurt the stronger general election Republicans because they split their vote more. The more conservative candidate won the primary (Staggers) and Democrats had one candidate running (Huether) so they stuck with him. After the primary Independents and Moderate Republicans bailed on Staggers and went for the Democrat.

      1. Anonymous

        I don’t know that it’s all bad in SF. He seems to be a guy that gets things done. Does he have an ego? Yes. Does it hurt him? Yes. Does he get things done? Yes. Do people like that about him? Yes.

        1. Springer

          It all depends on what Huether has “got done.” Things that benefit himself or a few elite in the city, or things that benefit everyone; and also whether a project is necessary or is just a payback to a construction company. I think his latest desire to build a legacy building to himself is an example of his ego and not of what is best for the taxpayers of the city; they should at least be allowed to vote on it.