Dem Party stone silent about opposition to Amendment V. But, at least one Democrat notices how flawed the proposed system is.

There was an article at the Mitchell Daily Republic website yesterday about the two sides clashing on Amendment V (for vile). If you’re not familiar, this is the ballot measure funded by out of state interests, which would hide party affiliations, as well as ensure that no independents or third party candidates would ever appear on a November ballot again.

As noted in the Mitchell Daily Republic:

Neither of the state’s political parties, which would see their organizations wiped from the ballot if Amendment V were to pass, offered support of the initiative.

South Dakota Democratic Party Executive Director Suzanne Jones Pranger said her party will remain neutral on Amendment V as some state Democrats have come out both for and against the proposal.

and…

Unlike its counterpart, the South Dakota GOP has taken a stance on the proposal.

Ryan Budmayr, executive director of the South Dakota Republican Party, said his party opposes the proposal, citing the “big money out of New York” that is supporting the effort. And while supporters say Amendment V would favor individual voters rather than political parties, Budmayr has a different view of the proposal.

“This is the farthest thing from nonpartisan,” Budmayr said. “The guys running this are former Democrats, party bosses, staffers, and I don’t think South Dakota should be fooled.”

Read it here.

Given the lukewarm opposition, at best, that the Democrat party apparatus is offering, I have to openly question whether the State Democrat Party is suppressing their party members who actually want to be identified as a political party, as opposed to a petition gathering organization.

However, aside from the Democrat party leaders, who mention dissent but give it no credence, it appears that at least a couple Democrat party loyalists are out there who recognize how bad Amendment V will be for South Dakota.

At RapidCityJournal.com today, Democrat stalwart Jay Davis voices his dissent from the weak-spined Democrat leaders who are happy to shed the Democrat label, mistakenly thinking that hiding who they are from voters will help them gain more offices. And Davis correctly points out that in conservative South Dakota, it’s more likely that Democrats are going to find themselves shut out:

Amendment V would make our elections far less transparent by eliminating all party labels except in the presidential race. Ironically, the race for president is the only one where virtually everyone already knows the party affiliation of the major candidates.

When we’re dealing with “down ballot” races like School and Public Lands or the Public Utilities Commission, even well-informed voters may not be familiar with the candidates or their party affiliation. Amendment V assumes that every voter had done extensive research before going to the polls. That’s just not realistic.

and…

This year, California has an open U.S. Senate seat for the first time in 24 years as long-time incumbent Sen. Barbara Boxer is retiring. While South Dakota leans Republican in most elections, California has become strongly Democratic. Due to their new “jungle primary” system, they face a choice between two Democratic women in November. No other names will be on the ballot. Polls show that California Republicans are disgusted and many won’t bother to vote in that contest. While the “jungle primary” was supposed to improve voter turnout, this year it did the opposite and voter turnout was down.

In South Dakota, a “jungle primary” would often give us a general election choice between two conservative Republicans. Even in elections for major offices, every Democrat, independent, Libertarian and swing voter would be disenfranchised. The June primary, which always has a much smaller turnout than the November general election, is the only place where a diverse choice of candidates would be likely.

Read it all here.

Thoughts?

23 thoughts on “Dem Party stone silent about opposition to Amendment V. But, at least one Democrat notices how flawed the proposed system is.

  1. Dave R

    I don’t think some folks have thought this through – We would have TWO general elections. Are you irritated with all the ads, mail, door knocks and phone calls now? Double or triple it. The important election would be the Primary – more important than the runoff in November. Campaigns would kick off in March. Parties would have to take sides in order to insure their party is not divided and weak – MORE partisanship. There would be MORE fundraising and it would begin sooner and MORE money would have to be raised.

    Independents would have no chance. Campaigns that are organized early have an advantage. Incumbents and parties which have standing organization already have a competitive advantage, this advantage would be decisive if Independents had to compete in a primary against party people with a shorter time window to prepare for an election.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      What’s the point of paying for a dem ED if she isn’t defending the democrat party?

      She will be obsolete. The SDGOP might as well be also with how low key they are across the state. Do the parties even matter anymore at the state level if one won’t defend its right to exist and the other doesn’t show any sign of life?

      Reply
  2. Anonymous

    This article should be widely spread to all voters. He lays out the case against V very well from a Democrat perspective. He sheds light on how the proponents are limiting choice and are blurring the line that this is what they use in Nebraska, which it is not. Well done Sir!

    NO on V.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Well said. This will be the death of the democrat party.

      The general election for governor would be Noem vs Jackley or Mickelson vs Noem or Krebs vs Jackley or Jackley vs Mickelson or Krebs vs Mickelson.

      Democrats would then just want to vote to damage the GOP candidate that was the strongest.

      Reply
  3. Dave R

    Constitutional officers would have primaries instead of being picked by Convention. That means that all of those offices would have to raise 100k+ to run in a primary statewide. Again, MORE money in politics, more fundraising, more campaigns calling, knocking, mailing, and putting ads on air. There are 6 constitutional offices up for election in 2018. That is 6 more statewide primaries in June.

    I don’t think Democrats realize how disadvantaged they would be in this system. Republicans have a stronger bench, more volunteers, more voters. There might not BE a Democrat on the November ballot in 2018 for Governor or Congress and other offices. Consider the candidates already in play – their advantages in fundraising, name recognition and support – we might instead we might have 2 Republicans running off in November.

    Reply
  4. Anonymous

    …….and the Democrats wonder why they don’t win….it is about leadership, ideas, motivating people to vote FOR you, not all this trickery with Amendment V and the other ballot measures seeking to redistrict (T) and get the taxpayers to pay for it (22) and fool people to force people to pay union dues (23).

    The current Democrat party can’t even take a vote ..cough cough democracy over here folks…and say where they stand on these issues?

    Reply
  5. Porter Lansing

    Everything politically points to SoDak Republicans doing everything possible to gerrymander, disenfranchise and underhandedly obtain and strangle the Democratic election process. You need to have two Repubs on every ballot alone for a while until the bile in voter’s mouths becomes unbearable and equity is demanded.

    Reply
    1. Springer

      The Dems here in the state to some degree and nationally to a great, great degree are singlehandedly strangling themselves. Until they can break free from the socialist, far left people who have taken over their party, they are doomed in SD. The GOP isn’t doing this; they are doing it all by themselves.

      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        I agree Springer….Dems fail to run candidates, thereby causing there to be no elections as the Republicans win by default or forfeit and the Dems scream NO FAIR! YOU THE VOTER ARE NOT GETTING AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE.

        Talk about creating a problem, then coming up with some BS to solve the non-existent problem.

        NO on V

        Reply
      2. Anonymous

        Now how are the Democrats going to implode the country so they can establish a Socialist Utopia if they break free from the Socialist, Freak fringe of the party; I’m not so sure that there are many non-Socialist, non-Freak folks in the Democrat party anymore; that mindset seems to be the norm for the party of Hillary and Liz Warren and Berned-out Sanders.

        Reply
    2. Anonymous

      Look at the number of registered Democrats to Republicans in South Dakota, Porter, and you will see why the socialists can’t win. We still believe, for the most part, in self-reliance, not an all-controlling government. Just because other states’ citizens have voted to give up liberty and freedom doesn’t mean South Dakota will. Underhanded is the Democrat’s choice of methodology from the top on down, so don’t try to act like the other side is vile because they don’t agree with an idiotic amendment.

      Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Democrats could not get anyone to join them…their numbers keep falling…they opened it up to try to get people to vote for their candidates….people want to vote for Republican candidates in this state which is clear by who they have chosen to vote for in the past overwhelmingly at all levels.

      I am voting NO on V

      Reply
        1. Anonymous

          They can’t get anyone to run for office, let alone enough for a primary contest….

          But it is a Republicans fault that they win by default….

          PLEASE……………………………………

          NO on V

          Reply
  6. Troy Jones

    I want a strong two-party system and have said since the beginning this was bad for all voters in general and worst for Democrats.

    If the Democrat party had endorsed it, it would be tantamount to waving a white flag before the voters AND removed any chance they could crawl back to having 1/3 of the legislature and be relevant.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Democrats have not taken a side on hardly anything in years….the only one I found on their website was against the 2 referred laws Heidelberger is pushing…

      You know your party is in a sad state when that crazy fool is what you look to for leadership….

      Reply
  7. Wax zippo

    This string is a long train of hypocritical, self-aggrandize do nose-wipers (save Porter). Dudes, your party got hijacked from under you. A ton of respected Republicans in Sioux Falls and Rapid City are climbing on board Amendment V. AARP and League of Women Voters endorsement was huge. And today the Daily Republic endorses it. Thune and DD are hitting the panic button. Watching this monarchy crack is going to be great theater.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.