The Amendment H – SD Open Primaries group has a new ad up, tagging off of Saturday’s SDSU Game where that team from Vermillion is going to make an appearance:
The Amendment H – SD Open Primaries group has a new ad up, tagging off of Saturday’s SDSU Game where that team from Vermillion is going to make an appearance:
No one is prevented from voting in a primary election now. If you want to vote for a certain candidate, make sure you are registered in that party. After the election, you can change registration back to independent or either party. This ad is disingenuous.
Sounds like a barrier or undue hardship for me to exercise my right to vote. Would you be willing to apply the same hoops for all of our rights?
what hoop? You have to register to vote, just check off a box for an actual party.
You don’t have to pay dues or go to meetings, all you have to do is check off a box when you register.
Why is that so difficult? Is your finger broken?
Well that’s kind of the theme in campaign ads, isn’t it? The other side of this saying “don’t California our South Dakota”, as if that’s the only other state to use this method, or suggesting that’s the reason for California’s problems is just as disingenuous. Sadly, it’s the way it works. Manipulate through fear, anger, and vague half truths. I’ll vote for it because the extremists that get supported in the primaries are going to ruin the state’s government. I’m confident this measure will lead to moderation.
I’m pretty sure if you vote for Amendment H, that means fentanyl will be delivered to every child in SD, by their teacher, right after their sex change operation, without parental notice. Hope you are all happy about that…..
Why are we putting this in the constitution? Bad idea. On that alone it fails.
Maybe it wouldn’t need to be in the Constitution if the legislature or the governor bothered to respect Initiated Measures. But they don’t, so we need to do this to put them in their place.
It’s good to see this one circling the drain.
The issue might have some merits, but why put it in the constitution? If we find out we hate this in 8 years it’s not easy to change, South Dakotans should vote no for that very reason alone.
Because the legislature messes with IMs to suit *their* wishes and not the voters’. If something is horrible then it’s just as easy to remove something than it is to add it, right?
So, elections are only fair if Jackrabbit fans can vote on who the quarterback for USD is and vice versa? That’s what Amendment H is really trying to do here.
The ads are beyond disingenuous. They’re down right lying to get votes.
They started with a point for discussion, but now it’s just dumping out of state money on one big lie after another.
H no!
This is the best and simplest explanation of Amendment H that I have seen. Thank you!
Then pay for your own primaries.
Run your own candidates.
Completely avoided the point. Nice try. Want your own candidates? Pay for the primaries yourselves.
Completely avoided the point…so says Mr. Pot.
You’ve got enough to worry about with your county gops going rogue. You get a handle on that and this wouldn’t even be an issue to consider.
BINGO!
If GOP wants a closed primary then it can pay for it. However, given the Chairman’s “stellar” fundraising this year, that wouldn’t be a possibility.
Says the whiny party boss.
SD could be in for a rough time if H fails and the legislature gets further out of touch with SD voters.
Independents should not have to change their party affiliation each time they want to vote in a primary. I am a registered Republican ONLY because I want to be able to vote in primaries and, to me, that is disingenuous. If I ran for office, I would get crucified as having “lied” about my party affiliation when it becomes clear my views are more aligned with the independent party than the republican party. But yet this is where we are as a state if I want my vote to count.
The Republican party could have solved this issue years ago by allowing independents to vote in their primary. In some states, Independents can choose which primary to vote in. Seems like a simpler solution that the Republicans dropped the ball on…
Yes to everything said here.
Thank you for registering Republican. That is the price of admission to vote for the GOP candidates.
The “price” should come for your pockets if you demand only your party votes. Then your party pays.
Republicans, Democrats etc all have the opportunity to run candidates on the ballot in June. That’s why it’s paid for by the state.
The opportunity is for the candidates and the voters not for the parties.
Individual voters just vote.
The GOP rejected independents voting in the primaries in 2009 because we didn’t want non party members deciding who our candidates should be.
It sounds like the dems are tired if it also. It’s hurt their brand.
Dems might have a higher number of regiatered voters in SD if the I’s had to commit to a party to vote in their primaries for President…. oh wait dems don’t need primaries for President because they don’t care about democracy
I am an independent because I choose not to affiliate with either party. I understand that means I have no say in their nominees and accept it.
This bill is bad as its most significant impact is Independants will lose the option to run in the general election without first running in the primary. Unlike Republicans and Democrats who have the built in advantage of organization and money, no independent can sustain two elections.
Not with that attitude they won’t. You find someone motivated enough, they’ll do just fine in the new system Debbie Downer.
Amendment H takes away choices in November election.
I will give voters fewer choices.
Nope it will lead to BETTER choices in November.
How will it lead to better choices in November? It turns the primary into a general election.
Top two in a contested race go on to the general, and if the votes were not close in June, the 2nd one will probably drop out..
By November the top vote getter will be unopposed so that race won’t even be on the ballot…unless the dropout is replaced.
And if a candidate does drop out after the primary, who goes on to the general? A replacement candidate from the dropout’s party, or the third person who ran in the primary? What if there wasn’t one?
Top two brings two popular candidates together in the general. The people of SD get what they want. Not a bad system. Better than one where 17% decide most elections.
It’s going to keep the most extremists out. The more moderate and reasonable candidates are going to make it to the general. If a whakadoodle does make it to the general, the other side of the aisle isn’t going to vote for them, so the moderate will win. It isn’t going to shift power from one party to another. Republican controlled districts are going to likely stay that way and vice versa, but at least we won’t have illiterate crazies representing the district. In many districts, the dems don’t even bother to run anyone, making the primary essentially the election. I think there quite a few republicans that would vote for a democrat rather than be represented by some of these nuts. They are going to hurt the party more than help it.
You are delusional to think your scenario will come to fruition. But I do appreciate your honesty to admit you are for anything other than the current system as you don’t like what is coming from the current system right now. Just know that is illogical, it is not sound reasoning. It’s just hoping you get lucky and it changes outcomes because you changed the rules.
Just remember the people you don’t like see your motives and will be more unified and enthused to vote. It’s because of people like you that these “wackadoodles” are likely the majority in your party or will be in the next election, a responsibility you are too dense to ever recognize.
They aren’t as crazy as you think. They just think you are corrupt.
When it doesn’t turn out as you hope, are you going to admit your mistake or are you going to double down?
You just said his position was illogical and never said why. You said it would never work out and never stated your logic. Not at all surprising, given that you are full of it.
First, being for anything other than the current system as you don’t like what is coming from the current system right now is illogical and unsound reasoning.
Second, he presumes too much about Independents regarding who they will support in primaries, what their philosophy is, how they feel about those this person thinks are wackadoodles and who he thinks are not wackadoodles.
Third, he also has no clue why who he calls wackadoodles will soon become a highly motivated and enthused majority in your party.
P.S. I’m an Independent which in and of itself is an expression of repugnance toward the establishment and anti establishment of both parties.
What, precisely is unsound about the modifying effects of top two primaries?
https://schwarzenegger.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/images/files/Grose_JPIPE_June_2020_Preprint_Official_Article.pdf
I see this person didn’t want to address a peer reviewed rebuttal of their bs claim. Shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
The whackadoodles are motivated and they came out to vote in the primary and apparently were the majority in some districts. The majority of 17% of the voters. They are nowhere near the majority of the party. I’m neither illogical nor delusional. I’m sure there are independents that support extremists just like members of the other two parties. I just believe they are the minority and need to stay that way.
The fact you think everyone who you don’t like is extremists and wackadoodles is why you will soon be a minority in your party. A lack of self awareness and arrogance is vey unbecoming.
I don’t think there is honestly any debate over whether or not these people are extremists. Their tactics are identical to those employed by the farthest left. They are unquestionably on the far, extreme right of the spectrum. The fact that you seem to be celebrating this is what is scary and “unbecoming “.
He didn’t say that about everyone who disagreed with him, you disingenuous goon. There is a large contingent of South Dakota crazies who think the election was stolen, 5G brain control, chemtrails, and accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being child groomers/communists/ a million other accusations. We don’t have to be respectful to such dipshits.
Two taxpayer funded elections in 2024. 75% turnout for one and 17% for the other. Obviously, something is wrong with the 17% one.
Yeah, the 17 percent election didn’t have Trump on the ballot. You will never get 2 elections in 4 years to have presidential election turnout.
The so called jungle primary will make it very expensive to run for office and may preclude many from even getting in the race. Remember, you will essentially be running to general elections, one in June and one in November. That will get expensive.
Expensive for bad candidates. Not good ones
You sound like a donor who like controlling things.
It should cost the same. You should have to run in the primary and then run in the general. That’s what you should budget. The current system allows candidates to get off cheap, often only having to run in the primary. There should be choice in every election. This guarantees that.