Why do you support the primary that you have chosen?
-
Recent Posts
Tags
1972 2008 2012 2013 2014 2016 Ads Barack Obama Barry Goldwater Campaigns Centralists Congress Congressman Conservatism Conservative Constitution Party Debates Decentralists Democrat Democratic Party Dwight Eisenhower Economics Economy Election Elections Electoral College Federalism Foreign Policy Gary Johnson General Political Science George HW Bush George McGovern GOP Governor Green Party Hillary Clinton House of Representatives Independent Jill Stein Liberal Liberalism Libertarian Libertarianism Libertarian Party local Lyndon Johnson Media Midterm Mitt Romney nomination Political Communication Political Ideology Political Parties Political Socialization Politics Polling Presidency President Primaries primary Republican Republican Party Richard Nixon Rocky Anderson Ronald Reagan Roseanne Barr Secretary of State Socialist Third Parties third party United States Senate US Senate Vice-President Virgil Goode VotingArchives
- May 2015 (4)
- April 2015 (16)
- March 2015 (16)
- February 2015 (16)
- January 2015 (12)
- December 2014 (9)
- November 2014 (16)
- October 2014 (16)
- September 2014 (12)
- August 2014 (12)
- July 2013 (25)
- June 2013 (20)
- May 2013 (22)
- April 2013 (21)
- March 2013 (20)
- February 2013 (20)
- January 2013 (23)
- December 2012 (21)
- November 2012 (22)
- October 2012 (21)
- September 2012 (20)
- August 2012 (2)
Politics Matters 
Top 2 is better than the other ones, because once people have voted and they choice there candidates it is obvious that those two candidates should go on. Another reason why I support Top 2 is because I think it is easy, simple, fast and to the point. You pick the two with the most votes and done.
I am only very familiar with an open and closed primary but I believe that, from other research, Top 2 is the best. Top 2 is simple and there is no room for confusion. Sure, only two out of possibly five or six are selected but the two that are chosen are the best by the majority.
I support the top 2, because I enjoy waiting till the end of the election, after all of the other candidates have been eliminated and they have narrowed down all of the candidates. For me, it is more exciting, I prefer to only keep track of the final two. In the last election, I only paid attention to the news on Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
I support the “top two” because once the candidates have been narrowed down, the final two advance regardless of their party affiliation. This means that a political party does not have a guaranteed spot on the general elections. There should be emphasis in getting their points across and making sure that what they stand for is understood by the public. Hopefully this will result in less bashing of each other and more focus on getting what they stand for out to the public.
I think the top two is better, because it is just between two candidates that received the most votes. I think it helps a lot to vote for the person without knowing their party affiliation. People aren’t pressured to vote for the democratic candidate or another candidate because they won’t know what party they are from. Also, it is quick and easy and a lot of people like that. People have busy schedules and lives, and when the top two that have the most votes go on, it saves a lot of time.
Yes i think the top 2 is best ay to go. The reason why is because they way primaries in Chicago i believe there are open. Which in a way is affirmative action type of deal for example the has to be a Reb against a Dem. Which may not always provide the best candidates. Election example for the 2008 elections Hilary vs Obama everyone new that was the race; whom ever won would historic president. That was to be the case; Obama against McCain wasn’t really close. the real competition was Hilary vs Barack to represent Democratic party for president.
I would prefer to see an open election. I am sick and tired only seeing 2 lying parties take votes and do absolutely nothing to help out the public or the comunities that voted for them. Let everyone have a fair chance at making a difference in the country. yes top 2 candidates makes it a more popular race but at that point its a game of popularity, slander and money and we already have plenty of that.
I think open is the best way to go. It gets old when there only just the top two condidates and you have to vote for one or the other. I think in the open it gives more of a chance for change and gives people more choices to choose from. Sometimes its like voting for bad or for worse and you have to choose one of them.
I think the top 2 is better because it is between the 2 candidates with the highest amount of votes. In a top 2 election people are not voting based which political party they are apart of. A top 2 election is the simplest way to go.
Open primary elections are the best way to go. The public could use an election where they get to listen to more than just one person from either of the two most dominate parties (who are probably both full of it), republican or democratic, and get the chance to change their opinion or even form an opinion at all. This way, the people are not forced to choose between two candidates they may not care for, and another party’s candidate gets a chance to at least be heard, which in itself is beneficial to the candidate, as well as beneficial to his or her party for the next election.
open is the best way to go because everyone can vote for who they want. They dont have to be stuck with the same old two parties as usuall in a top two. They have options, And when they dont have the option they want they usually just dont vote.
An open primary is the most fair method of collecting votes. By not requiring the voter to disclose his party affiliation at DL registration, it keeps political party preferences anonymous until the voting day comes. By keeping it anonymous until it is actually needed, political party discrimination is for the most part avoided. It must be scary for candidates to not have people required to vote for whatever political party they registered with before. It makes sense why some candidates would prefer closed primaries, but that is only from a candidates perspective. I have not understood the reason for the existence of closed primaries since the day we learned about the different types.
I think the top 2 is the best way to go. It really helps everyone focus only on two groups rather than numerous candidates. It is much simplier for everyone.
An open primary election system seems to be the most fair way for the voters to praticipate in. It doesn’t require pre-registration for a specific party and you get to choose which party you’d like to vote for at that time. Sure, your ballot only has one political party on it, but you only get one vote and it has to be for one party. If you chose to vote for a different party this election than the last, this system makes it much easier to do.
The top 2 is the best selection because it keeps the united states in tact and get the person they want in their own party and get to go head to head with another person. It is nice easy way to keep the voting simple for the people to keep up with voting.
The people have a choice to even vote the person to represent the party, then gets to chose them one on one againest the rival party
I think top 2 is a better choice because it makes the process easier. The voters pick the top two choices that they feel would both be good candidates. My thought is choose the top one pick you want as a candidate and think about your second choice that has similar aspects. It makes the process easier to choose, makes the process easier, less confusing about which candidates are going on and which are being eliminated. Overall I just believe this top 2 is easier all around for everyone.
I like the idea of the open primaries because it gives people room to vote. It doesnt require the voter to be strict and just choose on one candidate.If you choose to pick a different party then the last election then this type of primary gives you the right to do so. You have to just give one vote to one party. So if the voter doesnt alwasy agree with one candidate they have the right to vote for who they want and this type of primary gives you the ability to do so.
I like the open primaries because people do not have to stick with voting with the same party. People change their minds on parties sometimes because of the candidate. It doesn’t make people feel tied down to one party all the time and we like the freedom of being able to vote for whoever you want to, based on the candidate, not the party.
I’d say top 2 because it’s the best way to generally see whose got the most support and why. Besides that, it’s easy and clean-cut. Not everyone has time to go into detail about every candidate.
I like “Top 2” because its more straight forward and right to the point. The process becomes easier & less confusing. While on the other hand, the majority votes on what political party their apart of. Overall, in my opinion SIMPLE is better.
I think top 2 is the best because you are narrowing it down to only two candidates. With more than 2 candidates it gets confusing. I feel like with 3 or more candidates less people will vote. Comparing only two candidates is the easiest way possible to me.
I prefer the Open primary election, because it narrows down how many candidates could be chosen before an election for office. Also, the voter could choose any party regardless of his own party affiliation. Furthermore, i think this form of election could actually increases voters participation by choosing the party they want at each election.
I support the Top 2 Election because things get intense. The top 2 candidate go more in depth with their ideas and plans and that’s what i look for before making my choice. I just rather wait for the top 2 candidates and then based my choice on who i think is more qualified.
I support the top 2 election because it is the simplest. Also the top 2 process eliminates all the unworthy candidates. So in the end the most qualified candidates are worthy for your vote.
I haven’t been very familiar with top 2 primary’s. After doing some research I think that is the way I would go. It makes it more interesting and somewhat much more easy to keep tabs on the candidates. I also think that is much more fair than the other types of primaries.
I would have to go with the top two becuase it is much easier when it comes to voting time. People can just go in and vote, instead of having to go through a long list and think about who they want to vote for.It makes the process a whole lot easier.
I agree with an open primary. A top two is easy and convenient but it is not fair. Multiple parties should be available and have the same chances to win as a top two or any other primary. An open primary allows for more diversity, instead of two candidates battling opposing views. The more, the merrier.
I believe having a top 2 isn’t fair. Candidates dedicate too much time and money to just be dropped so early. An open primary seems fair to all individuals.
I picked a open primary because I would like to see things done a little less traditional. I also feel like having an open primary gives the race a lot more suspense with more then two candidates. Lastly I believe that if gives a equal opportunity to all candidates.
The top 2, would have to be my choice mainly because those are the ones who are more publicly talked about then any other. The most popular therefor the most seen and read about which naturally grab my attention.