Sponsored by

Comments on

Libertarian, Green parties: Prop 121 would put us out of business

It’s already an uphill battle for Libertarian and Green party candidates in Arizona, but no matter what they have a place on the ballot. However, leaders of both parties say Proposition 121 threatens to butt them out of elections for good.... Read more»

have your say   

4 comments on this story

1
1770 comments
Oct 18, 2012, 1:48 pm
-0 +0

I have heard both Democrips and Rebloodlicans oppose this measure. Any measure that they’re both against must be worth serious consideration.

I am not going to comment one way or the other on the Libertarian Party. But, as to the Green party…they come up with candidates like Dave Croteau and Mary DeCamp, and then ask to be taken seriously enough to engage in debates? Really? Candidates like that are a hindrance to the third-party movement, and the less opportunities they have to embarrass our community the better.

As an independent, I like the top two. I refuse to change my registration just to vote in a primary, because I don’t want to participate in the harmful two-party-politic crap. This will give me better choices, and reduce the likelihood that someone will be on the general ballot unopposed.

A top-two system might also wake up this sleeping, brain-dead electorate that exists here in Southern Arizona. We all know that under the current system, most of them just go numb as soon as they see the big “D” at the end of a candidate’s name. And, in far too many cases, the voter’s brain goes even more dead when they see a HIspanic surname on the ballot in front of that “D”. But, let’s examine some current and recent races, shall we?

Last year, 2011, one of the many tragedies that happened in the City Council elections was that ReHEEEEEEeeeeeeEEEEEEEEeeeeeeEEEEEEEEna Romero ran unopposed in the general because, for some reason I still don’t understand, the Repubs didn’t field a candidate there. But, if we had the top two, ALL voters, not just Dems, would have had a choice between Romero and Flores. The Democratic party’s attempts to sabotage Flores would have been irrelevant. Romero is so bad that even a lot of Dems-and most independents (remember that we indies now outnumber the Dems in Arizona) see that she has to go. Had the whole City of Tucson had a choice between Flores and Romero in the last general election, it is very possible that she would be gone now. And, of course, that’s better for our whole community.

Perhaps the top-two can finally end the embarrassment and harm of having Grijalva in office. Perhaps a fellow democrat can get him out of there, if that’s what it takes. I legitimately think we would be better off with a potted plant in that office then Grijalva…at least the plant would keep it’s mouth shut.

2
10 comments
Oct 18, 2012, 11:40 pm
-1 +1

A YES Vote for Prop 121 is a vote for all voters of Arizona.

A YES for 121 will allow:

1.  All voters to have EQUAL ACCESS to be placed on all
    ballots.

2.  All voters to have EQUAL ACCESS to vote all ballots.

3.  All political parties to work hard to support issues and
    candidates that support their ideas and beliefs.

Its true that the Libertarians, Green and other small parties
have had to work harder than the “big” parties…and now if
121 passes the small parties will now have the advantage
over the “big” parties….because the small parties are use
to working hard for their candidates/issues.

Good Luck to the voters , the parties, and the YES vote for
121.

3
1 comments
Oct 19, 2012, 7:55 am
-1 +1

To FrankHenry and BretLinden: These same argument were offered in support of CA’s prop 14 but they have not delivered.  Meanwhile in WA where TopTwo has been in effect longer the minor parties, and the ideas they contribute to the discussion, have been virtually silenced.

There are real reforms which can be instituted without harming alternative voices.  These include instant runoff (ranked choice) voting and proportional representation.  Top Two sounds good but it doesn’t deliver.  We need to hear more voices not less and Top Two will silence all but two voices during the important general election period.

Please visit http://www.fairvote.org for more information.

4
1770 comments
Oct 19, 2012, 9:34 am
-1 +0

@junegenis

I could be inclined to agree with you…if I didn’t live in Southern Arizona. Before I rant here, keep in mind that, as of last year (or the year before) There are more Republicans than anyone else, then independents, then Democrats, in that order. Yes, even we indies outnumber the Dems. OK, here we go with my rant…

Grijalva is slovenly and unkempt, and called for an economic boycott of his own state during an economic crisis, and he gets reelected. Does that sound right to you?

The City Council has mismanaged millions. $230 million disappeared under the guise of Rio Nuevo, and they insist on building a choo choo train while thousands of potholes go unfilled…yet every incumbent who ran last election got reelected. Does that sound right to you?

Considering what I told you about the voter split before this rant…Democrats have a stranglehold on this region, despite them being the state’s minority party even behind indies. Does that sound right to you?

What the City Council, Grijalva, and also Dupnik and Barber conclusively and abundantly show us is that whatever we’re doing now with elections isn’t working. When what you’re doing isn’t working, you try something else. We need to try something else…ANYTHING else. The Top Two is something else.

Again, I’ll concede it is not an ideal system, but what we’re doing now is obviously horribly broken, and I’ll take pretty much anything over our current system.

Sorry, we missed your input...

You must be logged in or register to comment

Click to enlarge

Natasha Khan/Cronkite News Service

Warren Severin, chairman of Arizona’s Libertarian Party, says Proposition 121′s plan to eliminate partisan primaries in favor of a single primary for all candidates would hurt third parties.

Categories

news, politics & government, local, arizona, breaking, Cronkite News
Sponsored by

Top Commenters

  • Bret Linden: 1767
  • Dylan Smith: 553
  • Cactus Dave: 339
  • buddhaboy: 316
  • Roberto De Vido: 270
  • EllieMae: 193
  • Brittanicus: 176
  • Quietwoman2: 172
  • TucsonGirl: 116
  • janamg: 88
Sponsored by

Yes!

I want to help TucsonSentinel.com offer a real news alternative!

We're committed to making quality news accessible; we'll never set up a paywall or charge for our site. But we rely on your support to bring you independent news without the spin. Use our convenient PayPal/credit card donation form below or contact us at donate@tucsonsentinel.com today.

Subscribe and stretch your donation over time:

$10/mo. Cub Reporter
$15/mo. Printer's Devil
$20/mo. Stringer
$40/mo. Correspondent
$50/mo. Senior Correspondent
Enter your own monthly amount (number only)

Or give a secure one-time gift with PayPal or your credit card:

$5,000 Newshound
$2,500 Trusted Source
$1,000 Copy Desk Chief
$500 Correspondent
$250 Stringer
$100 Printer's Devil
$50 Cub reporter
$25 Informed Source
$10 Dear Reader
Enter your own amount (below)

TucsonSentinel.com is an Arizona nonprofit organization. Your contribution is tax-deductible.

User Guidelines

Please be respectful and relevant. Thought-provoking. Or at least funny.

We want comments to advance the discussion and we need your help. Debate, disagree, yell (digitally) or laugh, but do it with respect.

We won't censor your comments if we don't agree with you; we want viewpoints from across the political spectrum. We're dedicated to sparking an open, active discussion. We believe people with differing opinions can spark debate and effect change.

Comments are open to registered users of TucsonSentinel.com.

Keep in mind:

  • A conversation involves sharing and respect. Support your viewpoint with facts, not attacks.
  • Ask questions. Search out answers.
  • Remember that being part of a community requires tolerance for differing views.
  • We can't ensure that all comments are based in truth. The only comments we endorse are those we write ourselves.

TucsonSentinel.com does not allow:

  • Hate speech. Blatantly racist, sexist or homophobic slurs or calls for violence against a particular type of person, etc. will be removed.
  • Obscenity & excessive cursing. Sometimes a well-placed curse word - if you're creative enough to get it past our auto-censor - can express your point in just the right way. But we say '%*$& no' to cursing for cursing's sake. And lose the explicit sexually-descriptive language. It doesn't contribute to the debate and there are plenty of other places on the Internet to find it.
  • Flaming. During a heated discussion, unkind words may be spoken. We can live with a certain amount of rudeness in the name of provocative conversation, but a pattern of personal attacks (name-calling, mocking, or baiting) is not acceptable nor are threatening or harassing comments. Show some respect, please.
  • Explicit political endorsements. As a nonprofit we can't allow electioneering. Analysis and explanation of political issues and candidates are encouraged, but specific calls to vote for or against a measure or politician should be done elsewhere.
  • Spam. Solicitation of products or services isn't allowed; contact us about advertising, we'd love to talk to you. Links to off-topic sites may be deleted.
  • Copyright or IP infringement. Lengthy quotes and violations of 'Fair Use' aren't allowed. Anything you post should be your own work.
  • Overposting. Don't bore people and waste electrons with identical comments on multiple stories or repetitive comments that don't advance a conversation.
  • Trolling, sockpuppetry, and other abusive behavior. Please don't feed the trolls and don't pretend to be someone you're not.
  • Gossip. Don't bring up others who can't defend themselves. We don't give out personal information; you shouldn't either.

Comments that violate these guidelines may be removed. We reserve the right to make up the rules as we go along.

Flagging

Commentors are solely responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. Users who violate these standards may lose their privileges on TucsonSentinel.com.

Sentinel editors can't read every comment. Trolls, spammers and other troublemakers can slide under the bridge. We rely on you to help maintain a healthy conversation - more than likely, you're reading these comments before the editors.

What if you see something inappropriate? Use the 'Flag' button to send it to a moderation queue. Help us out and tell us why you're reporting it; please don't report someone just because you disagree with them. Boy who cried wolf and all that. We'll take appropriate action on violations.

We will not edit comments to alter their meaning or censor comments because of political content.

We will not remove comments solely because they are heartless, cruel, coarse, foolish or just plain wrong. Your disapproval can maintain a decent signal to noise ratio. Ultimately, however, self-policing is the best method.

Bottom line, don't be a jerk.

Sponsored by

Sign up for TucsonSentinel.com email newsletters!

Sponsored by
find us on facebook
Sponsored by
Sponsored by
Sponsored by