Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Play Stock Market Games
Fantasy Stock Picking Contest

Investments > Investing Science > Re: Pro****tion...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 15 of 16 Topic 15057 of 17912
Post > Topic >>

Re: Pro****tional & Preferential Voting Systems

by "Sean" <hu_me@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Mar 19, 2008 at 12:22 PM

After Supreme Court ruling, Top 2 primary OK'd for August
By DAVID AMMONS

AP Political Writer

A surprise U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding Wa****ngton's
voter-approved 
Top 2 primary system was hailed as a big victory for average voters over
the 
political parties.

But party leaders said they still have legal leverage and will continue to

fight for their rights.

"Wow!" Secretary of State Sam Reed said when he heard of the court's 
decision from The Associated Press. "That's terrific! It means the people
of 
the state of Wa****ngton are going to be able to control who gets elected 
through this process."

-----

The ruling means the state will dump the unpopular "pick-a-party" primary
it 
has used for the past four years while the voter-approved Top 2 initiative

was being challenged in court by the political parties.

In its place will be something akin to the old "blanket primary" that was 
abolished previously by the federal courts. The ballot will list all 
candidates for each office and a voter will be able to pick his or her 
favorite, with ticket-splitting allowed.

The top two vote getters then will advance to the general election in 
November, even if they are from the same party. Had the system been in
place 
in 1996, for instance, the governor's November final would have been
between 
two Democrats, Gary Locke and Norm Rice, because both outpolled Republican

Ellen Craswell.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004290876_apscotusprimarylawsuitreax5thldwritethru.html
 




 16 Posts in Topic:
Progressivity of Water Costs
BretCahill@[EMAIL PROTECT  2008-03-16 19:55:40 
Re: Progressivity of Water Costs
<jjs>   2008-03-16 22:38:38 
Re: Progressivity of Water Costs
Immortalist <reanimate  2008-03-16 20:47:43 
Re: Progressivity of Water Costs
MichaelNJ@[EMAIL PROTECTE  2008-03-17 08:17:19 
Re: Progressivity of Water Costs
The Trucker <mikcob@[E  2008-03-17 09:19:59 
Re: Progressivity of Water Costs
"Sean" <hu_m  2008-03-18 04:06:17 
Re: Progressivity of Water Costs
BretCahill@[EMAIL PROTECT  2008-03-17 08:43:18 
Re: Progressivity of Water Costs
Fred Weiss <fredweiss@  2008-03-17 10:26:04 
Re: Progressivity of Water Costs
MichaelNJ@[EMAIL PROTECTE  2008-03-17 11:43:57 
Re: Progressivity of Water Costs
Wordsmith <wordsmith@[  2008-03-17 12:38:09 
Re: Progressivity of Water Costs
BretCahill@[EMAIL PROTECT  2008-03-17 14:23:18 
Re: Progressivity of Water Costs
BretCahill@[EMAIL PROTECT  2008-03-17 14:27:46 
Re: Progressivity of Water Costs
BretCahill@[EMAIL PROTECT  2008-03-17 14:30:38 
Re: Proportional & Preferential Voting Systems
"Sean" <hu_m  2008-03-18 13:58:43 
Re: Proportional & Preferential Voting Systems
"Sean" <hu_m  2008-03-19 12:22:39 
Re: Progressivity of Water Costs
MichaelNJ@[EMAIL PROTECTE  2008-03-17 14:44:12 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Wed Dec 3 23:18:56 CST 2008.