• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

No Spoilers! Run-Offs coming to Virginia?

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Well, not quite the Jungle Primary I've discussed here before, but it seems Delegates Lingamfelter and Cole would like a clear mandate (50% +1) for a general election. The bill proposed does nothing for primaries. There's a need for that, too.

Also, I think that if this is a good idea, then it ought to apply to all constitutional offices, all the way down to the local level, such as Sheriff or Clerk of the the Court.

Still, this would deal with a complaint I'm tired of seeing: that Sarvis, or some other alternative, is merely a spoiler.

HB 1362 Elections; run-off elections.
Elections; run-off elections.
Provides that no candidate shall be deemed to have been elected at a general election to any statewide office or the United States Senate unless such candidate receives more than 50 percent of the total votes cast for that office. The bill requires that when no candidate for an office receives more than 50 percent of the total votes cast at the general election for that office, a run-off election between the candidates receiving the highest and next-highest number of votes for that office shall be held. However, no run-off election shall be held if the total number of write-in votes cast for an office and the total number of votes cast for the candidate receiving the highest number of votes for an office together equal more than 50 percent of the total votes cast for that office. The bill requires run-off elections to be held on the fourth Tuesday following the date of the certification of the results of the general election or, if a recount is conducted after the general election, on the fourth Tuesday following the date of the certification of the results of the recount, unless the fourth Tuesday falls on a legal holiday, in which the case the run-off election will be held on the sixth Tuesday. The bill provides that all other elections, including a general election of electors for the President and Vice-President of the United States, the person having the highest number of votes for an office shall be deemed to have been elected to such office and shall receive the certificate of election. Under current law, except in the case of a recount, the person having the most votes cast at any election shall be deemed to have been elected to that office.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
I was wondering how long it would be before someone noticed this bill!

I think I like it, it gives the third party candidates the opportunity to show up and run a campaign (they now only have to come in second to call it a "win"), and yes, it eliminates spoilers.

We've been assured all along that these Libertarian candidates do not necessarily spoil the pro-gun candidates (few people actually believe this, of course...) Now we will have the opportunity to see who these spoilers really affect the most: Watch and see which party puts up the most opposition to this bill. That will tell you who is helped the most by these third party candidates. Their free ride to victories may soon be over.

TFred
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
I was wondering how long it would be before someone noticed this bill!

I think I like it, it gives the third party candidates the opportunity to show up and run a campaign (they now only have to come in second to call it a "win"), and yes, it eliminates spoilers.

We've been assured all along that these Libertarian candidates do not necessarily spoil the pro-gun candidates (few people actually believe this, of course...) Now we will have the opportunity to see who these spoilers really affect the most: Watch and see which party puts up the most opposition to this bill. That will tell you who is helped the most by these third party candidates. Their free ride to victories may soon be over.

TFred

" ...to show up..." -- and that can now include any and all televised debates. I'm tired of the Elite Oligarchy shutting out alternate candidates from debates. Enough of that.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
I was wondering how long it would be before someone noticed this bill!

I think I like it, it gives the third party candidates the opportunity to show up and run a campaign (they now only have to come in second to call it a "win"), and yes, it eliminates spoilers.

We've been assured all along that these Libertarian candidates do not necessarily spoil the pro-gun candidates (few people actually believe this, of course...)

TFred

TFred I have read your posting three times and it just doesn't make sense. For every election with a Libertarian candidate running, the Libertarian is the reliable pro gun candidate. How exactly does a libertarian candidate running spoil the candidacy of a Libertarian?
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
TFred I have read your posting three times and it just doesn't make sense. For every election with a Libertarian candidate running, the Libertarian is the reliable pro gun candidate. How exactly does a libertarian candidate running spoil the candidacy of a Libertarian?
You know the answer to that as well as I and everyone else reading here.

The only reason it doesn't "make sense" to you is that you refuse to admit that no third party has ever yet presented a candidate that has a credible chance to win.

Who cares if the third party is more pro-gun. You can promise the world, but when you never have a chance to win, you end up with nothing - or worse, the staunchly anti-gun candidate in office.

TFred

ETA: So I'm just curious, are you in favor of this bill? Or opposed?
 
Last edited:

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
You know the answer to that as well as I and everyone else reading here.

The only reason it doesn't "make sense" to you is that you refuse to admit that no third party has ever yet presented a candidate that has a credible chance to win.

Who cares if the third party is more pro-gun. You can promise the world, but when you never have a chance to win, you end up with nothing - or worse, the staunchly anti-gun candidate in office.

TFred

ETA: So I'm just curious, are you in favor of this bill? Or opposed?
Yes I see we have the discredited lesser of two evils argument again.

There should be balance in the bill. If a party is strong enough to cause a runoff, then the State Board of elections should recognize the party.

Many active duty who are deployed will be disenfranchised. Four weeks is too tight of a timeline to get ballot requests from a ship to aregistrar, have the registrar process and mail the ballot, have the ballot go from Virginia to the ship at sea, have the serviceman mark the ballot, then have the ballot go from the ship back to the registrar.

I also do not like that absentee votes are not counted, just assumed in the bill. All votes, including those of our active duty military should be counted.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Yes I see we have the discredited lesser of two evils argument again.

There should be balance in the bill. If a party is strong enough to cause a runoff, then the State Board of elections should recognize the party.

Many active duty who are deployed will be disenfranchised. Four weeks is too tight of a timeline to get ballot requests from a ship to aregistrar, have the registrar process and mail the ballot, have the ballot go from Virginia to the ship at sea, have the serviceman mark the ballot, then have the ballot go from the ship back to the registrar.

I also do not like that absentee votes are not counted, just assumed in the bill. All votes, including those of our active duty military should be counted.
Computer generated voting is IMO a potential solution.
 
Top