Eric Cantor loses to Tea Party.

[boneyard bill]

Just as establishment Republicans were gloating over their victories over the Tea Party, they have suddenly been faced with two stunning upsets. The first was in Mississippi where the Tea Party candidate, Chris McDaniel edged out incumbent Senator Thad Cochran in the first round of the Senate primary. McDaniel fell .4% short of the 50% mark, however, so Cochran still has a chance in the run-off, but challengers are usually favored in such circumstances.

But far more stunning was the defeat of Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader, by a little-known, Tea Party backed college professor. David Brat rolled up an impressive 55% of the vote against Cantor in a race that, apparently, Cantor expected to win even up to election night.

It wasn’t enough that Eric Cantor spent $1 million in the weeks leading up to the election, when his primary opponent hardly had $100,000 in his campaign coffers.

It didn’t matter that the House majority leader, 51, branded Dave Brat a liberal hack, and himself as the guardian of the Republican creed. On Tuesday night, Cantor, who was swept into the majority leader’s suite in a tea party wave, was swept out by the same movement.

Cantor conceded the race around 8:25 p.m. — shortly after the Associated Press pronounced Cantor’s 13-year political career at least temporarily over. With nearly 98 percent of precincts reporting, Brat had 55 percent of the vote, while Cantor had 44 percent. People close to Cantor said internal polls showed him hovering near 60 percent in the runup to the race

Cantor was expected to succeed Boehner as Speaker of the House and was generally considered to be a bit more conservative than the Boehner, but apparently it wasn't conservative enough for his Virginia constituents. Then again, this could be a straw in the wind for all candidates of either party who are too closely identified with the Washington establishment.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/...y-election-results-virginia-107683.html?hp=t1

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This is good in every way. It gets more crazies out into the spotlight so that the official GOP position is that they're fucking nuts and it forces the rest of the GOP to swing hard to the right and isolate themselves even further from the majority of the country.

Sure, it allows the Dems to cozy up even further with the corporate interests who openly bribe them at the expense of everyone else due to the "Ha ha, what the fuck are you sushi-eating, tree-hugging bitches going to do about? Vote for our opponents?" factor, but I'm a rich white guy so that doesn't actually put me out any.

 

[boneyard bill]

This is good in every way. It gets more crazies out into the spotlight so that the official GOP position is that they're fucking nuts and it forces the rest of the GOP to swing hard to the right and isolate themselves even further from the majority of the country.

Sure, it allows the Dems to cozy up even further with the corporate interests who openly bribe them at the expense of everyone else due to the "Ha ha, what the fuck are you sushi-eating, tree-hugging bitches going to do about? Vote for our opponents?" factor, but I'm a rich white guy so that doesn't actually put me out any.

But you have to worry about being too cozy to corporate interests as well. After all, they're part of the establishment, and Cantor wasn't noted for his distance from them either.

Cantor's district was suburban Richmond so he didn't exactly lose this battle in yahoo country. This is bad news for incumbents, but I would suggest that it is especially bad news for Democrat incumbents.

Meanwhile in North Carolina, where the establishment spent big to defeat the Tea Party guy, Walter Jones, their guy got blown away. Jones was running as a foreign policy non-interventionist in a district that included Camp Lejeune.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This is good in every way. It gets more crazies out into the spotlight so that the official GOP position is that they're fucking nuts and it forces the rest of the GOP to swing hard to the right and isolate themselves even further from the majority of the country.

Sure, it allows the Dems to cozy up even further with the corporate interests who openly bribe them at the expense of everyone else due to the "Ha ha, what the fuck are you sushi-eating, tree-hugging bitches going to do about? Vote for our opponents?" factor, but I'm a rich white guy so that doesn't actually put me out any.

But you have to worry about being too cozy to corporate interests as well. After all, they're part of the establishment, and Cantor wasn't noted for his distance from them either.

The GOP can go and fuck themselves. The entire party deserves to crash and burn. I was talking about how there's no downside for Dems cozying up to them, since the setup of the US electoral system means that you vote for one of the two main parties or you throw your vote away. If you're left wing, you hold your nose and be thankful for whatever pathetic scraps the Dems throw your way or you ... well, there really isn't a second thing.

 

[RavenSky]

Good... glad he lost. Absolutely loathed him. And if his opponent is as further hard right as reported, I'm hopeful the Dem challenger will win in the main election.

 

[J842P]

This is good in every way. It gets more crazies out into the spotlight so that the official GOP position is that they're fucking nuts and it forces the rest of the GOP to swing hard to the right and isolate themselves even further from the majority of the country.

Sure, it allows the Dems to cozy up even further with the corporate interests who openly bribe them at the expense of everyone else due to the "Ha ha, what the fuck are you sushi-eating, tree-hugging bitches going to do about? Vote for our opponents?" factor, but I'm a rich white guy so that doesn't actually put me out any.

But you have to worry about being too cozy to corporate interests as well. After all, they're part of the establishment, and Cantor wasn't noted for his distance from them either.

Cantor's district was suburban Richmond so he didn't exactly lose this battle in yahoo country. This is bad news for incumbents, but I would suggest that it is especially bad news for Democrat incumbents.

Meanwhile in North Carolina, where the establishment spent big to defeat the Tea Party guy, Walter Jones, their guy got blown away. Jones was running as a foreign policy non-interventionist in a district that included Camp Lejeune.

Actually, although part of the district encompasses the Richmond suburbs, the rest is "yahoo country" or "the real Virginia" if you will.

Honestly, the turnout was anemic, as it usually is for these things.

 

[J842P]

Good... glad he lost. Absolutely loathed him. And if his opponent is as further hard right as reported, I'm hopeful the Dem challenger will win in the main election.

That's unlikely, although it could happen if Cantor runs as a write-in. But I would be surprised if a Dem takes Virginia's 7th. That hasn't happened probably since the 70's or maybe even the 60's.

 

[RavenSky]

Good... glad he lost. Absolutely loathed him. And if his opponent is as further hard right as reported, I'm hopeful the Dem challenger will win in the main election.

That's unlikely, although it could happen if Cantor runs as a write-in. But I would be surprised if a Dem takes Virginia's 7th. That hasn't happened probably since the 70's or maybe even the 60's.

Then we've gone from the pan to the fire in that district. Just heard the Brat's acceptance speech... gag

 

[bilby]

This is good in every way. It gets more crazies out into the spotlight so that the official GOP position is that they're fucking nuts and it forces the rest of the GOP to swing hard to the right and isolate themselves even further from the majority of the country.

Sure, it allows the Dems to cozy up even further with the corporate interests who openly bribe them at the expense of everyone else due to the "Ha ha, what the fuck are you sushi-eating, tree-hugging bitches going to do about? Vote for our opponents?" factor, but I'm a rich white guy so that doesn't actually put me out any.

But you have to worry about being too cozy to corporate interests as well. After all, they're part of the establishment, and Cantor wasn't noted for his distance from them either.

Cantor's district was suburban Richmond so he didn't exactly lose this battle in yahoo country. This is bad news for incumbents, but I would suggest that it is especially bad news for Democrat incumbents.

Meanwhile in North Carolina, where the establishment spent big to defeat the Tea Party guy, Walter Jones, their guy got blown away. Jones was running as a foreign policy non-interventionist in a district that included Camp Lejeune.

Actually, although part of the district encompasses the Richmond suburbs, the rest is "yahoo country" or "the real Virginia" if you will.

Honestly, the turnout was anemic, as it usually is for these things.

See, that's the problem right there - low turnout means the crazies are the only ones who vote. Mouth-foaming loonies are a lot of things, but apathetic ain't one. So long as ordinary people don't vote - in Primaries, or in full-on elections - your politicians cannot help but become more and more insane, as they pursue the support of the only people they need to please - the people who turn out to vote.

The only solutions to this are either for the general public to be less apathetic, and to start turning out to vote (and we all know that won't happen); or for voting to be compulsory (which is even less likely to happen in the US).

Enjoy your lunatic run asylum folks. If it all gets too much, you can always try this, this or this.

 

[RavenSky]

Enjoy your lunatic run asylum folks. If it all gets too much, you can always try this, this or this.

It's too late for me, but that is exactly what I have been guiding my daughter towards for years. Part of our research for her choice of university degrees was how transferable they would be to Canada and other countries.

 

[boneyard bill]

Good... glad he lost. Absolutely loathed him. And if his opponent is as further hard right as reported, I'm hopeful the Dem challenger will win in the main election.

I think it's regarded as a safe Republican seat. From what I understand, his opponent had Tea Party support which suggests that he was pretty conservative but not necessarily so. The two litmus tests for the Tea Party are a balanced budget and strict construction of the constitution (although I think a number of Tea Party people flunk the second test when it comes to civil liberties). Eric Cantor accused him of being a "liberal hack" so he may have taken non-conservative positions on things like defense spending, civil liberties, or foreign policy. In other words, you've got Marco Rubio-type Tea Partiers, and you've got Rand Paul-type Tea Partiers. If David Brat was a Rand Paul type, then I could see where Cantor might call him a liberal hack.

I don't really know a whole lot about Cantor except that he was very pro-neocon and very pro-defense spending, and for those reasons I'm glad to see that he lost.

 

[Underseer]

This is good in every way. It gets more crazies out into the spotlight so that the official GOP position is that they're fucking nuts and it forces the rest of the GOP to swing hard to the right and isolate themselves even further from the majority of the country.

Sure, it allows the Dems to cozy up even further with the corporate interests who openly bribe them at the expense of everyone else due to the "Ha ha, what the fuck are you sushi-eating, tree-hugging bitches going to do about? Vote for our opponents?" factor, but I'm a rich white guy so that doesn't actually put me out any.

But you have to worry about being too cozy to corporate interests as well. After all, they're part of the establishment, and Cantor wasn't noted for his distance from them either.

[...]

Wait. After years of arguing for tax breaks, deregulation, and the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money bribing elected officials, now you complain about corporate influence? For fuck's sake, you and every other rightist argued and voted and sometimes even donated money to make this happen, and now that you've proven successful, you're going to complain about your own success? What did you think would be the result of everything you argued for?

Obligatory: what's so great about communism? Why do you hate America? Why do you hate our freedom? [/conservolibertarian]

 

[boneyard bill]

This is good in every way. It gets more crazies out into the spotlight so that the official GOP position is that they're fucking nuts and it forces the rest of the GOP to swing hard to the right and isolate themselves even further from the majority of the country.

Sure, it allows the Dems to cozy up even further with the corporate interests who openly bribe them at the expense of everyone else due to the "Ha ha, what the fuck are you sushi-eating, tree-hugging bitches going to do about? Vote for our opponents?" factor, but I'm a rich white guy so that doesn't actually put me out any.

But you have to worry about being too cozy to corporate interests as well. After all, they're part of the establishment, and Cantor wasn't noted for his distance from them either.

Cantor's district was suburban Richmond so he didn't exactly lose this battle in yahoo country. This is bad news for incumbents, but I would suggest that it is especially bad news for Democrat incumbents.

Meanwhile in North Carolina, where the establishment spent big to defeat the Tea Party guy, Walter Jones, their guy got blown away. Jones was running as a foreign policy non-interventionist in a district that included Camp Lejeune.

Actually, although part of the district encompasses the Richmond suburbs, the rest is "yahoo country" or "the real Virginia" if you will.

Honestly, the turnout was anemic, as it usually is for these things.

See, that's the problem right there - low turnout means the crazies are the only ones who vote. Mouth-foaming loonies are a lot of things, but apathetic ain't one. So long as ordinary people don't vote - in Primaries, or in full-on elections - your politicians cannot help but become more and more insane, as they pursue the support of the only people they need to please - the people who turn out to vote.

The only solutions to this are either for the general public to be less apathetic, and to start turning out to vote (and we all know that won't happen); or for voting to be compulsory (which is even less likely to happen in the US).

Enjoy your lunatic run asylum folks. If it all gets too much, you can always try this, this or this.

Exactly where do you discern the sanity in the people running things now?

 

[bilby]

This is good in every way. It gets more crazies out into the spotlight so that the official GOP position is that they're fucking nuts and it forces the rest of the GOP to swing hard to the right and isolate themselves even further from the majority of the country.

Sure, it allows the Dems to cozy up even further with the corporate interests who openly bribe them at the expense of everyone else due to the "Ha ha, what the fuck are you sushi-eating, tree-hugging bitches going to do about? Vote for our opponents?" factor, but I'm a rich white guy so that doesn't actually put me out any.

But you have to worry about being too cozy to corporate interests as well. After all, they're part of the establishment, and Cantor wasn't noted for his distance from them either.

Cantor's district was suburban Richmond so he didn't exactly lose this battle in yahoo country. This is bad news for incumbents, but I would suggest that it is especially bad news for Democrat incumbents.

Meanwhile in North Carolina, where the establishment spent big to defeat the Tea Party guy, Walter Jones, their guy got blown away. Jones was running as a foreign policy non-interventionist in a district that included Camp Lejeune.

Actually, although part of the district encompasses the Richmond suburbs, the rest is "yahoo country" or "the real Virginia" if you will.

Honestly, the turnout was anemic, as it usually is for these things.

See, that's the problem right there - low turnout means the crazies are the only ones who vote. Mouth-foaming loonies are a lot of things, but apathetic ain't one. So long as ordinary people don't vote - in Primaries, or in full-on elections - your politicians cannot help but become more and more insane, as they pursue the support of the only people they need to please - the people who turn out to vote.

The only solutions to this are either for the general public to be less apathetic, and to start turning out to vote (and we all know that won't happen); or for voting to be compulsory (which is even less likely to happen in the US).

Enjoy your lunatic run asylum folks. If it all gets too much, you can always try this, this or this.

Exactly where do you discern the sanity in the people running things now?

What part of my post suggested that I thought this was a new phenomenon?

 

[boneyard bill]

This is good in every way. It gets more crazies out into the spotlight so that the official GOP position is that they're fucking nuts and it forces the rest of the GOP to swing hard to the right and isolate themselves even further from the majority of the country.

Sure, it allows the Dems to cozy up even further with the corporate interests who openly bribe them at the expense of everyone else due to the "Ha ha, what the fuck are you sushi-eating, tree-hugging bitches going to do about? Vote for our opponents?" factor, but I'm a rich white guy so that doesn't actually put me out any.

But you have to worry about being too cozy to corporate interests as well. After all, they're part of the establishment, and Cantor wasn't noted for his distance from them either.

[...]

Wait. After years of arguing for tax breaks, deregulation, and the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money bribing elected officials, now you complain about corporate influence? For fuck's sake, you and every other rightist argued and voted and sometimes even donated money to make this happen, and now that you've proven successful, you're going to complain about your own success? What did you think would be the result of everything you argued for?

Obligatory: what's so great about communism? Why do you hate America? Why do you hate our freedom? [/conservolibertarian]

It was the Democrats who voted overwhelmingly for the TARP bail-out after Republicans had defeated it. It was Democrats who voted overwhelmingly to keep the Export-Import Bank when Republicans tried to abolish it. Of course we need to de-regulate because it is big business that writes the regulations, and they do so in their favor. But I'll give the Democrats some credit here. It was the Carter Administration that finally abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission. It was the Carter Administration that de-regulated the Savings & Loans. It was the Carter Administration that ended price controls on oil. And it was Ted Kennedy who led the fight to de-regulate the airlines. Those were all very good things.

The ICC was created way back in 1887 to regulate the railroads, and the first thing it did to protect the consumer was to INCREASE the price of railroad fares. It hasn't changed much since. When Ted Kennedy got his de-regulation of the airlines bill through Congress, airline fares plummeted. Almost all the airlines in operation back then have since gone bankrupt. They couldn't compete when they had to lower their fares. Government regulation is costing the consumer bundles.

 

[boneyard bill]

This is good in every way. It gets more crazies out into the spotlight so that the official GOP position is that they're fucking nuts and it forces the rest of the GOP to swing hard to the right and isolate themselves even further from the majority of the country.

Sure, it allows the Dems to cozy up even further with the corporate interests who openly bribe them at the expense of everyone else due to the "Ha ha, what the fuck are you sushi-eating, tree-hugging bitches going to do about? Vote for our opponents?" factor, but I'm a rich white guy so that doesn't actually put me out any.

But you have to worry about being too cozy to corporate interests as well. After all, they're part of the establishment, and Cantor wasn't noted for his distance from them either.

Cantor's district was suburban Richmond so he didn't exactly lose this battle in yahoo country. This is bad news for incumbents, but I would suggest that it is especially bad news for Democrat incumbents.

Meanwhile in North Carolina, where the establishment spent big to defeat the Tea Party guy, Walter Jones, their guy got blown away. Jones was running as a foreign policy non-interventionist in a district that included Camp Lejeune.

Actually, although part of the district encompasses the Richmond suburbs, the rest is "yahoo country" or "the real Virginia" if you will.

Honestly, the turnout was anemic, as it usually is for these things.

See, that's the problem right there - low turnout means the crazies are the only ones who vote. Mouth-foaming loonies are a lot of things, but apathetic ain't one. So long as ordinary people don't vote - in Primaries, or in full-on elections - your politicians cannot help but become more and more insane, as they pursue the support of the only people they need to please - the people who turn out to vote.

The only solutions to this are either for the general public to be less apathetic, and to start turning out to vote (and we all know that won't happen); or for voting to be compulsory (which is even less likely to happen in the US).

Enjoy your lunatic run asylum folks. If it all gets too much, you can always try this, this or this.

Exactly where do you discern the sanity in the people running things now?

What part of my post suggested that I thought this was a new phenomenon?

If you think the loonies get elected when the turn-out is low, it implies that you think non-loonies are getting elected when the turn-out is high.

 

[bilby]

This is good in every way. It gets more crazies out into the spotlight so that the official GOP position is that they're fucking nuts and it forces the rest of the GOP to swing hard to the right and isolate themselves even further from the majority of the country.

Sure, it allows the Dems to cozy up even further with the corporate interests who openly bribe them at the expense of everyone else due to the "Ha ha, what the fuck are you sushi-eating, tree-hugging bitches going to do about? Vote for our opponents?" factor, but I'm a rich white guy so that doesn't actually put me out any.

But you have to worry about being too cozy to corporate interests as well. After all, they're part of the establishment, and Cantor wasn't noted for his distance from them either.

Cantor's district was suburban Richmond so he didn't exactly lose this battle in yahoo country. This is bad news for incumbents, but I would suggest that it is especially bad news for Democrat incumbents.

Meanwhile in North Carolina, where the establishment spent big to defeat the Tea Party guy, Walter Jones, their guy got blown away. Jones was running as a foreign policy non-interventionist in a district that included Camp Lejeune.

Actually, although part of the district encompasses the Richmond suburbs, the rest is "yahoo country" or "the real Virginia" if you will.

Honestly, the turnout was anemic, as it usually is for these things.

See, that's the problem right there - low turnout means the crazies are the only ones who vote. Mouth-foaming loonies are a lot of things, but apathetic ain't one. So long as ordinary people don't vote - in Primaries, or in full-on elections - your politicians cannot help but become more and more insane, as they pursue the support of the only people they need to please - the people who turn out to vote.

The only solutions to this are either for the general public to be less apathetic, and to start turning out to vote (and we all know that won't happen); or for voting to be compulsory (which is even less likely to happen in the US).

Enjoy your lunatic run asylum folks. If it all gets too much, you can always try this, this or this.

Exactly where do you discern the sanity in the people running things now?

What part of my post suggested that I thought this was a new phenomenon?

If you think the loonies get elected when the turn-out is low, it implies that you think non-loonies are getting elected when the turn-out is high.

When was the last time you had an election with a high turnout in the US? You have to go back to 1968 to find a turnout greater than 60% in a US Federal poll; (with the sole exception of the 2008 Presidential ballot, where 61.6% of the adult population voted). You have to go back to 1970 to find a mid-term election with a turnout above 40%.

Our last federal election had a nationwide turnout of 93.23% (13,726,070 votes were cast out of 14,723,385 adult citizens enrolled to vote). Only the Northern Territory, where the remoteness of many voters from polling places tends to be an issue, was the turnout below 90% (82.22% of enrolled Territorians actually voted).

 

[boneyard bill]

This is good in every way. It gets more crazies out into the spotlight so that the official GOP position is that they're fucking nuts and it forces the rest of the GOP to swing hard to the right and isolate themselves even further from the majority of the country.

Sure, it allows the Dems to cozy up even further with the corporate interests who openly bribe them at the expense of everyone else due to the "Ha ha, what the fuck are you sushi-eating, tree-hugging bitches going to do about? Vote for our opponents?" factor, but I'm a rich white guy so that doesn't actually put me out any.

But you have to worry about being too cozy to corporate interests as well. After all, they're part of the establishment, and Cantor wasn't noted for his distance from them either.

Cantor's district was suburban Richmond so he didn't exactly lose this battle in yahoo country. This is bad news for incumbents, but I would suggest that it is especially bad news for Democrat incumbents.

Meanwhile in North Carolina, where the establishment spent big to defeat the Tea Party guy, Walter Jones, their guy got blown away. Jones was running as a foreign policy non-interventionist in a district that included Camp Lejeune.

Actually, although part of the district encompasses the Richmond suburbs, the rest is "yahoo country" or "the real Virginia" if you will.

Honestly, the turnout was anemic, as it usually is for these things.

See, that's the problem right there - low turnout means the crazies are the only ones who vote. Mouth-foaming loonies are a lot of things, but apathetic ain't one. So long as ordinary people don't vote - in Primaries, or in full-on elections - your politicians cannot help but become more and more insane, as they pursue the support of the only people they need to please - the people who turn out to vote.

The only solutions to this are either for the general public to be less apathetic, and to start turning out to vote (and we all know that won't happen); or for voting to be compulsory (which is even less likely to happen in the US).

Enjoy your lunatic run asylum folks. If it all gets too much, you can always try this, this or this.

Exactly where do you discern the sanity in the people running things now?

What part of my post suggested that I thought this was a new phenomenon?

If you think the loonies get elected when the turn-out is low, it implies that you think non-loonies are getting elected when the turn-out is high.

When was the last time you had an election with a high turnout in the US? You have to go back to 1968 to find a turnout greater than 60% in a US Federal poll; (with the sole exception of the 2008 Presidential ballot, where 61.6% of the adult population voted). You have to go back to 1970 to find a mid-term election with a turnout above 40%.

Our last federal election had a nationwide turnout of 93.23% (13,726,070 votes were cast out of 14,723,385 adult citizens enrolled to vote). Only the Northern Territory, where the remoteness of many voters from polling places tends to be an issue, was the turnout below 90% (82.22% of enrolled Territorians actually voted).

Given the high turn-out, you must be delighted with your conservative prime minister. Last I heard, Australia had compulsory voting so I imagine a lot of people do turn out to avoid having to pay a fine.

But seriously, the whole question of high and low turn-out is obviously a discussion of relative turn-out. And I suspect that where voting is not compulsory, the people who turn-out most loyally are also the people who are best informed. At least they're informed enough to know who they want to vote for. In Cantor's case, however, it may have been a matter of who they wanted to vote against.

 

[Blahface]

This is good in every way. It gets more crazies out into the spotlight so that the official GOP position is that they're fucking nuts and it forces the rest of the GOP to swing hard to the right and isolate themselves even further from the majority of the country.

Sure, it allows the Dems to cozy up even further with the corporate interests who openly bribe them at the expense of everyone else due to the "Ha ha, what the fuck are you sushi-eating, tree-hugging bitches going to do about? Vote for our opponents?" factor, but I'm a rich white guy so that doesn't actually put me out any.

But you have to worry about being too cozy to corporate interests as well. After all, they're part of the establishment, and Cantor wasn't noted for his distance from them either.

Cantor's district was suburban Richmond so he didn't exactly lose this battle in yahoo country. This is bad news for incumbents, but I would suggest that it is especially bad news for Democrat incumbents.

Meanwhile in North Carolina, where the establishment spent big to defeat the Tea Party guy, Walter Jones, their guy got blown away. Jones was running as a foreign policy non-interventionist in a district that included Camp Lejeune.

Actually, although part of the district encompasses the Richmond suburbs, the rest is "yahoo country" or "the real Virginia" if you will.

Honestly, the turnout was anemic, as it usually is for these things.

See, that's the problem right there - low turnout means the crazies are the only ones who vote. Mouth-foaming loonies are a lot of things, but apathetic ain't one. So long as ordinary people don't vote - in Primaries, or in full-on elections - your politicians cannot help but become more and more insane, as they pursue the support of the only people they need to please - the people who turn out to vote.

The only solutions to this are either for the general public to be less apathetic, and to start turning out to vote (and we all know that won't happen); or for voting to be compulsory (which is even less likely to happen in the US).

Enjoy your lunatic run asylum folks. If it all gets too much, you can always try this, this or this.

I think one way to improve voter turnout is to a create more competitive election environment in which voter's can vote their conscience and a wide array factions have an opportunity to influence the election through endorsements and organizing voting blocs. If you have a system like the one in the Oregon Unified Primary initiative ( non-partisan primary with approval voting; top two advance), it will give voters who only care about a few issues an opportunity to have a voice. If you only care about legalizing pot, you could just bullet vote every candidate endorsed by the “legalize pot party.”

If it doesn't improve voter turnout, this may have the effect though of electing more Republicans (although they'd be more moderate) since it diminishes vote splitting , but after a while, once people see the damage being done and realize that the unified primary is even more important than the general, participation should go up in the primary (or they may just repeal it like Burlington did IRV). This probably wouldn't happen in Oregon though because it is a vote by mail state and has relatively high voter turnout.

Other things we can do is make sure every state has early voting and make each election day (primary and general) a state or federal holiday.

 

[barbos]

Tea partier and college professor? What kind of college is that?