You Cannot Control Outcomes Until You Understand The Process

[mtizzy280]

Don't rail against the Republican douchebags in the Michigan legislature unless you voted in the August Primary Election. 

Until the people on this forum understand that they have MORE control over who is nominated for the legislature than who is elected, you will not be able to protect yourself against arbitrary lawmaking of people you disagree with.

The vast majority of legislative districts in Michigan are guaranteed to go to one party or the other. That means that your district representative/senator is determined by the primary election. Michigan is an open primary state, which means anyone can vote in either party primary. If your rep opposes medical marijuana, especially if he/she is a Republican, plan to field an opposing candidate (i.e. on a libertarian platorm) and getting the word out. 

These are low volume elections, meaning it would not require that many voters to unseat the worst ones. Now is the time to start thinking about this.

 

[t-pain]

post some primary results buddy. show us just how close those primary votes are!

[slipstar059]

You can't "play" the primaries like a game. I've heard of people voting for the worst ®,(D) candidates during the primaries. So their own party would have a better chance of taking the "actual" election. How's that working out for ya? Politics should always be majority rule, and if enough people voiced their opinion, the laws should follow suit. It only works when we're proactive in changing opinions, and getting people out to vote. Even then there may be more people that disagree with your personal opinions.

[imiubu]

I am thinking that attacking people in a 1st. post won't win any argument put forth... peeps tend to get a little defensive with such a tactic.

 

peace and welcome to the forums.

[+Malamute]

Due to gerrymandering,... op is correct the real game is in the primary.  And the best thing is,... the least people show up to vote(generally) thus making it easier to influence the results.

 

It islike your vote is worth 3.

 

As I tell most people,.. it isn't about voting republican or democrat,..... it is about voting for the right republicans and democrats.  :-)

[+washtenaut]

When I read the original posting, I thought the poster made some good points.  Probably could have been a little smoother but the points are valid, imo.

[t-pain]

what we should do is away with the primaries and just put all of the candidates on the final ballot.

 

thus killing off this stupid-donkey 10% of the voters decide who gets on the ballot in the first place nonsense.

[pic book]

we need to hear from a poly sci professor, or phd level research assistant working on a dissertation on this subject to determine the validity of mtizzy's post.

[Wild Bill]

Unless a candidate has a prior voting record all we really have to go on is campaign promises, and we know how accurate they are.

[+Malamute]

For example, in a case when we ended up with a Republican in the final vote, what is the better candidate that we could have had on the ballot instead, if only we had gotten in to vote during the primary?

 

 

 I had a good quick example that we could have gotten Mike Bishop instead of Bill Schuette in 2010,... but then I remembered they do stupid convention nominations in Michigan.  So that actually doesn't count.

 So now I have to think.... heh.

[+Malamute]

One has influence, not control. :-)

[Restorium2]

If the people who rule are bad they make bad decisions that we can underline and repeat over and over. People know wrong from right and will get rid of the bad apples if you don't let them keep their bad decisions in the dark. Spread the word. It's our only tool, and their worst enemy.

[phaquetoo]

oh you bunch of bully's you scared the poor pt away! bawahahahahahahaha!

 

Peace

[mtizzy280]

Hello all,
I appreciate the feedback and apologize for the delayed response; I'm not able to get on MMMA.org at work and I'm busy at home with family. Also, I am just starting to dip my toes into the politics of medical cannabis coming from a background in politics more generally, so it took me a bit to research a good response. (On that note, if there is a good background primer on the current state of marijuana politics in the state, I would be interested to see it )

The point about specific examples is well taken, and my first response is to do build a spreadsheet that analyzes the 2014 election results to demonstrate my point. I still want to do that (and will, when I find a moment) but in the meantime, take the case of State Senator Rick Jones from the 24th Senate District, considered an opponent of medical marijuana. Both he and his democratic opponent (Dawn Levy) ran unopposed. His total number of votes in the primary were 18,426, which is less than 10% of the electorate (~230,000 in the 24th). Levy received 10,937 votes in the Dem's primary. During the general election, he captured 55,332 votes, 56% of the total, a solid victory. Levy received 42,776 votes. Note all of these numbers come from the Michigan Secretary of State election results page here and here

Neither of these elections were particularly close, but it can serve to illustrate my point. Say Jones had a primary opponent, let's call him Rep+, where the "Republican" represents someone who holds some basic republican beliefs (i.e. support for low taxes, low regulatory environment, etc that you may or may not agree with) and the "+" is his support for medical marijuana and maybe some other positions that you do agree with. Say Rep+ draws some support from Jones's traditional republican base, say 5000 voters, leaving Jones with 13,426. Jones still wins solidly, with over 70% of the vote. However, say on top of that, 75% of the Dems who voted in the primary, acknowledging that Rep+ is the lesser of two evils and that their candidate is unopposed, swing over and vote for Rep+. That makes the race very close, with Jones narrowly pulling out a victory 13,426-13,203. Add in some non-traditional voters (of which most medical marijuana supporters probably count themselves) and Jones is defeated.

 

The math is a little bit harder in, for example, Michigan's 30th senate district, were Senate majority leader and general bad news for Michigan medical marijuana Arlan Meekhof lives, but if all the dems who turned out for the general (24,490) voted in the primary (where Meekhof received a total of 25,992 votes) for a "Rep+" candidate, he would have been given a run for his money, even in a very heavily Republican district.

This is of course easier said than done, but the point is that these primaries are low volume elections and every vote has an out-sized effect. Mobilizing the people on this site, generally non-traditional primary voters, has the potential to make a big difference.

 

 

You can't "play" the primaries like a game. I've heard of people voting for the worst ®,(D) candidates during the primaries. So their own party would have a better chance of taking the "actual" election. How's that working out for ya? Politics should always be majority rule, and if enough people voiced their opinion, the laws should follow suit. It only works when we're proactive in changing opinions, and getting people out to vote. Even then there may be more people that disagree with your personal opinions.

 

To slipstar059, I don't see this as gaming the system on the part of the crossover dems. It is acknowledging that the person who wins the primary will win in the fall and exercising your right to have a say in good faith. Voting for a "bad" candidate in the opposing party's primary is a losing tactic in the cases I am referencing, because most districts are so set in their party that even a terrible candidate of the right party could make it through a general election.

 

Your point about getting people out to the polls more generally is at the heart of my argument. I would argue the best way to do this would be to use multi-member districts (see FairVote.org), but that's a long way off. In the meantime, we have the system that we have and if we don't show up to the election that actually determines your representative, politicians will ignore our voices. 

 

I would also assert that "control" is not a word that can describe any person's or group's influence in the electoral process. Thinking of it that way leads to trouble and disappointment.

 

One has influence, not control. :-)

 

 

To zapatosunidos and Malamute, I agree "influence" or "significantly influence" outcomes works better than "control". 

 

 

Due to gerrymandering,... op is correct the real game is in the primary.  And the best thing is,... the least people show up to vote(generally) thus making it easier to influence the results.

 

It islike your vote is worth 3.

 

As I tell most people,.. it isn't about voting republican or democrat,..... it is about voting for the right republicans and democrats.  :-)

 

 

Malamute, I agree entirely. When the general election outcome is mostly guaranteed, significant primary voting blocs create out-of-proportion effect, making a vote in the primary potentially more influential than a vote in the general election.

 

 

Unless a candidate has a prior voting record all we really have to go on is campaign promises, and we know how accurate they are.

 

 

True, but I would rather vote for someone who promises to support the current small grower/caregiver infrastructure than someone who promises to hand the industry to giant pharmaceutical companies on a silver platter because of huge campaign contributions. I trust at least one of them to follow through. 

 

we need to hear from a poly sci professor, or phd level research assistant working on a dissertation on this subject to determine the validity of mtizzy's post.

 

Pic book, once I have the money and time, I'll work on the PhD. 

 

 

what we should do is away with the primaries and just put all of the candidates on the final ballot. thus killing off this stupid-donkey 10% of the voters decide who gets on the ballot in the first place nonsense.

 

To t-pain, your point about eliminating primaries makes sense to a degree. However, I'm not sure how effective that would be. Louisiana has a system that is close to what you're suggesting and there are still plenty of crazy people who make it through the process. It could be because of the number of crazy people in Louisiana, but that would require further analysis. 

[t-pain]

good reply, sorry if we are a bit testy on the subject of changing vote process.

 

there is a concerted effort by republicans to flower with the vote, including disenfranchising, gerrymandering (both R and D do this), voter disqualifying, poll taxes, voter id, making whoopee with electoral college (dunno about this one) , electronic votes by diebold which are insecure, many more i cant even think of.

 

so when someone comes around and tells us the new great idea, well some of us are leary. give us time , reasoned explanations, and sound logic and we'll follow.

[mtizzy280]

good reply, sorry if we are a bit testy on the subject of changing vote process.

 

there is a concerted effort by republicans to flower with the vote, including disenfranchising, gerrymandering (both R and D do this), voter disqualifying, poll taxes, voter id, making whoopee with electoral college (dunno about this one) , electronic votes by diebold which are insecure, many more i cant even think of.

 

so when someone comes around and tells us the new great idea, well some of us are leary. give us time , reasoned explanations, and sound logic and we'll follow.

 

No worries. I'm interested in politics so I need to have a thick skin. 

 

I think you would be especially interested in the FairVote.org link based on your above remarks. 

[mtizzy280]

zapatosunidos, this idea is unprecedented so far as I can tell and maybe it is indeed far fetched. It's frustrating to me because it seems to follow so obviously from the way the system is set up and voters that I support don't realize it.

Whatever you think about the tea party people, they understand the system and as a result their ideas are being advanced; even when they don't win, mainstream candidates adopt their positions for fear of losing.

Put another way, Republicans have been in control of the Michigan Senate SINCE 1985! And they've controlled the House 14 of the last 20 years, 16 of 22 if you factor in this cycle. Due to geographic factors, both gerrymandering and sorting, Republicans are at a systematic advantage. Unless we find a way to recruit and support Republican candidates that endorse policy positions that you want to advance, the Michigan legislature will always be your enemy.

[Restorium2]

 Republicans have been in control of the Michigan Senate SINCE 1985! 

because of

 Unless we find a way to recruit and support Republican candidates that endorse policy positions that you want to advance, the Michigan legislature will always be your enemy. 

 

They just need to be OUT, not pandered to. Pandering is like 'trickle down economics', a scam. 'Rebuplican' has actually evolved into a way of thinking that doesn't support marijuana for all of us with no strings attached, or even 'believe in' medical marijuana. It also doesn't afford good health care for the sick, decent workers compensation for the injured, or rights for those who like alternative life styles. There's a whole long list in the 'votes from haters handbook' they play by. Tell it like it is! No 'mushmouth' pandering. 

• Like This
  

• Quote
  
• MultiQuote
  
• Re
  

[GregS]

The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand.

 

Sun Tzu

Edited January 17, 2015 by GregS

[Restorium2]

If you think that Romney wasn't coldly expressing a well thought out Republican Party position then you are a sorry panderer;

 

[Restorium2]

You can't expect to control the outcome of what you do if you don't understand the players and their modus/plan. There definitely is a play book and it's not hard to read if you pay attention. 

[+Malamute]

As a whole,  the Republican party is full bore anti marijuana.  Just read their platform.

 

But,... things are slowly changing,  one enlightened heathen at a time.

[mtizzy280]

Restorium, barring massive demographic changes that are not going to happen or a fundamental change in how the state apportions seats (see fairvote.org, which is about the US Congress but could apply just as well to state legislatures), Republicans are going to continue to win a majority in the Michigan Senate. Failure to acknowledge this will mean continuation of the current establishment policies. 

 

As to Republicans' opposition to medical marijuana, I agree entirely in the case of the Republican establishment. However, the primary system means that individual candidates are whatever the voters say they are. Again, like them or not, the tea party people have demonstrated this. 

[Restorium2]

Restorium, barring massive demographic changes that are not going to happen or a fundamental change in how the state apportions seats (see fairvote.org, which is about the US Congress but could apply just as well to state legislatures), Republicans are going to continue to win a majority in the Michigan Senate. Failure to acknowledge this will mean continuation of the current establishment policies. 

 

As to Republicans' opposition to medical marijuana, I agree entirely in the case of the Republican establishment. However, the primary system means that individual candidates are whatever the voters say they are. Again, like them or not, the tea party people have demonstrated this. 

There are pockets of wise folks who don't get fooled into pandering. I'm looking for expansion in those areas. My area produces some fine Democratic legislators and they are our hope for a brighter future for the little guy who wants freedom. I'm not laying down and voting Republican. I'm not the only one who feels this way. I know of a lot of major groups in Michigan that are pushing for what is right. They already have their candidate to beat Schuette in 2018. We will have veto power. Just because we got beat last cycle doesn't make any of us want to lay down with hogs. We just plan for the future, a brighter less Republican future where our health care and rights get better every day that passes. 

[+Malamute]

Once people realize that all of Michigans woes in state government are 100% republican responsible,... you will start to see some change.  Some people actually still try to blame democrats and black people in this state for its woes.  They have zero power for decades now really. 

 

 Republicans are raising taxes, republicans are stripping rights, republicans are wasting money, republicans are responsible. 40 years ago, the same could be said about democrats, but that trend is long long past.  But ya know, republicans love to hold onto the past. :-)