Say Goodbye to runoffs

It’s really, um, funny to hear the statist ruling class elite that runs things in Raleigh moan about “wasting money.”

(I heard John Hood on TV this weekend babbling about runoffs being the last vestige of Jim Crow in North Carolina. )

What has them suddenly so fiscally responsible?  Runoff elections.  Amidst a bill doing away with judicial primaries, the honorables on Jones Street are reducing the threshold needed to avoid a primary runoff from 40 percent to 30 percent.  THAT’s right.  Thirty percent of the vote makes you your party’s standard-bearer. 

It wasn’t long ago that they reduced the threshold from 50 percent. If that standard would have held through today, Thom Tillis would not be a US senator.  The man made it to DC without ever seeing 50 percent.  In a runoff against either Greg Brannon or Mark Harris, the divided conservative electorate would have coalesced behind either of them — if anything, out of pure Tillis hatred. 

In Pinehurst, in November, we have EIGHT candidates vying for two seats on our village council.  There will be no runoff.  So, someone could get as little as 13 percent of the vote (or even less) and earn four years on the council.  What’s democratic about that?

It’s not my problem that we have woeful voter turnout.  It’s not my problem we have a lousy caliber of individuals filing for election.  (And I can find a lot worse examples of money-wasting in government than ELECTIONS.)

It’s important that our elected officials EARN 50 percent +1 of the vote.  If you have a crowd of people file, the crowd needs to be whittled down to a final pair.   American Idol does it.  So can we.

I am all for giving the “little people” as much say as they would like to have. 

Shenanigans like what Raleigh has pulled here further water down the significance of the people outside the Raleigh beltline (and their concerns) to Raleigh’s ruling class.

 

 

12 comments for “Say Goodbye to runoffs

  1. Charles Hickman III
    October 14, 2017 at 9:08 pm

    The ruling class already has a rigged game with the 40% threshold. The 30% threshold is an abomination from Hell.

  2. Ham Biscuit
    October 15, 2017 at 12:22 am

    From what we’ve seen so far, the NCGA should impose a 95% threshold for redrawing districts and changing election law, and then put it to a statewide vote. They’re really in their own little world, with no thought of possible repercussions.

  3. Toxhandler
    October 15, 2017 at 11:00 am

    You raise an interesting point about becoming the party’s standard-bearer with only 30 percent of the primary vote. This is an example of the legislative component of the NCGOP State executive committee setting policy for the Party without any consent from the non-legislative Party leaders. I’m talking about county level leaders, of course, as the State Party regime are basically tools of the Legislators. But between this development and the continued existence of the legislator-controlled HB 373 counterfeit NCGOP parties, Perhaps the time has come for County Republican parties to disregard the NCGOP entirely and start setting their own rules and policy, the intent being to counter the increasing control of the Party by the legislators.

    • GUWonder
      October 15, 2017 at 12:00 pm

      Between the fake Republican Party committee the legislators have set up, and undermining our primaries, if it time to end the rules about party endorsement in primaries. And the NCGOP should sue in federal court if these fake parties try to call themselves the real party publicly.

      Another change that could be made in the PoO is to only enforce party disloyalty rules when the GOP nominee has received the nomination with over a majority in the primary.

      This 30% gambit also makes it much more attractive for conservatives to just skip the GOP primary and run as Unaffiliated Conservatives.

      Ending judicial primaries and this 30% are attacks on the grassroots. Those involved need to be replaced. If Phil Berger lets this go through the Senate, it should be balls to the wall to defeat him, primary hopefully, but general election if not, for ANYTHING he runs for. Ditto TImmy Moore.

    • Myron Smith
      October 17, 2017 at 1:14 am

      Good Point!

  4. john steed
    October 15, 2017 at 11:15 am

    This is an arrogant incumbent protection act, and ANY Republican who votes for it himself needs a primary. I don’t care how good they are on other things.

    The margin to avoid a runoff needs to be restored to a majority.

    As to John Hood, he is as usual, flacking for the leftwing statists. Next, he will be telling us it is fiscally responsible to just avoid elections entirely. I am getting so tired of that phony.

  5. GUWonder
    October 15, 2017 at 2:43 pm

    I just reviewed the vote on this utter monstrosity. In the House, the only conservatives, and indeed only Republicans to vote NO were Pittman and Blust. All other conservatives HAVE A LOT OF ‘SPLAININ’ TO DO. This 30% standard is just unacceptable. It is a kick in the teeth to the grassroots and to conservatives.

    I would say that Blust standing up against this bill is enough to make up for his selling us out on repealing HB2.

    We need to pressure the other conservatives to uphold a Cooper veto if it comes. The damage from this bill is so severe, that we need to tell them they will not get our support in 2018 if they vote again for it – no money, no campaign support, and even no vote in the ballot box.. This needs to be a Third Rail for conservative voters in 2018.

    Tillis and Berger are on a power trip and are absolutely out of control. They are as bad as Liston Ramsey, Jim Black, and Marc Basnight. The grassroots need to strike back hard against them.

    Curiously, they have made it easier to organize a Third Party and easier to get Unaffiliated candidates on the ballot. Both of those tools may come back to haunt them if they continue with this madness.

    • GUWonder
      October 15, 2017 at 8:26 pm

      Oops, that is TIMMY and Berger, not Tillis and Berger.

  6. Raphael
    October 16, 2017 at 9:26 am

    This bill should be called the Thom Tillis Renomination Act. Tillis and his surrogates played a game of trying to fill up the primary ballot. I know one of the people who was called by the Raleigh establishment and asked to file for US Senate, who declined. He concluded that having the same first name as the leading conservative candidate was the reason he was called. Expect this in the future, as that is what is behind this bill. The name of the game is divide conservatives so they can conquer.

    One wonders why only tow members of the Freedom Caucus voted against this clearly anti-conservative bill? The Freedom Caucus was the watchdog that refused to bark on this very important bill for conservatives..

  7. RwingLolly
    October 18, 2017 at 7:20 am

    To John Steed’s point, could you (Brant) give us the list of these sellouts and cowards so we can get them primaried?

  8. Jon-boy Hoodlum
    October 18, 2017 at 8:16 am

    Let me explain the Grand Plan to save the state money by eliminating these pesky things we call elections. Why should those grubby peasants the voters have any say in who governs them when we can just eliminate elections and save money? I call it our George III Plan.

    Phase One has already begun. We neuter the runoffs and then eliminate them entirely for all offices. We will make judges appointed at all levels. Why should voters have any say in them? At the county level, we will make the sheriff, clerk of court, and register of deeds appointed by the governor, and at the state level, the same will be done with the Council of State offices. Think of all the money we can save by not having elections for those offices. Primaries themselves cost money, so we will eliminate them by just having the Executive Director of each state political party submit a list of party candidates. There, even more money saved!

    Phase two is more complicated due to potential problems with pushback from the Feds, but we need to try for it as it will eliminate elections altogether and save all that money. At the end of phase one, the only money bleeding elections we will have left are for governor, legislature, and county commission. The county commissions will simply be eliminated and replaced by county managers appointed by the governor. That part should be easy enough without Fed objection, but eliminating elections for governor and legislature will be more problematic, but if we can do that, we can end all of the money wasted on elections. We do that by creating the Kingdom of North Carolina and replace the governor with a hereditary king. See, no need for money wasting elections! The big issue is choosing the dynasty – will it be the House of Berger or the House of Moore. Phil, Jr. makes a good crown prince, so I sort of lean to the House of Berger. It will not be the House of Forest, as that guy is too prone to side with the peasants and not play ball with us intellectuals who know better. Look at how he sided with the peasants on HB2. The Senate will be replaced by a hereditary House of Lords and the House by a House of Commons appointed by the king. See – no need to waste money on elections at all!

    See – if you put your mind on 18th century solutions instead of modern democracy, you can eliminate all the money wasted on elections.

  9. GUWonder
    October 18, 2017 at 3:58 pm

    I just heard from reliable sources in the legislature that Dallas Woodhouse was involved in crafting S656 and some of the provisions originated with him. What the heck is a stinking party bureaucrat monkeying around in policy for? Remembering that Woodhouse ran a Karl Rove front that promoted Thom Tillis last time. I can well see why he would want a 30% primary threshold, as that is probably the only way that Terrible Thom would win another nomination.

Comments are closed.