Local Election Run-Offs

Cecilia Jones won only 36% of the votes in the Dist 5 BCC race, with 64% of the voters, voting against her (in a sense). Not being close to having a majority vote, should there not also be a run-off in these other partisan races? Personally, I think all of the County races should be non-partisan, and that would fix the problem, but if we are going to have them be partisan, shouldn't we be making sure we are getting the better of the top-two candidates?

SJ I agree with you 100% the issues that divide the parties on a state or national level have little to do with local politics. It is crazy for some to have to change party just to get to vote. That has been the case here in Walton County as long as I have lived here (34 years) you had to be affiliated with one party or the other in order to vote in a local election. I am not sure what it will take to change that but we should work together so that Walton County will be represented by the best possible elected officials. And along the same lines the commission races should go back to only district voting. Even though in a sense they represent the whole county, we would not want the voters in Miami to select our State Representative.

Along the lines of having to switch parties to be able to vote "totally" in a primary... I considered switching, but then didn't do it. So I was one of the few Dems that voted as a Democrat. But it's silly because then I couldn't vote the way I wanted to. Felt a bit screwed by the whole system because of it. To me, that's not a fair system because it's very, very one-sided.

Along the lines of having to switch parties to be able to vote "totally" in a primary... I considered switching, but then didn't do it. So I was one of the few Dems that voted as a Democrat. But it's silly because then I couldn't vote the way I wanted to. Felt a bit screwed by the whole system because of it. To me, that's not a fair system because it's very, very one-sided.

You got to vote in every race in which a winner would have been decided, didn't you?

I understand that with the non-partisan races such as the School Board Race, if a candidate doesn't receive at least 51% of the votes, the top-two finishers go to a run-off.

Cecilia Jones won only 36% of the votes in the Dist 5 BCC race, with 64% of the voters, voting against her (in a sense). Not being close to having a majority vote, should there not also be a run-off in these other partisan races? Personally, I think all of the County races should be non-partisan, and that would fix the problem, but if we are going to have them be partisan, shouldn't we be making sure we are getting the better of the top-two candidates?

Smiling JOe,

I believe what Party (mostly Republican or Democrat) a particular candidate has joined, own his/her own will, helps? identify that person to the voters. One should be guilty by association (good or bad.) If you don't agree, just wait until the November sheriff's race here in Walton. The thing I disagree with is a Universal Primary. For example, I say if a Democrat does not run for office, and only Republican candidates run, then allow only Registered Republicans to vote in that race. Therefore, Democrats should have done a better job in identifying and encouraging possible Democrat candidates to run and represent their Party.

The Democrat Party in Walton is presently doing a poor job, apparently. Let's keep Party Politics; School Board too.

That sounds a bit like hogwash, DFSboy. (No insult intended. I don't even know you.) I just question how parties should play a role in a race, like the Sheriff's Office. Does a Republican Sheriff enforce different laws than a Democratic Sheriff? What about the Clerk of Courts? Does a Republican Clerk keep different records than a Democratic Clerk? That just doesn't add up, in my book. Is a Republican Mosquito Control Board Member supposed to spray more poisons into the air than the Dem? Is the Democratic County Commissioner supposed to build more parks, homeless shelters, and govt cheese programs than a Republican Commissioner? I just don't get the point of having party politics at the County level, except maybe when it comes to a Judge, who interprets the Law.

You got to vote in every race in which a winner would have been decided, didn't you?

Yes, and I still feel that the local population's choices are misrepresented when it comes to having to vote specifically in one party or another in a local election. I agree totally with MossyHead that local politics and issues are very different from state and national levels and need to be able to be handled differently.

Probably the best way to resolve the question of whether local candidates should run non partisan or not would be to have it on the ballot & let it be decided that way. Of course as we have seen in the past, unfortunately, the majority will not vote unless it is in a general election.

That sounds a bit like hogwash, DFSboy. (No insult intended. I don't even know you.) I just question how parties should play a role in a race, like the Sheriff's Office. Does a Republican Sheriff enforce different laws than a Democratic Sheriff? What about the Clerk of Courts? Does a Republican Clerk keep different records than a Democratic Clerk? That just doesn't add up, in my book. Is a Republican Mosquito Control Board Member supposed to spray more poisons into the air than the Dem? Is the Democratic County Commissioner supposed to build more parks, homeless shelters, and govt cheese programs than a Republican Commissioner? I just don't get the point of having party politics at the County level, except maybe when it comes to a Judge, who interprets the Law.

Yet that is the race that party politics are specifically prohibited by statute.

Candidates could have chosen to run as NPA, no party affiliation, and would have been guaranteed a spot on the November ballot.

I am still confused by Organicmama's statements. What race did you not get to vote in due to party politics?

Candidates could have chosen to run as NPA, no party affiliation, and would have been guaranteed a spot on the November ballot.

I am still confused by Organicmama's statements. What race did you not get to vote in due to party politics?

I am not saying anything different from SJ, mossyhead or analogman. It might not be as eloquent because I have been trying to type messages while running out the door each time, but their sentiments pretty much sum up my thoughts.

wrobert, my guess is that organicmama is referring to the Sheriff's race. Yes, she will be able to vote in the general election for that race, but she didn't have a voice in choosing who she felt was the best candidate for the Reps, who is most likely going to be the winner in Nov. (did I just say that outloud?)

wrobert, my guess is that organicmama is referring to the Sheriff's race. Yes, she will be able to vote in the general election for that race, but she didn't have a voice in choosing who she felt was the best candidate for the Reps, who is most likely going to be the winner in Nov. (did I just say that outloud?)

Got ya. We are back to the that premise. I do not want to be a member of your club but I want to help choose your candidate.

more like, 86 the damn clubs (lol) so everyone can vote for the best candidate. Then, we could have a runoff of the top two finishers. (my thoughts, not necessarily OrganicMama's)

more like, 86 the damn clubs (lol) so everyone can vote for the best candidate. Then, we could have a runoff of the top two finishers. (my thoughts, not necessarily OrganicMama's)

They ain't a half bad idea come to think of it.

wrobert, my guess is that organicmama is referring to the Sheriff's race. Yes, she will be able to vote in the general election for that race, but she didn't have a voice in choosing who she felt was the best candidate for the Reps, who is most likely going to be the winner in Nov. (did I just say that outloud?)

Thanks for being able to discern what I am trying to say.

My irritation stems from the fact that to vote "fully" in the primary (on both the races that were decided AND in being able to vote on who will run in Nov), I would have had to switch my status from Dem to Rep, which many people actually do.

Regarding local politics, and in this case the primaries, the issue of parties is "funny" to me because I would like to be able to choose the BEST candidate and not have to fret over the fact that I can't vote for Joe Schmoe because I'm not affiliated with that party. I can understand that differentiation on the state and national level but not on this one.

Regarding local politics, and in this case the primaries, the issue of parties is "funny" to me because I would like to be able to choose the BEST candidate and not have to fret over the fact that I can't vote for Joe Schmoe because I'm not affiliated with that party. I can understand that differentiation on the state and national level but not on this one.

That is pretty much the point I was trying to make. In our local politics party issues are not necessarily important. And I AM a Republican & feel strongly about the issues on a national & state level. But they have very little bearing on local issues.

I didn't get to vote for the Sheriff's race either because I'm independent. I'm not "politics-savvy" so I really didn't understand. If I'm registered to vote, why couldn't I cast a ballot in the sheriff's race? Mine and others' votes there may have made a difference in the outcome, no?

I didn't get to vote for the Sheriff's race either because I'm independent. I'm not "politics-savvy" so I really didn't understand. If I'm registered to vote, why couldn't I cast a ballot in the sheriff's race? Mine and others' votes there may have made a difference in the outcome, no?

The Sheriff's race is not over. You will get to vote in November. The primary that just occurred was all the Republicans, getting together, and us picking whomever we, as a majority felt, was the best candidate to run in the election in November.

The Sheriff's race is not over. You will get to vote in November. The primary that just occurred was all the Republicans, getting together, and us picking whomever we, as a majority felt, was the best candidate to run in the election in November.

I understand that. I don't understand why independents aren't allowed to vote for who they want on the ballot in Nov.
It just doesn't make sense to me.

So basically, we have no voice unless we're registered as a Republican or a Democrat? That' s the way it works?

yes, sunspotbaby, that is how the system currently works -- just like the Presidential race which you were not allowed a vote in. At the National level, I think it is good, but not on the local level.

Beating the heck outta this horse

The Sheriff's race is not over. You will get to vote in November. The primary that just occurred was all the Republicans, getting together, and us picking whomever we, as a majority felt, was the best candidate to run in the election in November.

No one is saying that anyone wants to take the rights of a party away. It's not a "Let's choose for the Republicans" issue. What we are saying, from a perspective of Dems, Reps & Indies, is that we'd simply like the partisan BS to be removed from local polls.

I'd vote for a rainbow colored alien from planet Zippo if I thought that s/he could do the best job. Seriously, I'd have no trouble voting for someone from any party IF I was able to choose the person that I thought was the best. I'm not "stuck" as a die hard anything.

If, like Sunspotbaby & Analogman (almost, I think), I registered as an Independent, I'd feel even more irritated by the system. Both of them are well-educated & thoughtful people who choose not to align with one party or another, yet their vote only counts in the final decision. So, we'll pick Y & Z for you to choose from but you don't have a choice on who the Y & Z are. Yes, it's great on the grander scale of national politics, but not in our little community.

Thanks OM. I feel like an alien not fully understanding the process, but I'm beginning to "get it".
Essentially, the party that "chose" Ralph Johnson for the REPUBLICAN voters eight ? years ago ... RIGHT? nice job....:roll:

Beg to Differ

The Sheriff's race is not over. You will get to vote in November. The primary that just occurred was all the Republicans, getting together, and us picking whomever we, as a majority felt, was the best candidate to run in the election in November.

I respectfully agree with about 98% of your views--until now. You say that Rebublicans "as a majority" picked the best candidate to run in November. That's what you did 4 years ago and it didn't honestly reflect the wishes of the voters in respect to the Sheriff's race. "Back in the Day", in an overcrowded race such as this, voters threw out the "spoilers" in the primary and got down to a legitimate choice in November. I think what you intended to referrence was a "plurality". Working under the current plurality system, a race with 10 Republicans and no Democrats could conceivably be won by a candidate with 11% of the vote. If this example reflects the "true will" of the people, I'll eat your hat raw. The only way the current system is legitimate, is if it works for you !

I understand that. I don't understand why independents aren't allowed to vote for who they want on the ballot in Nov.
It just doesn't make sense to me.

So basically, we have no voice unless we're registered as a Republican or a Democrat? That' s the way it works?

Well, you do have a voice... you have to run an Independent candidate. It's the fault of the IND's if they don't run a candidate. I wish *every* party would start running candidates with confidence that come Nov, not everyone will side with their own party. You've just got to go out there and put your neck on the line.

Primaries are nothing more than picking a club president to represent the rest of the club. It's unfortunate that sometimes the person chosen doesn't really reflect the majority of that club, but unless you're a member of the club, you don't get a say.

Of course, I don't think a Sheriff's race should be a partisan race, but even if it isn't it will still be a cluster**** at the end because of the number of people running.

Primaries are really nothing more than a group getting together to pick their representative in an attempt to cut down the number of candidates so we don't end up in a plurality situation. I wonder when we even started using state elections to conduct primaries because I'm willing to bet that in history, they were chosen at a party meeting, like an endorsement.