|
parties have primaries for the purpose of selecting ONE candidate to go on the GE ballot.
Why does the party want to do this? If the Dem party has 10 factions that each back its own candidate, we don't want all candidates to go to the GE, because if the Republicans have fewer candidates, they will have a greater chance of winning the GE based on sheer numbers of candidates alone.
Ex: If there 5 dems and 2 republicans running, and party membership is 50% - 50%, and the vote is split evenly, each dem gets 10% and each repub gets 25%. That means, in an election where the # of dem voters = # of repub voters, the repub candidates finish first and second. The only reason they finish that way is they put forward fewer candidates. In this scenario, each party would want to try to put as FEW candidates forward as possible
Both parties don't want to be the dems in the above situation, so they have primaries as an orderly way for the factions to select the best ONE candidate. That way the number of candidates are even, and don't affect the electoral outcome.
If those who lose the primary decide to run anyway, the purpose of the primary is lost. You return to the above situation where the party with more candidates risks losing because they have a split vote.
So when joe Lieberman openly threatens to run as an indy if he loses, he is sending the not-so subtle message of "I will put this seat in play if you don't support me in the primary." He is threatening the sanctity of the primary system, and setting a bad precedent that any loser with delusions of grandeur, and opinions, whether founded or not, that the republican "can't win," can violate the spirit of the primary.
that is why Joe is so infuriating. most people here understand it, but some do not.
|