The 45% Legislation

I think it is bad form for the reasons Gabriel Sterling cites. It’s one of those typical “too clever by half” legislative maneuvers that usually shoots in the foot the party proposing it, see e.g. the 2000 redistricting by the Democrats.

If you want to do it in primaries, I can actually see that. But we’ve done quite well in Georgia with the 50% rule. While I generally have no problem with a 45% rule, let’s be clear that the only real reason this is happening is not to save taxpayer money, but to help the majority party.

And that makes the GOP no better than the Democrats, who did the same thing.

I will say this. If this moves forward, then the GOP would be wise to give greater ballot access to the Green Party.


  1. Jason Pye says:

    I will say this. If this moves forward, then the GOP would be wise to give greater ballot access to the Green Party.

    If they lowered it for the Greens, they’d have to lower it across the board, which would allow access for the Constitution Party and Southern Party.

    It just isn’t going to happen.

  2. DougieFresh says:

    There is very little in this bill that I support.
    Front-loading the Presidential primaries is also a big mistake. Basically it guarentees the early momentum candidate wins.

  3. hankreardan says:

    The 45% is being done to hurt the Libertarian party.The Republicans do not like it when we poll 5-10%. They then have to pay attention to the issues. At the 45% rule we have to poll over 10% to make a differnce. This is why it was changed the first time. You would think the republican would be more freedom loving but they are not they are the same as the democrats. Whatever it takes to be in power they like the democrats in the past will do it. The sad thing is the voters will do nothing about it.

  4. serving egos says:

    It’s as simple as this, 45% is not a majority and we are a country that follows the addage of majority rule with minority rights.

  5. hankreardan says:

    Serving Ego
    You right we just need to make sure the minority is taken care by having the same rights( not more not less) as the majority.Like the ablitity to get on the ballot.

  6. GabrielSterling says:


    That argument is a little off track. It isn’t a plurality for President, its majority of the Electoral College, which was apportioned to give a decent amount of power to the smaller states.

    And if no majority is reached, then we all know it goes to the House, where they have to get to a majority there as well.

  7. RuralDem says:

    I can’t help but laugh when I read about stuff like this.

    The Republicans fussed for so many decades about how bad the Democrats were while they were in power. However, now that the Republicans are in power they’re utilizing the exact techniques that they cried foul about.

    Hypocrisy is amazing.

  8. DavidAtlanta says:

    The 45% rule is a terrible idea. I think that 50% + 1 vote is completely adequate. The winner of an election should be determined by who gets a majority of the votes, not by who gets the most votes.

    With primary dates, there seems to be a race by the states to see who can front-load the most. I’ve never understood why Iowa and New Hampshire get the first shot in the primaries.

    By the time the Georgia primaries are held, it’s just the last few remaining candidates. It would be nice to have all the states hold their primaries within a small time window (say, a month of each other) sometime in the summer. If we did all the primaries in a 5 week period, 10 states could hold a primary each week. The order of the primaries could be randomly determined every four years so that no state has a permanent lock on who gets to go first or picks last.

    I don’t like this new 2-year presidential race thing. I’m already tired of the 2008 presidential race, yet we have another 18 months of it to go.

  9. serving egos says:

    I think it’s all about being first for New Hampshire.

    They have the tradition of going first and they want to hold tight to that tradition.

    I agree with you DavidAtlanta, the country is going to be burned out by the time the ’08 Presidential election rolls around; but I bet the consultants are jumping with joy as the prospect of making all this money for the next year and a half.

  10. blazer says:

    I think the problem with some of the Republicans is that they weren’t there to suffer under the Democrats…

  11. JasonW says:

    What happens if say a 3-way primary occurs and one person gets 50 percent plus 1 vote and another gets 45 or 46 percent? does it then trigger a runoff

Comments are closed.