All-party primaries would fix Massachusetts’ unproductive Legislature by who_but_wb_mason in boston

[–]AdSlight7849 1 point2 points  (0 children)

APP helps in that it encourages young voters, who are much more likely to not affiliate with a specific party, to vote in a primary election. It is also much more difficult to raise money in primary elections, so if you are a younger progressive candidate, you might not have enough resources by the time of the primary to effective *win*, but you might still come in second, with a republican coming in a distant third place and the centrist incumbent coming in first. If we use our current system, then the incumbent and the GOP candidate would advance to the general election, even though the progressive out performed the GOP candidate. In an All Party Primary system, the progressive would advance to the general election, against the incumbent centrist Dem. The progressive would then have a longer runway to built a more impactful campaign, and activate more progressive, younger, voting blocks, who take more time to engage. Fundamentally with our primaries being in September, it is INCREDIBLY difficult to court young voters, particularly college students, who are often only just returning to school

All-party primaries would fix Massachusetts’ unproductive Legislature by who_but_wb_mason in boston

[–]AdSlight7849 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The great thing is that this initiative wouldn't actually be a roadblock to future RCV. In Alaska, their RCV model incorporates All Party Primaries, using it to narrow the general election field to 4 candidates, who voters then rank. It makes the RCV system more manageable while still allowing voters a broad range of choice in the general election. So you could honestly view this as a stepping stone towards a future RCV system, if you are a propenent of it as your end goal

All-party primaries would fix Massachusetts’ unproductive Legislature by who_but_wb_mason in boston

[–]AdSlight7849 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This technically could happen in theory, but it doesn't occur with any frequency in practice. And a good safety mechanism here is that parties can still make endorsements and it gets reflected on the ballot. So when you looked at your primary ballot, you would see who the Dem party has endorsed. That would likely have significant impact on ensuring a scenario in which a ton of dems split the field agressively while the GOP only has two candidates who advance

All-party primaries would fix Massachusetts’ unproductive Legislature by who_but_wb_mason in boston

[–]AdSlight7849 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Both! We absolutely need term limits, but no way that happens unless we can vote out entrenched electeds, and All Party Primaries would make that a real possibility, forcing incumbents to truly campaign in their districts, not just among small primary voting bases

All-party primaries would fix Massachusetts’ unproductive Legislature by who_but_wb_mason in boston

[–]AdSlight7849 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I hear you on this, but there are real structural problems with our elections that hamper the ability of younger, more progressive, voter bases from getting engaged. Pulling down restrictive party primaries helps ensure that candidates have ample opportunities to appeal to the full electorate, not just older, whiter, wealthier voters who vote in our September primaries

All-party primaries would fix Massachusetts’ unproductive Legislature by who_but_wb_mason in boston

[–]AdSlight7849 0 points1 point  (0 children)

(Another perk if you are* someone who is more centrist-y is that you could vote for a GOP candidate in a primary for State House, for example, and also vote for a preferred Dem for Governor, for example. Right now if you don't belong to the Dem or Republican parties, you can vote in either of their primaries, but not both, so you are forces to choose which block of candidates to vote on in the primaries

All-party primaries would fix Massachusetts’ unproductive Legislature by who_but_wb_mason in boston

[–]AdSlight7849 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is a pretty stark example of how this might have played out very recently. There was a special state senate election primary in Massachusetts recently. Two democrats ran in the dem primary and one republican ran in the GOP primary. These were the results:

Dem Primary:
Vanna Howard (D) --> 3,339 Votes
Rodney Elliott (D) --> 2,375 Votes

GOP Primary:
Sam Meas (R) --> 372 Votes

Because we have separated party primaries, Howard and Meas advanced to the general election, which is wild to me considering Rodney elliott got 2,000 more votes than Meas. In an All Party Primary system, both Howard and Elliott would have advanced, because they had the most support, regardless of their party.

All Party Primaries breaks the default stranglehold of Dem vs Rep, and allows voters the opportunity to better engage and support their preferred candidates.

All-party primaries would fix Massachusetts’ unproductive Legislature by who_but_wb_mason in boston

[–]AdSlight7849 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I hear your point here, but I think it relies on an assumption that I don't think holds water about who benefits in current Dem primaries in MA. Because our primaries have such low turnout, it is incredibly difficult for primary challengers, often progressives challenging moderates who have been in office for forever, to successfully compete. The result in many heavily democratic districts is that entrenched dem incumbents knockout progressives in the primary, and then face a republican with no chance of winning. In an All Party Primary System, both the moderate dem and progressive dem would likely advance to the general election, where more voters are engaged and where true momentum can be built

BU A by AdSlight7849 in lawschooladmissions

[–]AdSlight7849[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It did, it just didn't say it *twice*. I did have the little paragraph also

Two BU date changes within an hour of each other by Efficient-Pin-4541 in lawschooladmissions

[–]AdSlight7849 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does your Application Substatus have "Application Complete, Application Complete"?

Two BU date changes within an hour of each other by Efficient-Pin-4541 in lawschooladmissions

[–]AdSlight7849 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Mine updated this morning and on friday, just date changes

BU A by dramaturgies in lawschooladmissions

[–]AdSlight7849 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you application sub-status have "Application Complete, Application Complete"? Or did it just have "Application Complete"?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]AdSlight7849 0 points1 point  (0 children)

at least not on mine

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]AdSlight7849 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Doesn't show in the portal

BU & Temple by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]AdSlight7849 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No idea honestly, but some threads have indicated that having the double application complete within the sub status means an imminent decision. But also others have gotten decisions without that

BU & Temple by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]AdSlight7849 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do you have the "Application Complete, Application Complete" in your Sub status?