Sure, if taken out of context, it literally says that. But for those of us that read (and understood) the words before that fragment, your comment is a pretty misleading... "and IF future law provides that three or more candidates may advance to the general election for an office to which one candidate will be elected, voter rankings shall be used." The way I see it, 133 cements the power of the status quo (two parties, limited choice), whereas Prop 140 helps lay the groundwork to challenge the status quo, which is why both of the established parties oppose 140! Cliffnotes: No on 133 Yes on 140
On both it’s going to cancel your votes basically they are against or they are different from one another so if you vote no or vote yes on both of them is going to cancel it out
In Washington's farewell address he warned that parities would cause division among fellow citizens of the same union. “The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.” Ask yourself, have parities caused too much division in our country in recent years? Why have so many people left the 2 parties, especially in Arizona?
I appreciate this debate, but am still frustrated. I think my main problem with 140 is the number of things they are trying to do together? Like, equalizing signature requirements seems like an easy win to help level the playing field, could have been seperate- I am a fan of ranked choice voting specifically for the thing I see another comment mentions but did not get brought up in this debate: spoiler candidates. I understand that the pro 140 person was not trying to argue for ranked choice, but it does seem obvious that this proposition is trying to lay groundwork for the possibility of ranked choice? And in my opinion a huge selling point of ranked choice is the ability to vote for the candidate you actually want the most first, and then hedge your bets with other candidates. If you have someone that you really like but you're afraid that you can't get enough votes to win and you also have a candidate that you really really hate, but there's a third candidate That you're not a huge fan of but you would be fine with, in our current system you have to vote for the candidate that you think stands the best chance of beating the candidate you hate, which means that the candidate who wins just has to be less bad than that hateful candidate. But under a ranked choice system You don't have to worry about whether your candidate can win, just whether you like them? So you vote for the candidate you actually like and then you vote for the one you're fine with etc and that means that more people vote for a long shot that they really like, and that is how you get more than two parties, you get candidates who are outside of the system. Whereas under the current rules even if a lot of people like that third party candidate, people are too nervous that that candidate cannot win and not willing to take the risk that a candidate that they really really dislike would win. I do not find voter confusion at number of candidates persuasive, as long as candidates still have party affiliation listed- if you are a voter that doesn't care to do research on candidates, you still may go in and vote party-line. But voters are encouraged to pay attention to candidates ahead of time, and are welcome to bring note paper into booths with them, and of course if you have a ballot you are mailing in You can fill out your ballot as you do your research.
The part that I struggle with is the last proviso on the ballot measure, and why like candidate number would be left up to the legislature or whatever? A legislature which presumably does not want ranked choice to ever happen? So would only pass on two candidates? Despite all the denials that this is ranked choice voting, it literally is partly ranked choice voting, and it sounds like this like judgment call about how many candidates to move forward to the general being left off of this ballot initiative is like some kind of bone they were throwing to the legislature? And I either do not understand or else I disagree with the utility of that position.
This is the one thing on my ballot I was undecided on. This debate was helpful. Thank you for posting it. A general election that includes 3 or more candidates, with 2 or more from the same party would be extremely problematic. The 2 candidate party would pull votes from each other. Ranked choice solves this, so I understand why it's a necessary component.
Sounds like we are on opposite sides of this, I think. The props 133 and 140 are quite confusing. I’ve watched several videos. Ugh, hahaha. I’m lining up with the lawyer and saying no to this. I don’t like our current situation, but I don’t like the solution from either 133/140. Curious why you like the ranked ballot idea. No one is talking about, let’s start a discussion. There is not enough info out there about these props.
I think no on both is a respectable position given how hard it is to change these. I don't think prop 140 is perfect. I wish it just came out and said pick 2 for one-winner races, pick 4 for house races, and pick 6 for 3-winner. This would avoid ranked choice drama completely, and remove the potential strategic power from state legislature and/or Secretary of State. I'm considering a yes vote because I'm sick of extremist candidates in the state legislature, and I think this would be a large improvement over the current system. I'm very pessimistic about the prospect of future attempts to pass election reform. Ranked choice prevents 3rd party spoilers, and enables people to vote for 3rd parties, knowing their 2nd choice will count if it is needed to help a candidate reach a majority. Ranked choice makes sure that in a hypothetical district with 3 candidates for one office, that has 2 candidates for party Q, and 1 candidate for party P, that candidate P doesn't have a massive advantage. In a majority wins 3-way race, candidate P stands a high chance of winning even if 65% of voters are on board with party Q.
@seanjohn6608 Ranked choice is part of 140. That gives a lot more power to the true will of the people. Often people just vote for who is less bad, to avoid having the worst candidate in office. Ranked choice boating allows us to still do that while ALSO Allowing for us to vote for who we want the most. ranked choice voting gives more of a voice to the will of the voters.
@@reedclippings8991 everything you are saying sounds good, I’m just worried about the legislature power and the fact this is a constitutional amendment. For those two reasons alone I’ve decided to vote no and hope we get a better reform soon because I don’t like it now.
I think it was “There’s a reason that there are no independents **in the state legislature** and it’s because the existing system is geared against them intentionally.” Weird that it cut out completely right then. But there are in fact no independent state legislators so I assume that’s what he said
Voting No on both. I believe all parties should have representation. The 2 party system obviously is not working. BUT 140 throws every "solution" onto us at once and will dramatically change the system quickly. Is this a good idea when we don't know if all parts of 140 are good solutions? Feels like the evil from within will figure out how to expose its flaws. We need to keep things how they are and modify in blocks so we can measure success.
Vote for 140 if you want change, if you want our elections to really count all voices and cover all options. Vote for 133 if you want to cement the media monopolizing the air time with only the 2 major parties who spend millions of dollars silencing anyone who interferes with their power. Thank you to whoever wrote 140. If by chance you don’t win, please keep trying.
I say all should have an equal chance to the ballet because if we split 50/50 the parties keep fighting and it will cause a greater split. And we need a voice for all so we can vote on our policies and sometimes it requires the vote of the opposite party.
I think people are thinking that Prop 133 would make general elections completely partisan. That’s not the case though. This reflects on primary elections
And how is this an issue? We all get a say in ALL candidates! If you have a good message and mean well for the people,what is there to fear? Let all Arizonans have a say!
I am like on the fence with this but I’m asking God to like show me or give me a sign like which one should I vote for and I’m going with JFK I mean he was a good president(He looks like John F Kennedy) And he was a good president so I’m going with that I don’t know it really sounds more towards that anyways So yes on prop 140 and no on prop 133
Vote for KARI LAKE for Senator in Arizona!!! Kari Lake is a Saved Born Again Believer Christianin Jesus Christ who has been chosen by God the Father to run for Senator for Arizona!!! She needs you to vote for her to sit in the SENATOR Seat so she can get accomplished, what the Holy Spirit power has chosen her to protect over all ARIZONIANS!!! With God, the Father's wisdom and answers, she will make sure that Arizona will be protected over from the confusing chaos of Satan, the DECEIVING Father of lies!!
Prop 133 u can vote yes or no on it really wouldn’t change anything if Prop 133 gets passed, but vote NO on Prop 140. It would be California style primaries where ballots are confusing, there’s a total one party rule, and candidates require 50% of the vote in order to get elected and if a candidate gets less than 50%, there will be these stupid runoff elections
It litterally says in prop 140 right at the end "voter rankings shall be used"
Sure, if taken out of context, it literally says that. But for those of us that read (and understood) the words before that fragment, your comment is a pretty misleading...
"and IF future law provides that three or more candidates may advance to the general election for an office to which one candidate will be elected, voter rankings shall be used."
The way I see it, 133 cements the power of the status quo (two parties, limited choice), whereas Prop 140 helps lay the groundwork to challenge the status quo, which is why both of the established parties oppose 140!
Cliffnotes:
No on 133
Yes on 140
Sounds good to me
Power always fights change... Proposal will dilute power. Fantastic
Im voting No on both propositions. Both are extreme.
What is extreme about having more options, more of a say and better representation of the will of the people? That’s what 140 pushes.
@@timmiestabrnakProp 133 - Blocks open primary elections forever. &
Prop 140 - Creates open primaries controlled by legislature.
Same. I would like to see independents participate in primaries, but these measures are both awful.
@@jgirl15ableand 140 will bring in California style rank choice voting which is a terrible system.
On both it’s going to cancel your votes basically they are against or they are different from one another so if you vote no or vote yes on both of them is going to cancel it out
In Washington's farewell address he warned that parities would cause division among fellow citizens of the same union. “The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.” Ask yourself, have parities caused too much division in our country in recent years? Why have so many people left the 2 parties, especially in Arizona?
I appreciate this debate, but am still frustrated. I think my main problem with 140 is the number of things they are trying to do together?
Like, equalizing signature requirements seems like an easy win to help level the playing field, could have been seperate-
I am a fan of ranked choice voting specifically for the thing I see another comment mentions but did not get brought up in this debate: spoiler candidates. I understand that the pro 140 person was not trying to argue for ranked choice, but it does seem obvious that this proposition is trying to lay groundwork for the possibility of ranked choice? And in my opinion a huge selling point of ranked choice is the ability to vote for the candidate you actually want the most first, and then hedge your bets with other candidates.
If you have someone that you really like but you're afraid that you can't get enough votes to win and you also have a candidate that you really really hate, but there's a third candidate That you're not a huge fan of but you would be fine with, in our current system you have to vote for the candidate that you think stands the best chance of beating the candidate you hate, which means that the candidate who wins just has to be less bad than that hateful candidate. But under a ranked choice system You don't have to worry about whether your candidate can win, just whether you like them?
So you vote for the candidate you actually like and then you vote for the one you're fine with etc and that means that more people vote for a long shot that they really like, and that is how you get more than two parties, you get candidates who are outside of the system.
Whereas under the current rules even if a lot of people like that third party candidate, people are too nervous that that candidate cannot win and not willing to take the risk that a candidate that they really really dislike would win.
I do not find voter confusion at number of candidates persuasive, as long as candidates still have party affiliation listed- if you are a voter that doesn't care to do research on candidates, you still may go in and vote party-line. But voters are encouraged to pay attention to candidates ahead of time, and are welcome to bring note paper into booths with them, and of course if you have a ballot you are mailing in You can fill out your ballot as you do your research.
What you list here is why I’m voting for prop 140.
The part that I struggle with is the last proviso on the ballot measure, and why like candidate number would be left up to the legislature or whatever? A legislature which presumably does not want ranked choice to ever happen? So would only pass on two candidates?
Despite all the denials that this is ranked choice voting, it literally is partly ranked choice voting, and it sounds like this like judgment call about how many candidates to move forward to the general being left off of this ballot initiative is like some kind of bone they were throwing to the legislature? And I either do not understand or else I disagree with the utility of that position.
This is the one thing on my ballot I was undecided on. This debate was helpful. Thank you for posting it.
A general election that includes 3 or more candidates, with 2 or more from the same party would be extremely problematic. The 2 candidate party would pull votes from each other. Ranked choice solves this, so I understand why it's a necessary component.
Sounds like we are on opposite sides of this, I think. The props 133 and 140 are quite confusing. I’ve watched several videos. Ugh, hahaha. I’m lining up with the lawyer and saying no to this. I don’t like our current situation, but I don’t like the solution from either 133/140. Curious why you like the ranked ballot idea. No one is talking about, let’s start a discussion. There is not enough info out there about these props.
I think no on both is a respectable position given how hard it is to change these.
I don't think prop 140 is perfect. I wish it just came out and said pick 2 for one-winner races, pick 4 for house races, and pick 6 for 3-winner. This would avoid ranked choice drama completely, and remove the potential strategic power from state legislature and/or Secretary of State.
I'm considering a yes vote because I'm sick of extremist candidates in the state legislature, and I think this would be a large improvement over the current system. I'm very pessimistic about the prospect of future attempts to pass election reform.
Ranked choice prevents 3rd party spoilers, and enables people to vote for 3rd parties, knowing their 2nd choice will count if it is needed to help a candidate reach a majority.
Ranked choice makes sure that in a hypothetical district with 3 candidates for one office, that has 2 candidates for party Q, and 1 candidate for party P, that candidate P doesn't have a massive advantage. In a majority wins 3-way race, candidate P stands a high chance of winning even if 65% of voters are on board with party Q.
My wife and I voting No on both .
@seanjohn6608 Ranked choice is part of 140. That gives a lot more power to the true will of the people. Often people just vote for who is less bad, to avoid having the worst candidate in office. Ranked choice boating allows us to still do that while ALSO Allowing for us to vote for who we want the most. ranked choice voting gives more of a voice to the will of the voters.
@@reedclippings8991 everything you are saying sounds good, I’m just worried about the legislature power and the fact this is a constitutional amendment. For those two reasons alone I’ve decided to vote no and hope we get a better reform soon because I don’t like it now.
What sounding around 10:05 was cut out?
I think it was “There’s a reason that there are no independents **in the state legislature** and it’s because the existing system is geared against them intentionally.” Weird that it cut out completely right then. But there are in fact no independent state legislators so I assume that’s what he said
Voting No on both. I believe all parties should have representation. The 2 party system obviously is not working. BUT 140 throws every "solution" onto us at once and will dramatically change the system quickly. Is this a good idea when we don't know if all parts of 140 are good solutions? Feels like the evil from within will figure out how to expose its flaws. We need to keep things how they are and modify in blocks so we can measure success.
How do people obtain brains like yours and still manage to procreate.
Vote for 140 if you want change, if you want our elections to really count all voices and cover all options. Vote for 133 if you want to cement the media monopolizing the air time with only the 2 major parties who spend millions of dollars silencing anyone who interferes with their power. Thank you to whoever wrote 140. If by chance you don’t win, please keep trying.
I think I might vote on both as well
That just cancels both out
I say all should have an equal chance to the ballet because if we split 50/50 the parties keep fighting and it will cause a greater split. And we need a voice for all so we can vote on our policies and sometimes it requires the vote of the opposite party.
I think people are thinking that Prop 133 would make general elections completely partisan. That’s not the case though. This reflects on primary elections
whats the problem with a dramatic change Mr Bowen? We need change!!! I want to be able to vote for a candidate not just for a party
There are better ways! 140 is a terrible idea!
This is a tough prop 😢
Prop 140 should only be one on the ballot. Whoever created Prop 133 is trying to cause more confusion for voters.
And how is this an issue? We all get a say in ALL candidates! If you have a good message and mean well for the people,what is there to fear? Let all Arizonans have a say!
What are Republicans voting for
133
135
140
Please help i am confused
The opposition patronizes to their voters: “it’s very complicated. . . “ From the comments, it appears many of you are falling for it.
Both are problematic but the potential for 'spoiler effect' keeps me in line with tradition. No on both.
We get spoiler effect with first past the post too... see Gore vs. Bush where Gore lost something like 100k votes in Florida to the Green Party.
huh? No listening comprehension detected.
These speaking are fast speaking!
Vote for Kari Lake for Senator!!!!
Brennan annoys me
I am like on the fence with this but I’m asking God to like show me or give me a sign like which one should I vote for and I’m going with JFK I mean he was a good president(He looks like John F Kennedy) And he was a good president so I’m going with that I don’t know it really sounds more towards that anyways So yes on prop 140 and no on prop 133
😂😂😂
Vote for KARI LAKE for Senator in Arizona!!!
Kari Lake is a Saved Born Again Believer Christianin Jesus Christ who has been chosen by God the Father to run for Senator for Arizona!!! She needs you to vote for her to sit in the SENATOR Seat so she can get accomplished, what the Holy Spirit power has chosen her to protect over all ARIZONIANS!!! With God, the Father's wisdom and answers, she will make sure that Arizona will be protected over from the confusing chaos of Satan, the DECEIVING Father of lies!!
Just never vote for Kari Lake. She's wants to criminalize Az women who just want basic rights over their own body as jesus would want for them.
Vote “Yes” on 140!
Why explain
@ Because I didn’t receive a ballot for the primary because I didn’t select a Republican or Democrat party. I should receive one regardless.
Trump supporter voting at the moment. Trying to figure out this local law. I will never vote Democrat on anything.
Prop 133 u can vote yes or no on it really wouldn’t change anything if Prop 133 gets passed, but vote NO on Prop 140. It would be California style primaries where ballots are confusing, there’s a total one party rule, and candidates require 50% of the vote in order to get elected and if a candidate gets less than 50%, there will be these stupid runoff elections
Google the republican voter guide 2024, it does help!
Heh, it's not a Democrat or a Republican measure.
Vote no
Lol, does this guy think that one of these propositions forces you to vote democrat? haha. I can see why he's a Trump supporter.