Georgia Democrat Captures Republican Seat Running Against Religious Freedom Laws - The New Civil Rights Movement

For those that have followed my blog or have heard me speak on various internet platforms, one of my oft repeated statements is, "for those of you who say apathetically that both parties are the same, I beg to differ.  For those that say your vote doesn't count, yes it does; even if it is not for your ideal candidate."  Here is a perfect example of the importance of the so-called "non essential" elections.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports that Taylor's victory gives Democrats control of Fulton County’s legislative delegation, where Republicans had held a 13-12 majority. Even more important, before Taylor's win, Republicans held a supermajority in both chambers. Taylor's election now gives Democrats the ability to block an override of the governor's veto. They also have the power to keep a constitutional amendment from passing, which could be crucial should the Republicans get it into their heads to try to write LGBT discrimination into the Georgia state constitution.

Oh, and the fact that he won on the platform he did is pretty amazing as well; Taylor ran against RFRA.  As Esselink notes,

While the 80th District might be very red, it is also largely upscale, encompassing Atlanta's wealthy northern suburbs where attitudes about gays are evolving much more rapidly than in the rural districts of southern Georgia. In fact, the departing Republican Mike Jacobs was the representative who scuttled the Georgia RFRA bill last session, by offering an LGBT non-discrimination amendment. Rep. Jacobs understood his constituents in the 80th District were evolving. Taylor Bennett ran that gay evolution right into the statehouse. 

Georgia Democrat Captures Republican Seat Running Against Religious Freedom Laws - The New Civil Rights Movement

"We the people"

So this was posted by Todd Starnes the other day.  

Notice a problem with it?  I thought it was up to "we the people," and not the "establishment," to decide who our candidates and elected officials should be?

Perverse Primaries - NYTimes.com

Learned something new about the "Sore Loser law", but I wonder, is this really just a side issue as some claim. With this "law" coupled with the Citizens United (to be read $$$$) doesn't it put lesser known political figures (third party candidates) at a disadvantage thereby skewing the election process. In some ways this seems a bit undemocratic as it lessens voter choice resulting in only a small group of people actually being represented

OBSERVERS of our polarized democracy often blame party primaries for producing some of our most extreme politicians. It’s well known that the most vociferous and partisan activists have a disproportionate influence in primaries.

Less well known is this: 44 states have “sore loser” laws of one form or another. These laws effectively block a candidate who fails to win a party primary from appearing on the general election ballot, as either an independent or as the nominee of another party.

These laws deprive voters of a full array of choices. They are arguably even more insidious than partisan redistricting, which affects House races but not Senate ones.

[,,,]
Advocates of open primaries argue that letting all voters choose among all the candidates, regardless of party, forces candidates to make a broader appeal, resulting in more moderate or centrist candidates. The political scientists Barry C. Burden, Bradley Jones and Michael S. Kang found that in states with sore-loser laws, congressional candidates were more ideologically distant from one another — that is, more polarized — than in states without them.

Perverse Primaries - NYTimes.com