Perhaps Rep. Segal should talk to Jeff Toste from the Green Party and see whats he thinks about SPV.

Its not just an RIGOP problem.

www.greeninstitute.net/node/53?Q=node/47

www.votetoste.com/

Having been witness to this, I can unequivocally say that Jeff Toste lost 2 state senate campaigns because he did not run a good race.

Independents and third party candidates can and have won in Rhode Island (see O'Neill or Cianci or Segal for that matter).

But you have to know how to run a winning campaign, if you are going to do it.

And simply putting your name on the ballot doesn't mean you have a chance of winning!

I feel so dirty...

Matt is right. While the SPV is a problem, it's not the fatal flaw in the RIGOP's operation. The problem is the lack of a platform that doesn't involve actively hating gays. The problem is that they've successfully been painted as 'anti-immigrant' and have done virtually nothing to combat that. The problem is that the GOP is simply out of touch at EVERY level.

To Matt:

I know of campaigns where the Democrat who won would not have won with all the SPV removed. Take a look at your own Senate Majority Leader's race. He won by 800 votes. He won the SPV vote by 1200. It's not all about running a winning campaign when more people specifically vote for one candidate and that candidate does not end up winning.

If the problem really is that the GOP isn't running good candidates or good campaigns, then you shouldn't be opposed to removing the SPV system. All your candidates will still win, right? So what's the problem? If the GOP is only running bad candidates against your great candidates, then you'll still win. So, you on board?

SPV played a major role in getting the Democratic piece of dreck that is my state senator re-elected. I'm dying for good GOP and independent candidates here in N. Providence, but this town would elect a piece of lint if it had a "D" stenciled on it in November.

Whatsamatta Rhody-not enough Italian curse words available(just kidding)?
BTW to get the full import say "shtick dreck".Want the Spanish cognate?"Mojon".Often used when referring to my sister in law's former husband. :))
It would've been nice if Spaziano had circulated a flyer with her positions.I think we're neighbors.

Matt, if it really is all about the campaign, then why did David Segal switch to Democrat when he decided to run for a state representative position? Wouldn't a Segal victory as a Green have been very unlikely?

"If the problem really is that the GOP isn't running good candidates or good campaigns, then you shouldn't be opposed to removing the SPV system. All your candidates will still win, right? So what's the problem?"

Yes, indeed. In fact, let's broaden that question out to everyone who supports the straight-party lever.

Joe, say what you want about Spaziano's campaign (she did indeed need to be a little more aggressive). I'm just tired of Rubbers Ruggerio and his $170K high union muckety-muck butt getting a free pass while any other Democratic official with any ties to unions at all gets attacked.
It really makes me wonder whether Ruggerio is "connected," and therefore gets "respect" in this forum.

I concur with Patrick -- if it doesn't matter, why do we have it? Because, it matters a whole lot towards keeping that status quo, and discouraging challengers from running, that's why. We still have it to perpetuate one-party corrupt rule in Rhode Island. If you were in the minority party for 70 years, you might think differently.

Let's get something straight, the GOP doesn't "run" anything. With very few exceptions, they generally leave candidates to fend for themselves. Given some of the help they've given, that might not necessarily be a bad thing. About the one thing I give them credit for is setting expectations of assistance appropriately (i.e. very low).

It's hard to convince good GOP candidates to run for office, when they're being asked to run a race where they are forced to spend most of their early efforts just trying to level the playing field to even have a fighting chance.

The other "problem" is that [generally speaking] GOP candidates are not backed by the special interests groups who will dedicate volunteers and financial support towards their campaign, so they are also expected to rely on their own financial resources in a way that incumbents don't have to. They generally run for office, because they think they can make a difference for the better, not because they're in it for themselves or their employer. Unfortunately, IF they ever manage to get elected, they quickly find that they can't, because the system is stacked against good people (I wasn't trying to sound pessimistic).

As I recently told a fairly discouraged non-first time GOP legislative candidate who raised 5 figure cash and ran a great race, walked the district multiple times, but still ended up losing, "in Rhode Island, as a Republican, you can run the 'perfect' campaign and still lose. It's not your fault." It wasn't his fault, it was ours. Much of that has to do with SPV (and in that particular race, SPV was definitely the main factor). Unfortunately, when races are very close, as they often tend to be in RI, the individual merits of the candidates are not the deciding factor. The deciders are the non-thinking voters.

I can fully understand that "token" GOP candidates (which I'd say are about half), don't really deserve to win, and rarely ever do. However, when you have real candidates who run real races, raise real money, put the shoe leather to the road, and still get trampled because of SPV, then it's very difficult to motivate other potential first time candidates to go give it a shot.