So the more and more i hear about this it sounds like there is no plant, no fraud, no conspiracy. It looks like it comes down to Greene’s name being more “dulcet sounding” then his opponents name Rawl combined with his name being listed first. Which it means it really comes down to people having no idea who or why that are voting for someone. And this was during a primary, I thought only the supposedly politically knowledgeable voted. Vic Rawl is a career politician and judge, and yet in a poll before the election he held only a 4% favorable opinion among Democrats, not because they disliked him but because no one knew who he was.
Vic Rawls, who lost to Alvin Greene, had 4 percent name recognition | Washington Examiner
Here is how I think you staff political offices with candidates voted in by knowledgeable citizens and largely end partisanship the way we know it.
1). Remove the (D)’s, (R)’s, (I)’s, and every other party affiliation next to the candidates name.
2). Randomize the order a candidate’s name is presented each time a new voter steps into the ballot.
The probability of a person like Rawl loosing and person like Greene winning will be negligible. Ignorant voters will be marginalized.
I personally have never voted before and likely never will. American has 3rd lowest voter turnout of industrialized countries for lower house (congressional) voting at 54%, and this is during presidential elections, not “off years” which are 15 percentage points lower. I think this is largely because people like me realize you’re wasting your time thinking you’re taking ownership in our political system. For every knowledge voter there are thousands who are completely ignorant.
Voter turnout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia