On April 1, Meg Whitman, leading in the polls for the California Republican gubernatorial nomination, said that she opposes Proposition 14, the “top-two” ballot measure. She said that she is favorably disposed toward some sort of open primary, but she opposes Proposition 14 because it would lead to so few choices on the November ballot. She specifically criticized Proposition 14 because in some legislative or congressional districts there would be November elections in which no Republican appears on the ballot.
Whitman made this statement in Chico, at one of her public campaign events. Her comments were in response to a question from the audience.
I hope this influences the Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce’s NOT to endorse Proposition 14. I trust they will do what is right & come out against it.
correction: Commerce
What world shattering event will it take for the party hacks to detect —
P.R. and nonpartisan A.V. ???
NO primaries are needed.
How many zillion local regimes have totally nonpartisan top 2 primaries and manage somehow to survive ??? — taking note that it is local regimes which actually do some attempted work — cops, roads, trash, etc.
Could Demo Rep be specific. The only two top two that I know of are Louisiana and Oregon. Louisiana still elects extreme candidates like KKK leader David Duke and Oregon elected 90% of the incumbents. Top two isn’t working too well for them.
It’s Washington and Louisiana. Oregon has never used top-two. Oregon voters defeated it in 2008.
Anyone have a video of this? I haven’t heard her talk about prop. 14 before. Would be interested to hear it.
Has Jerry Brown taken a position on Prop. 14 yet? That’s courageous for Whitman, given all the big bucks that are being spent to pass this abomination.
#5: Louisiana only uses the “top two” (“open primary”) for state and local elections, having restored party primaries for Congress in 2008. The only office to which David Duke was elected was a partial term as state representative. He made the 1991 gubernatorial runoff against Edwin Edwards, and Edwards won, 61% to 39%. When Duke ran for US senator in 1996, he only got 11% of the vote. Having done a prison stretch, Duke is no longer eligible to run for office.
Washington is the only other state that uses the “top two” to elect all of its state officials, and Washington alone uses it for congressional elections. That state’s “top two” is facing a trial in US district court in October.
In November 2008, just under 66 percent of Oregon voters said “no!” to M65, the “top two open primary.”
Jerry Brown is neutral on Prop. 14.
Several good comments on Proposition 14 have recently been added to this earlier post.
Nebraska happens to have a NONPARTISAN one house State legislature — with a top 2 NONPARTISAN primary — and manages to survive — even with the underlying party hack stuff.
A ZILLION local regimes (cities and villages especially) have top 2 NONPARTISAN primaries.
47 states have PARTISAN state legislative elections.
The “top two” is fine for local elections, since (1) local officials are involved with providing services, rather than with policy issues, and (2) the national parties do not get involved in local races.
In 1915, California had a referendum for a “top two” for state offices. The voters, who had approved “top two” local elections just a few years earlier, voted 58.2% “no” on the 1915 measure.
In 2004, California voters rejected the “top two” for state and congressional elections. That initiative lost in 51 of the state’s 58 counties.
In 2008, nearly 66 percent of Oregon voters rejected the “top two” for state and congressional elections. It lost in every single county.
Nebraska is the only state with a one-house legislature.
“(2) the national parties do not get involved in local races.”
That’s true most of the time. There are a few exceptions, such as the San Francisco Mayoral election in 2003. After Green candidate Matt Gonzalez made the runoff and started polling well against Gavin Newsom, the Democratic Party brought in Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Jesse Jackson to pull Newsom across the finish line.
I can understand why the Democrats did this. Had Gonzalez won, it would have been much harder for them to trot out the “Greens Can’t Win” scare tactics. They would have been forced to compete with the Greens based on merit.
Whitman is the likely Republican nominee for Governor. Having her speak out against Prop 14 is extremely good fro anti-Prop14 forces.
#12 Past stuff is totally irrelevant.
Once upon a time there was divine right of kings and massive amounts of slavery (for many, many, many centuries) — all blown away — some the very hard way.
P.R. and nonpartisan A.V. — NO primaries are needed.
Will Meg Whitman put up some big money to help make voters aware that top two will limit our choices in November elections. Wouldn’t that be great?
#13: Matt Gonzalez was quite impressive in the 2008 vice-presidential debate.
His back-and-forth with Wayne Allyn Root on socialized medicine was one of the best debate exchanges I’ve ever heard.
This is my reponse to Jim Riley’s comment #37 at an earlier post:
Independents and small party candidates usually know that they have little or no chance of getting elected, but they often make valuable contributions to the dialogue in the general election campaign.
When a small party’s message is kept out of the final, deciding election campaign, the party loses its main reason for existing (the “top two open primary,†of course, makes it nearly impossible for independents and small party candidates to reach the runoff).
“… you should be able to keep the [candidate] who you don’t endorse off the ballot – and you want the State… to enforce this?â€
You say that the State has no business preventing candidates who lose a party’s nomination from nevertheless running in the general election.
And yet you are a fanatical advocate of the “top two open primary†abomination, in which the State prohibits all first-round candidates who finish third or lower from appearing on the final election ballot (this is almost certainly unconstitutional for congressional elections, but I digress).
Please explain your hypocritical position.
As I’ve suggested several times previously: If you’re going to advocate nonpartisan elections, you should promote a “top three†or a “top four.†Then the voters would at least have more choices in the final, deciding election.
But you’re now stuck with defending “Maldonado’s Folly,†which arbitrarily limits the voters to just two choices in the final election.
#18 California does a very effective job of keeping independent candidates off the ballot. The last time an independent candidate office appeared on a general election ballot in California was in 1978 when Ed Clark ran for governor. No California voter under 49 has seen a ballot with such a candidate. There have been 9 independent congressional candidates among the last 900 or so going back into the 1970s.
If California ballots had a picture of an animal next to a candidate’s name, Independents would have a picture of a carrier pigeon.
Proposition 14 would reduce the number of signatures required to qualify statewide from over 176,000 to 65. For US Representative from around 10,000 to 40 (and the same for the legislature).
Louisiana has the most experience with an open primary, and its legislature has more independents elected as such than any State except Virginia (and excluding Nebraska). Just this past week, an independent was chosen speaker pro tempore of the House, its 2nd most important office.
It is hypocritical of opponents of Proposition 14 to claim that they are pro-independent candidate.
The purpose of the party primary scheme is largely to keep the strongest competitors, those who usually have the most support among the voters off the ballot. It is the same idea as used by racketeers.
Under Proposition 14 candidates from all parties and independents will appear on the June primary ballot where all voters regardless of their political affiliation or lack of one will be able to vote for the person they believe will best represent them.
This is already they system used for over a century to elect county officials in California and even the statewide Superintendent of Public Instruction. The major difference is that for these statewide offices, Congress, and the legislature, there will always be a runoff, even if one candidate happens to receive a majority in June. This will give the voters in November, one final opportunity to compare the two candidates who had the most support from their fellow voters in the primary.
The other difference is that the political party preferred by the candidate will appear on the ballot (this is discretionary due to constitutional concerns about compelled speech).
Parties will be free to support candidates in both the primary and general election, just like they do now. The state will distribute the party’s sample ballot with the endorsements of the party.
If a candidate seeks the endorsement of a political party and fails to receive it, he will still be able to take his case for election to all the voters.
As I’ve explained previously, I would have no problem with making qualification for the next round to be among the Top N, where their share of the total vote was greater than N/(N+1).
The basic idea is to have an election open to all voters and candidates that then reduces the field for later consideration. Recall that in Jones when Justice Scalia posited the idea of an Open Primary, he used “whatever” to describe the number of candidates who would advance.
I think you are wrong in your interpretation of Foster v. Love. Go read the oral arguments before the court and read the decision carefully. Louisiana was actually issuing the certificate of election in October and shuttering the polling place in November.
As you may recall, the Love plaintiff simply wanted to be able to vote for against Billy Tauzin in November. In November 2008, under the retrogressive system imposed in Louisiana, voters were unable to vote for or against Charlie Melancon in any election primary or otherwise. And then because of the voter lockout devices on their voting machines which they use to keep voters who are qualified for voting for members of legislature from voting for Congress, they were actually considering legislation that would have prevented minor parties from nominating congressional candidates at all.
#19: “The purpose of the party primary scheme is largely to keep the strongest competitors, those who usually have the most support among the voters off the ballot. It is the same idea as used by racketeers.”
Are you serious? The very reason that party primaries came into such widespread usage was to take party nominations out of the smoke-filled rooms. Most party leaders and loyal party voters today want to choose candidates who have a good chance of winning the general election.
“Under Proposition 14 candidates from all parties and independents will appear on the June primary (sic) ballot where all voters… will be able to vote for the person they believe will best represent them.”
Yes, and since this is just a preliminary election, a voter will hope that his favorite candidate survives and makes it to the November ballot. If not, he must vote for the “lesser of the evils,” both of whom may be from the same party.
“… for these statewide offices, Congress, and the legislature, there will always be a runoff, even if one candidate happens to receive a majority in June.”
Right. So a candidate could get 100% of the vote in June and then be defeated in November– which is ridiculous. As I’ve said before, I’m convinced that if Washington state is permitted to continue using the “top two,” it will ultimately have to hold the first round for Congress on the first Tuesday in November; if the state wants to have a runoff for Congress, it will have to be at a later date.
“Parties will be free to support candidates in both the primary (sic) and general election, just like they do now.”
And what will happen when the two final candidates are from the same major party? Will the other major party endorse the “lesser of the evils”? And what will the small parties do in such a situation? For that matter, what will the small parties do when the final choice is one Democrat and one Republican?
“… [a candidate will] be able to take his case for election to all the voters.”
This will give an advantage to the big-money candidates, especially in a large state like California, in which paid media is already so crucial in campaigns. In order have a chance to advance to the November election, a party-affiliated candidate will have to communicate with ALL the voters– instead of just his party’s voters.
The top two vote-getters will have to finance and conduct TWO general election campaigns, which, again, will give an even greater advantage to the candidates with the most money. This will discourage people without big bucks from even running.
“The basic idea is to have an election open to all voters and candidates that then reduces the field…”
Propostion 14 (“Maldonado’s Folly”) would reduce the field all right– to just two candidates, both of whom may be from the same party. Why should the voters be limted to just two candidates in the final, deciding election?
You say you wouldn’t mind it if more than two candidates could advance to the November ballot. But the reality is that you’re stuck with the California proposal, which would only permit the top two finishers to advance.
I forgot to mention independent candidates. In the present system of party primaries, independents who qualify are guaranteed a place on the November ballot, and the general election is the only one in which they have to campaign.
Under the “top two open primary,” in contrast, independents would be on the first-round ballot with all the other candidates. If lightning struck and an independent made the runoff, he would then be required to finance and conduct a SECOND general election campaign. Again, this (1) magnifies the importance of money, (2) gives an even greater advantage to the candidates with the big bucks, and (3) discourages people without lots of cash from running.
“Under Proposition 14 candidates from all parties and independents will appear on the June primary ballot where all voters… will be able to vote for the person they believe will best represent them.â€
Yes, and since this is just a preliminary election, a voter will hope that his favorite candidate survives and makes it to the November ballot. If not, he must vote for the “lesser of the evils,†both of whom may be from the same party.
The voter should talk up his favorite among his friends, neighbors, colleagues, and political associates, so that whether or not the candidate advances to the final round is not a matter of hope.
In the event that he does not advance, then he should recognize and accept that his candidate is not favored by too many of the electorate, and choose another candidate accordingly.
“… for these statewide offices, Congress, and the legislature, there will always be a runoff, even if one candidate happens to receive a majority in June.â€
Right. So a candidate could get 100% of the vote in June and then be defeated in November– which is ridiculous.
Why? Because the other candidate received more votes? In Nebraska, it happens, but is fairly uncommon.
As I’ve said before, I’m convinced that if Washington state is permitted to continue using the “top two,†it will ultimately have to hold the first round for Congress on the first Tuesday in November; if the state wants to have a runoff for Congress, it will have to be at a later date.
But you were cool with Charlie Melancon being elected without their actually being an election. Odd.
When Congress requires all congressional elections to be by Top 2, they’ll specifically endorse the schedule used by California and Washington.
“Parties will be free to support candidates in both the primary and general election, just like they do now.â€
And what will happen when the two final candidates are from the same major party? Will the other major party endorse the “lesser of the evils� And what will the small parties do in such a situation? For that matter, what will the small parties do when the final choice is one Democrat and one Republican?
It is not up to the State to dictate to the parties who they should or should not endorse.
“… [a candidate will] be able to take his case for election to all the voters.â€
This will give an advantage to the big-money candidates, especially in a large state like California, in which paid media is already so crucial in campaigns. In order have a chance to advance to the November election, a party-affiliated candidate will have to communicate with ALL the voters– instead of just his party’s voters.
Tell me it’s not true. The candidate will have to communicate with ALL his future constituents? Horrors.
The top two vote-getters will have to finance and conduct TWO general election campaigns, which, again, will give an even greater advantage to the candidates with the most money. This will discourage people without big bucks from even running.
If they advance to the general election, their supporters will probably contribute.
I forgot to mention independent candidates.
In California over 175,000 signatures are needed to run for statewide office. There has not been one since 1978 when Ed Clark ran for governor. It is understandable that you would forget them.
Under the “top two open primary,†in contrast, independents would be on the first-round ballot with all the other candidates. If lightning struck and an independent made the runoff, he would then be required to finance and conduct a SECOND general election campaign. Again, this (1) magnifies the importance of money, (2) gives an even greater advantage to the candidates with the big bucks, and (3) discourages people without lots of cash from running.
3 legislative independents qualified for the general election in Washington. 2 independents were elected to the House in Louisiana. One of them was just elected Speaker Pro Tempore, the 2nd highest position in the legislature.
#22: “In the event that [a voter’s favorite candidate] does not advance, then [the voter] should recognize and accept that his candidate is not favored by too many of the electorate, and choose another candidate accordingly.”
Suppose, in the first round, there are two Democrats and six serious Republican candidates. In all likelihood, the six Republicans will split up the vote and enable the two Democrats to advance to the runoff. In a system of party primaries, in contrast, each party is empowered to have a candidate in the final election.
There could be a vote threshold– say 60%– for a candidate to be considered elected in the first round of the “top two,” and to dispense with the runoff (50%-plus, as in Louisiana, is fine with me). It makes no sense for a candidate who has gotten a majority of the vote to then have to enter a runoff.
Was Rep. Charlie Melancon unopposed? What are you talking about?
“When Congress requires all congressional elections to be by Top 2, they’ll specifically endorse the schedule used by California and Washington.”
That will happen on the same day as the first snowball fight in hell.
“It is not up to the State to dictate to the parties who they should or should not endorse.”
Of course not. But a party– or a voter– should not be faced with a “lesser of the evils” choice in the final, deciding election, as many Louisianans were in the 1991 gubernatorial runoff, which featured a crook and an ex-Klansman. Such a choice is far more likely in the “top two,” which limits the final election to only two candidates, both of whom may be from the same party.
“The candidate will have to communicate with ALL his future constituents? Horrors.”
“Horrors” is an excellent word for describing the “top two open primary” monstrosity. It makes no sense for candidates to have to finance and conduct TWO general election campaigns in ONE election cycle. That’s what the fall campaign is for.
“If they advance to the [runoff], their supporters will probably contribute.”
If a candidate is short of money, he’s far less likely to finish in the top two and advance to the runoff– especially in a state the size of California.
#23: The signature requirement for independent candidates can be lowered without screwing up the whole election system by imposing the “top two open primary” abomination.
#22: “In the event that [a voter’s favorite candidate] does not advance, then [the voter] should recognize and accept that his candidate is not favored by too many of the electorate, and choose another candidate accordingly.â€
Suppose, in the first round, there are two Democrats and six serious Republican candidates. In all likelihood, the six Republicans will split up the vote and enable the two Democrats to advance to the runoff. In a system of party primaries, in contrast, each party is empowered to have a candidate in the final election.
So you have a district with 8 candidates, who split the vote evenly, and two leaders happen to have the same party. So?
This situation doesn’t actually appear to happen in real life. In Louisiana you get races with perhaps 4 to 7 Democrats, but there might be no Republicans running. If there is one Democrat and 3 Republicans, it is not rare for the Democrat to finish 4th.
That will happen on the same day as the first snowball fight in hell.
Who won the Superbowl?
“So you have a district with 8 candidates, who split the vote evenly, and two leaders happen to have the same party. So?”
So… nothing to someone like you, who doesn’t give a damn about political parties. But it’s a big deal to the faithful voters of all the parties who do not have a candidate in the final, deciding election. Those voters are essentially disenfranchised.
If you want to be an independent, fine– but don’t try to force everyone else to behave like an independent.