1. Epstein said that candidates would be forced to “reach out to everybody”.

   Is this bad?

2. Christina Tobin mentioned that the number of independent and third party candidates for the legislature in Washington declined from 45 in 2004 to 12 in 2008. But she neglected to mention that there was only one such candidate in 2006, Linde Knighton.

   It appears that in 2004, the Libertarians having qualified as a major party ran a whole bunch of legislative candidates, and then for some reason decided not to run anyone in 2006. The drop from 2004 to 2006 was a political decision. That only one candidate who preferred the Libertarian Party chose to run in 2008 can not be blamed on implementation of Top 2.

3. All the political parties standing united against political reform. This video is perhaps the best example of why people should vote for Prop 14.

   The arrogance of the political parties – including many in the third parties – is incredible. They act and speak as though parties own the political process and simply rent it out to the voters from time to time. Party bosses should not be the arbiters of political power.

   Democracy is not about every candidate getting “fair access”. It is about every voter having equal participation. Segregating 3.4 million Californians and allowing party bosses to decide who has the right to vote must end.

4. Jason Olson, you are the arrogant person in this conversation. Because you and your political associates couldn’t make a go of your own minor parties, you are now trying to change the California law to destroy other minor parties. And on the radio today, your comments that independents are the growing force in the U.S. are factually wrong. Professor Michael McDonald of George Mason University, an expert on voter registration data, published on his web page that since 2008, independent registration is down in the U.S., and minor party registration is up in the U.S. But that contradicts your “religion”. Even though MacDonald’s data is factual, your mind rejects it, much as a creationist rejects fossil evidence. It is also not true that independents are locked out of voting in California primaries for Congress and statewide office. You keep saying they are because you can’t make an honest case for Prop. 14; you must shade the truth. You should become a poll worker sometime and then you would get trained on how well independents are treated at the polls on primary day. Independent Voting sent out an e-mail blast yesterday again saying California primaries are “members-only”, which is not the truth.

5. “Reaching out to everybody” is what general elections are for. It’s not what primaries are for. Top Two effectively eliminates primaries in favor of a bastardized form of two round runoff, in which both rounds are part of the general election. If you want a two-round general election, OK, propose one (although IRV is cheaper and better). But you either have to (1) make some provision for parties to nominate candidates, or (2) try to eliminate political parties altogether and have supposedly “non-partisan” elections, or (3) accept the fact that parties are going to make de facto nominations in back rooms instead of in public (in anticipation of Prop 14 passing, the state Republican Party has already adopted bylaws changes for this purpose). Prop 14 is based on (3), by far the worst of these alternatives.

6. If Propostion 14 passes, how are the smaller parties going to maintain ballot status if they can not utilize the presidential and vice-presidential election results for such efforts? Will there be an all-out struggle for control of the American Independent Party (which can stay qualified because of its relatively large membership)?

7. #5 The purpose of an election is for the voters to make a collective decision as to who their public official are.

   You’ve mixed up process with the objective of the process.

   Under the Top 2 system voters choose from among all candidates, in the first, or primary, stage. The two candidates with the most votes advance to a second round, where voters make their final, collective decision as to who their public official is.

   Under the terms of SB 6, each candidate submits nomination papers, which include a certain number of signatures and a fee. There is no need for “party” nomination. So why add superfluous steps, especially when they interfere with the voters making their collective decision.

   There is nothing wrong with citizens banding together to support a particular candidate. If some folks want to get together and encourage Bob Richards to run for Congress, or offer support in the form of financial support, or yard signs, bumper stickers, phone banking, or block walking, they are free to do so. What is the purposes of saying that certain groups are more “qualified” than others, especially in the form of the formal recognition by the State. Why should Citizens For Bob be place in an inferior legal position to the Democratic Party or any other party?

   SB 6 has explicit provisions so that qualified political parties may have their endorsements included on a sample ballot distributed to voters. At minimum they would be distributed to voters whose registration has disclosed a preference for the party. As a practical matter, counties may choose to distribute the sample ballot with the endorsements of all qualified parties on a single ballot. I would expect that all qualified parties will make changes to their bylaws to provide a system for making endorsements.

8. Congress said in 1872 that November is federal election day. California is free to hold its state elections whenever it wants, but Congressional elections must be in November. The congressional election is a national event. To obliterate minor party congressional campaigns in California (and Washington) during federal campaign season is wrong. If Prop. 14 is implemented, I won’t vote. I am not interested in a November ballot with only Democrats and Republicans on it.

9. Jim: It is difficult to understand your point (that I am mixing up “process with the objective of the process”). It seems to me that if the playing field is going to be made even more unlevel than it already is (which is very bad now); the smaller parties do indeed have a legal and moral right to complain about what the process does to them.

   Richard: There is another option for you and your comrades. The Libertarian Party could form a Libertarian Caucus and attempt to take control of the Republican Party of California. The GOP in the Golden State is well on its way to becoming a minor-sized party, so such an effort would be quite feasible.

10. I am an independent and I think it’s awfully arogant of Jason Olson to spread such ignorant lies and to claim to speak for other independents.

    Jason Olson said “Segregating 3.4 million Californians and allowing party bosses to decide who has the right to vote must end.”

    Jason can you point out the specific statutes that give party bosses the power to decide who has a right to vote? No you can’t, because this statemant is completely false. This is a blatant lie fueled by hatred of political parties and not based on reality. It is this exact type of ignorant behavior that turned me off of political parties in the first place, because the Rs and Ds have no problem lying to get what they want just like Jason Olson. Tell us this Jason, if your above statement is true, then logically it also MUST be true that YOU are now trying to decide who has the right to vote in November elections. You and Prop. 14 are doing exactly what you accuse party bosses of doing.

    Jason Olson shows us the emotional sentiment behind Prop. 14. Proposition 14 is obviously designed to punish and hurt political parties and really has nothing to do with voter rights or voter choice.

    I’ve been voting since 1988. Not once have I had an opportunity to vote for any candidate other than a Democrat or Republican for state legislative seats, whether in Illinois, Tennessee, or Washington. Being my first election in California, I might have that chance this year for the first time in my life under California’s current system. However, if Proposition 14 passes, I might have to go another 22 years or the rest of my life without having any “other” choice on my ballot for state legislative races.

    Jason Olson and his biased voter group want to take away my right to vote in November elections, if you care to use his same flawed logic. Republicans and Democrats have failed and I refuse to vote for them, but Jason Olson wants to force me to have no other choice in November BUT Rs and Ds. Jason Olson even wants to take away me having a write-in option in November. What good does that do, taking away my right to write-in a candidate? None.

    I’ve voted in 11 partisan state-level elections, and numerous local elections. Only once have I had more than ONE choice for state representative or state senate in those 11 elections. 10 out of 11 state representative races in my lifeitme have been unopposed and all 5 state senate elections have been unopposed. 15 of 16 state legislative races in my lifetime were all unopposed. In Illinois, no independent candidate has been able to even get on the ballot in that state since 1980.

    I’m sick of not having any choice in November elections and I’ve gotten active to try to change that. And that is why I, as a true independent, vehemently oppose Proposition 14. Proposition 14 will take away ballot choices from me, and everyone else in the entire state of California, in the November election that counts.

11. P.R. and App.V. — after Prop. 14 is enacted.

    NO primaries are needed.

12. Phil (#9), Jim Riley’s comment that you don’t follow was addressed to me (#5), not to you.

    Jim (#7), why don’t you just say it in so many words and get it over with? You don’t believe that political parties should be allowed to control the use of their names on the ballot (that’s what “nomination” means). Or perhaps you believe that that political party names should not be allowed on the ballot at all (nominally non-partisan elections). Or perhaps you don’t believe that political parties should even be allowed to exist.

    I believe in political parties. I think that healthy parties (provided there are more than two of them) are not just good for democracy, they are essential for democracy. There, I said it. Will you?

13. #12 Political parties should be participants, not mediators in the electoral process.

    Back before there were government-printed ballots, candidates might offer to run, and voters would write in their name. Some like-minded folks might gather and encourage one of their neighbors to run, and then might go out and encourage voters to vote for their neighbor.

    These groups of people evolved into political parties. They might print ballots with their slate of candidates. Or partisan newspapers might print lists of endorsements (newspapers were often just the equivalent of partisan blogs). And so they had to figure out how who to put on the slate. If there was a disagreement or a factional dispute, different factions of the party might support different candidates. They might even agree on some parts of the slate. Both factions might use the same party name. If the factional dispute continued, the smaller faction might become a new party, or be absorbed back into the main group or other parties.

    There were abuses of the system. Political toughs might disrupt distribution of ballots of opposing parties. There could be bribery and ballot stuffing. Printers might switch some candidate names on the party ballot. If ballots were printed in a county, a local party might decide to support a candidate for statewide office.

    The Australian ballot was intended to reform that. Candidates could qualify easily and voters could vote for who they wanted. Political parties could still support candidates. But the political parties were threatened by this. It was harder for them to slate candidates, so they insisted on the ability to have their slates placed on the ballot. And they saw that they could control factionalism, by passing laws that discouraged challengers. So instead of Bob Richard trying to discourage a faction within his party, he can enlist the government to block factions. After all it is essential to democracy. And too many parties or weak parties may be unhealthy for democracy, so it becomes essential to block small parties and independents.

    If parties are essential, then party leaders may view themselves as being essential, and their activities as being essential. Perhaps Rahm Emmanuel thought that the re-election of Arlen Spector was essential.

14. Bob Richard (#12): You are correct. Jim Riley’s comment was indeed directed to you and not to me. However, my statement stands on its own merit as a counterpoint to Jim’s position on Proposition 14.

    In addition, I can really understand Richard Winger’s frustration (#8) with the possibility that Propostion 14 will pass on June 8. To have a system where there are only Democrats and Republicans on the November ballot is not all that far removed from Stalinist societies where there is only one party that is allowed to be on the ballot.

15. #14: The Louisiana “open primary”/”top two” system is an extension of the old one-party (truly NO-PARTY) system, in which elections were decided in the Democratic primary, with a Democratic runoff if necessary.

    The only other state with a “top two” is Washington. The main reason the voters there approved the “top two” in 2004 was that state’s long history– since the 1930s– of voters being able to cross party lines in the first round of voting (in the blanket primary).

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.