On May 28, two politics blogs happened to each make the same point about California’s Proposition 14, the top-two measure on the June 8 ballot. The authors of the two blogs wrote independently of each other, but both made the same point about the expected peculiar consequences of a top-two system. See this blog post from Confound Me, and this one from the Huffington Post, by Gautam Dutta.
California has not elected a Republican Attorney General since 1994. One can make a reasonable statement that, nowadays, Californians prefer a Democrat as Attorney General. But if Proposition 14 were in force this year, it would probably result in the election of a Republican Attorney General. Six Democrats have strong campaigns for Attorney General this year, and the few polls that have been conducted in this race show they all are approximately equal in voter support. But only two Republicans running for Attorney General this year have strong campaigns. Under Proposition 14, chances are that each of the Democrats running in the single primary would each get between 6% and 10% of the total primary vote. The two Republicans with strong campaigns would probably each get between 15% and 20% of the total vote. So, California would wind up with a general election race between two Republicans, even though perhaps 55% of the voters prefer a Democratic Attorney General.
Another original piece about Proposition 14 is this from TrueSlant, authored by Jerry Lanson.
That might happen once. Then party officials would wise up, and make sure that only one or two of their party’s candidates had any funding in the first round. I believe that the Republican Party has already passed bylaw changes to implement this, contingent on Prop 14 passing.
The parties’ defense won’t be perfect, however. Businesses or wealthy individuals can always donate directly to a maverick Democrat or Republican, allowing such candidates to run as de facto independents even though de jure they are on the ballot as partisan candidates. That’s really the point of Prop 14: to give wealthy backers an end run around the party organizations that they feel (correctly or not) they no longer control.
And that is another problem with top-two. Instead of allowing party members (and even non-members) to select the party nominee from among several candidates by voting (the existing primary system), top-two will result in party bosses selecting one candidate per party to run in the primary election. That is equivalent to eliminating the primary election completely and running the general election twice, except with only two candidates the second time around.
In the summer of 2008, Washington held its Top 2 Open Primary. In the summer of 2004, California held its semi-closed partisan primary. Turnout in Washington 46%, in California 28% (Gautum Dutta misstated the turnout for California). Neither primary had a presidential race, which drove the November turnout.
Dutta fails to note that there his not been a statewide independent candidate on the ballot in California (other than for a recall election or a presidential election) since 1978, when Jerry Brown was governor. No California voter under 50 has seen an independent candidate on the ballot. Only about 1% of congressional races since the 1970s have had an independent candidate (9 of 900+).
Proposition 14 makes it possible for a write-in candidate to advance from the primary to the general election. Under current law it is almost impossible.
Jim, you keep saying things that are not true. Earlier today you said that no minor parties had any candidates in Washington state in 2006. I didn’t respond, but I know that you know that there were Green Party and Libertarian Party candidates for US Senator in Washington in 2006.
The California June primary in 2008 had no statewide offices on it. It was the first statewide California primary since 1936 which had no statewide offices up. You compare that primary with the Washington state primary, in which Governor and the other 7 statewide partisan races were on the ballot. Naturally the Washington primary had a higher turnout.
You act as though the California independent petition requirements are set in stone and cannot be changed. If Proposition 14 is defeated, I will exert myself to the fullest to change the California independent candidates procedures. However, as bad as they are, it should be noted that there were 2 independents on the California November ballot in 2008 for US House, and one for State Senate in 2008 as well. So in 2008 alone, 7% of the California voters say an independent candidate on their November ballot, so when you say “no California voter under 50 has seen an independent candidate on the ballot” that is not a true sentence either.
P.R. for legislative bodies.
Nonpartisan App.V. for executive/judicial offices.
— pending MAJOR, MAJOR public education about head to head math.
I can tell you that after WA went “Top Two”, more incumbents have been reelected, and NO independents of minor parties were on the November ballot. That’s what Top Two gets you. Less choices and more eternal incumbents. I no longer vote in November except for initiatives and referenda or President because the anti-democratic Top two system doesn’t effect presidential elections.
#4 There was one minor party legislative candidate in Washington in 2006. I apologize if I left off “legislative”. If there were an edit option, and you could point me to the note, I would make a correction.
+++++
Gautum Dutta in his article that you praised cited the difference between the June 2008 California primary and the November 2008 California general election.
1) He misstated participation in the June 2008 primary. It was 28.22%. He claimed it was 22%.
2) He failed to note that there was no presidential race in June 2008. He failed to note that there was no US senate race, and no statewide races.
3) He neglected to mention that only 45 of 153 (29%) of congressional and legislative races had 2 or more Democratic candidates; and 34 of 153 (22%) had 2 or more Republican candidates. There were no contested minor party nominations.
4) He did not mention that participation by party was:
Republican 32.76%
Democratic 29.67%
Libertarian 23.56%
Green 20.75%
Declined To State 17.62%
American Independent 16.52%
Peace & Freedom 9.45%
64% of DTS voters voted a non-partisan ballot.
So there was no reason to vote for many voters, and turnout reflected this. Under Proposition 14, all voters would be welcome to vote for all candidates, including independent candidates.
+++++
You fail to recognize why independent petition requirements are so high. They are nowhere near that high for Superintendent of Public Instruction. Why is that? You are treating the symptoms and not the disease.
Under an Open Primary system, all candidates are treated equally, and the barriers to participation will tend to be quite low.
++++++
In 2008 there were 2 independent candidates for Congress on the general election ballot in California.
In 1996 there was 1
In 1992 there were 2
In 1988 there were 2
In 1976 there was 1
In 1970 there was 1
So a total of 9 in 1064 races between 1964 and 2008, or 1 in 118 races.
There have been 9 US Presidents in the same period.
+++++
I wrote, “… there has not been a statewide independent candidate on the ballot in California (other than for a recall election or a presidential election) since 1978, when Jerry Brown was governor. No California voter under 50 has seen an independent candidate on the ballot.”
This was intended to refer to voters having had an opportunity to vote for an independent statewide candidate (other than a presidential candidate) or in the 2003 recall.
I will acknowledge that there may be some naturalized citizens who may have seen independent candidates in their country of origin, and voters who have lived in other states.
+++++
“Hurry up kids, get everything packed, we need to get rolling.”
“It looks like we’re moving.”
(Dad is strapping freezer on to top of RV, sofa is already there).
“Just long enough to establish residency”
“But I like California.”
“But we’ll never see an independent gubernatorial candidate if we stay in California.”
“But granny and gramps said they remember an independent gubernatorial candidate”
“But they’re old. They can remember when Jerry Brown’s father was governor.”
(Picture of RV, “Lewis&ClarkMobile”, painted with red, white, and blue bunting stripping and pictures of the Corps of Discovery. Pan to see bumper stickers for Angus King, Charlie Crist, Kinky Friedman, Carole Keeton John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt ‘Granny’ Strayhorn, George Washington. Son is pasting one more on the back of the bus.)
“That’s getting in the spirit”
(As Lewis&ClarkMobile pulls out of driveway and moves down street, zoom in and freeze on bumper sticker that son had pasted on back of the RV)
“Vote YES on Prop 14”
Jim Riley appears to have a problem with the truth. He states above, “No California voter under 50 has seen an independent candidate on the ballot.” That is flatly false.
Jim?
I wrote:
“Dutta fails to note that there his not been a statewide independent candidate on the ballot in California (other than for a recall election or a presidential election) since 1978, when Jerry Brown was governor. No California voter under 50 has seen an independent candidate on the ballot.”
It is true that the there have been no statewide independent candidates on the ballot in California since 1978, excluding presidential elections and the 2003 recall election. Presidential candidates often have significant financial resources to ensure qualification in all states, including states like California with significant signature barriers. Qualification for the 2003 recall ballot was relatively easy (similar to what qualification under Proposition 14 will be).
Let me make a small correction. Voters who are 49 and will turn 50 before November 7, 2010 would have been able to see Ed Clark’s name on the election ballot. And there may have been children who accompanied their parent or some other adult into the polling booth in 1978 who saw Clark’s name on the ballot, and are now, 32 years later eligible to vote.
#4 Of those 3 independent candidates in 2008, could you tell me how they did? Did any of them win?
2nd place perhaps?
Yes, independent candidate Cindy Sheehan came in 2nd, running against Nancy Pelosi. The independent candidate running against Senator Maldonado also came in 2nd.
Why do you exclude presidential independents? If your point is that California independent procedures are horribly difficult, to the extent independent presidential candidates got on, that contradicts you. Is that the only reason you exclude president? Independents who got on for president starting in 1976 include Peter Camejo, Gus Hall, and Roger MacBride in 1976; John Anderson and Barry Commoner in 1980; Lenora Fulani in 1988; Ross Perot in 1992. The Socialist Workers Party also qualified its US Senate candidate as an independent in 1976.
Jim, your statement was: “No California voter under 50 has seen an independent candidate on the ballot.” Your answer to me fails to support that statement. Richard shows that your statement is flatly false.
If there is a change in an election system, then ALL prior stuff is totally irrelevant — i.e. a total waste of time and energy writing about it.
Like talking about divine right of kings stuff from the 1500s — as if it still means something in the 2000s.
#11 And also the independent who ran against Laura Richardson for Congress. So while it is true that independent candidates have been extremely rare under the current partisan primary system, it is not true that they won’t advance to the general election ballot (see also, independents in Louisiana legislature).
There will certainly be more independent candidates running for office under Proposition 14 than under the current partisan primary system. Gautum Dutta was being a little more than disingenuous in expressing concern about independent candidates disappearing under Proposition 14.
You ask, why do I exclude presidential independents? It is easier for candidates who are running for president to seek to get on the ballot in many states, they may transfer resources from state to state, concentrating on states where ballot access is harder. Obviously the success of Anderson, Commoner, Fulani, and Perot has not produced a trend in the other direction.
And Proposition 14 does not change the current electoral scheme for presidential elections in California.
#12, My statement was within a paragraph where I explained that there had been no independent statewide candidates in California since 1978, except in the 2003 recall election and for president. My sentence about the under-50s was intended to be in the context of the rest of the paragraph.
Are you by any chance affiliated with the OEA?
How about at least 1,000 words regarding each sentence in Prop. 14 ???
Still waiting for an answer to the standard question —
What X percent of ALL voters (in a party hack gang) has a magical constitutional *right* to have the party hack gang’s candidates on general election ballots with the party hack gang label ???
What is X ??? Tell this list where it is found in the U.S.A. Constitution.
#14 is wrong. Prop 14 does change presidential elections in California. By making it far more difficult for ballot-qualified parties to remain on the ballot, it will remove the Peace & Freedom and Libertarian Parties from the ballot, so they won’t be able to place their presidential nominees on the November ballot automatically any more. For all Jim’s verbiage, he still doesn’t know what is in Prop. 14. Or if he does know, he does not tell the full truth.
We’ve read a great deal here about independent candidates, but here’s the bottom line, as I see it. In California’s current party primary system, ALL independent candidates are automatically placed on the general election ballot, and that’s the only campaign they have to run.
In the “top two open primary,” in contrast, independent candidates are on the first-round ballot, along with all the other candidates, and the purpose of this round is merely to winnow the field to two candidates. An independent will almost never make it to the final election… but if lightning strikes and an independent DOES advance, he then faces a SECOND general election campaign.
This is why I’m amazed that so many independents favor Prop. 14. The final choice in the “top two open primary” will nearly always be one Democrat and one Republican, two Democrats, OR two Republicans.
There are so many bogus features about Prop. 14 that it’s hard to remember all of them.
The “top two open primary” is almost certainly unconstitutional for congressional elections. A line of rulings from the US Supreme Court has established that any candidate who has met a prior vote test of at least 5 PERCENT is entitled to be listed on the November ballot for Congress. Prop. 14, however, sets a threshold of 25 PERCENT for a candidate to be on the November ballot.
In the event that Prop. 14 passes, there will definitely be federal litigation against it.
#17 Proposition 14 has no direct effect on Presidential elections in California. Richard Winger can not point to any change in SB 6 that modifies Elections Code Section 5100.
There is a possible indirect effect, since one of the qualifications standards will be impossible to meet, since no longer will political parties be able to maintain their presidential qualification on the basis of performance in the Insurance Commissioner race and other statewide offices.
Proposition 14 will not take effect until January 1, 2011. Therefore, the results of this November’s general election will determine whether parties remain qualified through 2014. It would only be in the November 2014 election that parties could not have nominees for Insurance Commissioner and similar offices.
So there would be no effect on the 2012 presidential election.
Proposition 14 may encourage further legislation and/or litigation with regard to presidential elections. For example, it will be difficult for the State of California to defend against a legal challenge that contrasts the 65 signatures needed to qualify for the gubernatorial ballot, and the 173,000+ signatures needed for an independent presidential race.
Removing one of the qualification prongs could be regarded as not rational since it is impossible for any party to achieve that standard. But California could satisfy the rational interest by tying presidential ballot qualification to performance in the presidential election.
#18 It is currently extremely difficult for independent candidates to get on the ballot in California. They essentially have to prove they have as much support as a whole political party. This might be conceivable for a candidate who wants to run for governor. But remember the last independent gubernatorial candidate was in 1978 (excluding the 2003 recall election, which did not have the same high barrier). But an independent candidate for Secretary of State simply is not going to be able to qualify.
There have only been 9 independent congressional candidates on the general election ballot in the last 1040+ races (since 1964).
When Angus King ran for governor in Maine, he began running TV commercials during the primaries. With contested primaries and not so well known candidates, he was able to establish himself as a viable alternative.
If Charlie Crist stopped running until after the primary, he would be doomed.
#19 Where is this long line of Supreme Court rulings that pertain specifically to congressional elections?
In Washington, Judge Coughenour considered the long line of Supreme Court rulings related to general election ballot access, and dismissed the claim.
When the only federal judge who has considered the ballot access claims dismisses them, it does not make for a convincing argument that they would “almost certainly” succeed.
#21: Once again: California’s ballot access for independent candidates can be eased without screwing up the election system by imposing the “top two open primary” abomination (Arnold’s and Abel’s Folly).
#22: The US Supreme Court has issued 16 full opinions concerning ballot access for independents and small party candidates. The net effect of these rulings, especially in relation to congressional elections, is that a state cannot keep anyone off the November ballot for Congress who meets the constitutional qualifications, and who has met a prior vote test of 5 PERCENT.
Prop. 14 would impose a threshold of 25 PERCENT.
# 23 I detect NO such 5 or 25 percent in the U.S.A. Constitution.
P.R. and App.V. — regardless of EVERY party hack Supremes opinion about anything — with their party hack EVIL ability to dream up stuff out of thin air
— i.e. perverting and subverting the English language in the Constitution — especially in ALL 5-4 opinions
— i.e. something is very historically wrong in all such opinions on 1 or both sides.
Ballot access cases — nonstop brain dead ignorance of Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954 — separate is NOT equal — for so-called major parties, new parties, old minor parties, independents.
#23 The reason for the high barriers to independent candidates in California is the partisan primary system. Proposition 14 eliminates the root cause. You would treat the symptoms by making it less bad.
Either Federal District Judge Coughenour or Steve Rankin did not understand those 16 opinions. I’m betting that it was Steve Rankin.
You have yet to point to any of those decisions that applies especially in relation to congressional elections.
#25: I favor keeping party primaries and making it easier for independents to qualify for the general election ballot.
You, in contrast, favor imposing Arnold’s and Abel’s “top two” abomination, which makes it nearly impossible for independents and small party candidates to reach the final election. What difference does it make how easy it is for them to get on the first-round ballot, if they have almost no shot at making it to the second round?
We’ll see what the 9th circuit says about the ballot access issues.
FLUSH 14!!
#26 Louisiana, which has the longest history with an Open Primary, has a larger share of independents elected as such to its legislature than any other state with a partisan legislature except one (Virginia).
All three independent candidates in California in 2008 finished in the Top 2.
The purpose of an election is for the voters to make a collective decision as to who their public officials are. If a candidate, whether independent or not has little support, there is no reason to consider him when the voters are making their final collective decision.