SurveyUSA Poll Shows Proposition 14 Will Pass

On June 7, SurveyUSA released this poll for various California primary candidates and ballot measures, which shows that Proposition 14 will easily pass. It has 50% “Yes” and only 28% “No”, with 22% undecided.

Links within the poll link give considerable detail about the poll. Men are far more likely to have made up their mind on Proposition 14 than women, so far.


SurveyUSA Poll Shows Proposition 14 Will Pass — 27 Comments

  1. Phil Sawyer Says:
    June 7th, 2010 at 3:43 am

    Jim Riley wrote in an earlier post:

    … [snip] … Opponent’s of Proposition 14 are indifferent, if not actively opposed, to the right of every Californian to vote for the candidate of his or her choice. … [snip] …

    Phil Sawyer responds:

    How you have turned things around! I would say that those in favor of Propositon 14 “are indifferent, if not actively opposed, to the right of every Californian to vote for the candidate of his or her choice” in the general elections (i.e., no “minor party” candidates, independent candidates, or write-in candidates – only Democrats and Republicans). Currently, I am a Democrat but I am opposed to Propostion 14. I want the ability to vote for candidates of other parties, independent candidates, or write-in candidates – if I so choose. Opponents of Proposition 14 are not necessarily opposed to blanket primary elections. As a matter of fact, I signed the petition and voted for the proposition that gave voters of the Golden State the most recent blanket primary, and I enjoyed voting in such. What opponents of Proposition 14 all agree upon, probably, is that it is totalitarion (or at least totalitarion-like), to only allow candidates of the two largest parties in the general elections.

  2. Riverside Politics wrote in an earler post (about AIP-CA’s factional fighting):

    … [snip] … …IF THIRD party believers CAN’T hack making it in the TOP two tier…then they better get off their duffs and try to build a bigger base to run from. … [snip] …

    Phil Sawyer responds: While I do not think that this argument is directly related to the battle over Proposition 14, I do think that it is indirectly related and makes a good point. The most significant problem with the “minor party” and/or independent campaigns over the past few decades has been the inability of most people involved to work together in a significant manner. There has been no shortage, however, of “big frogs in little ponds,” and “more pure than thou” partisans.

    My first activity in independent politics was with the late, great, Eugene J. McCarthy’s campaign for the presidency in 1976 (Committee for a Constitutional Presidency/McCarthy ’76). This campaign had a real chance to make major waves but there were too many people who were involved in other (less significant) campaigns who really should have been helping us. It did not take me long to learn the nature of reality regarding all of this stuff.

    Sadly, it appears that Proposition 14 is going to pass in the Golden State tomorrow. If that is the case, then I hope that there will be many lawsuits against it. However, we need to do more than that. People need to learn to work together in a better and more adult manner. No matter what happens, though, the Republican Party is well on its way to becoming a minor-sized party (my prediction has and continues to be that this will happen by 2012) and there will be some major organization that will replace it in the number two spot. Oh, how joyful that day will be!

  3. I’ve got my fingers crossed for Prop 14 to pass tomorrow. I surely hope the polls translate into actual votes.

    Why is it the third parties in CA get all these reforms wrong? In 2008 the Greens, Peace and Freedom, and Libertarian parties all opposed Prop 11 (which I helped to write as part) which took the redistricting power away from the legislature and turned it over to an independent citizens commission. They cited that they felt the old process was “more transparent”. Yes, it was, transparently the most corrupt process in America.

    Now in 2010 (as in 2004) they’re against an Open Primary that would empower 3.4 million decline to state voters, despite the fact that their voter registration numbers are dropping like a rock because of the partisan primary system, which locks their voters into being able to vote for no one. Not to mention it allows the nominees of the two parties to use their leverage against debate sponsoring organizations to lock out third party candidates.

    Prop 14 would give the third parties serious clout by allowing them to leverage their voter registration base in competitive elections.

    If Prop 14 fails tomorrow, does anyone believe that the third party activists attacking it will make good on a reform campaign to get proportional representation, non-partisan registration, or anything else on the ballot?

    Prop 14 would have a huge impact. Let’s hope it passes, as did Prop 11, even with their opposition. Hopefully independent voters can see it through the way we did for Prop 11.

  4. WE’re voting on Prop. 14, we’re not voting on Prop. 11 and I don’t have anything to do with that nor does one have any relation to the other unless you are desperately trying to cover up something.

    Could Jason Olson now be tied forver to these fine democracy killing corporate and business interests? Prop. 14 is a bigger and better avenue into the Democratic Party for business interests and selfish, greedy, favoritist, discriminators like Jason Olson looking to cash in. Prop. 14 does nothing for independents but guarantee them bad choices in November and all these people buying those bad choices know it.
    From California Watch, here is where Jason Olson’s bread is buttered these days, by corporate whores.

    “In all, proponents have spent more than $4.6 million on the measure. It’s being bankrolled by Gov. Schwarzenegger’s political committee ($2 million) and the state Chamber of Commerce ($750,000). Other noteworthy donors include Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix ($257,000), the state hospital association ($250,000) and the state association of health underwriters ($200,000). Among other donors are Steve Bechtel, former head of the giant construction concern ($10,000), former eBay executive and Democratic candidate for governor Steve Westly ($5,000), and the Jack in the Box hamburger chain ($2,500.)

    AARP, the state realtors and the Farm Bureau support the measure, and California’s editorial writers are infatuated with it.”

    Jason Olson is in bed with the California Chamber of Commerce plain as day.

  5. Polls also showed that Mockus would be close to the establishment candidate in Colombia, and that Bloomberg would walk away with the election in NYC. I’m not suggesting that we should look at this through rose colored glasses, but who knows? The voters may surprise us all. I hope so at any rate.

  6. Any chance that this support is weak and they will get ballot fatigue or not vote? It is a primary after all.

    On the other hand the people who are opposing it are more likely to have a strong opposition to it. Anyone who is registered in a minor party is going to vote no on it, for example.

  7. JeffTrigg’s diatribe is precisely the type of thing that turns people off to politics. There are plenty of legitimate arguments to rebut Jason Olsen’s post. You don’t have to like the guy, but why resort to name-calling? It just makes you look petty, and distracts from the substance of his case.

    Grow up, JeffTrigg.

  8. It is not true that the three minor parties Jason Olson mentions opposed Prop. 11 in 2008. Jason, how can you be happy about an election law that leaves us with only Democrats and Republican on the November ballot, and no ability to even cast a write-in vote for anyone else? It gives us the kind of ballot used in Ohio 1949-1967. Nothing but Democrats and Republicans, and no ability to vote against them.

  9. The Ad that should have run:

    “Wake up CAlifornians!

    On June 8th, a tiny cabal of political operatives will present to you a Trojan Horse. It is called Proposition 14.

    Proposition 14 is designed to end free elecions and to end political choice in California elections – forever.

    Under proposition, no independent candidate, no 3rd party candidate, and in fact no candidate of any of today’s political parties will be allowed on the General Election ballot.

    Proposition 14 creates a single, new political party with a single primary. No one outside this new party created by the state will be allowed to place candidates on the general election ballot.

    This new party will place two candidates on the ballot, and all citizens from all parties and all independents will have only those two candidates to choose from.

    All other candidates will be prevented from running in California’s general elections – forever.

    Propostion 14 is evil.

    We’ve seen this system before. It’s very similar to the one party electoral system in the old USSR.

    We need to save our freedom of choice in California elections.

    Vote NO on proposition 14.”

  10. As to write-ins, the California Supreme Court issued a horrible opinion in 2003 called Edelstein v City and County of San Francisco, overturning the 1985 decision Canaan v Abdelnour. Canaan v Abdelnour had said write-ins must be permitted in run-off non-partisan elections. But Janice Rogers Brown, writing for the Court in 2003, overturned that.

  11. The system that will be in place tomorrow after this abomination passes overwhelmingly will be much like the system that existed in the former Confederate States for many years. The only difference is in those states there was no real Republican party so everything took place in the Democratic primary and the runoff. This is “top two” in a nutshell. While it is true that at least other candidates were allowed on November ballots in the old CSA it was tough to qualify. California… welcome to Alabama circa 1930!

  12. BrianBrennan, perhaps you should wisen up and expand your thoughts about how many different types of people there are in the world that react to “diatribes” completely differently from one another and not at all the same as you.

    Jason Olson just tried the old guilt by association tactic with Prop. 11. If he wants to play childish political games he needs to be able to face his own guilt by associations which he has right now with big corporate money interests, or he needs to stop playing that childish game. Jason didn’t argue any substance about how this will independent candidates, like a child he argued that they are wrong about Prop. 14 because they were wrong about Prop. 11, which apparently isn’t entirely accurate either.

    Brian, are you going to tell Jason to grow up because he used the childish guilt by association tactic, or are you inconsistent? And isn’t telling someone to grow up calling them names? Give your self righteousness a rest Brian.

  13. don’t know Orly’s view of Prop 14 (against it I believe) but also on her site:

    Wash post asks: “How will Republicans cope, if Taitz is elected?” My answer: Republicans will do just fine, they will have an ace in their deck. Dems will have a problem on their hands, as Barack Hussein Obama’s illegitimacy to US presidency and need for prosecution will be front and center.
    Posted on | June 7, 2010 | 8 Comments

  14. Jason @4 has it backwards. Prop 11 was poorly written in that it bent over backwards to the major parties to allow them to call all the shots in the process. Had it been written properly the 14 members would all be DTS.

    As for Prop 14, 50% in favor with +/-2.8% is not passing; it’s a tossup by every defintion. Frankly, the Incumbency Protection and Big Money Candidates Act needs to die with a whimper today.

    Real election reform would put all parties and their candidates on equal footing in terms of ballot access, exposure, and debates, regardless of poll numbers, money, or party.

    BTW, Jason, the LP numbers in CA are actually rising, not falling, as Richard has posted here at BAN.

  15. “and the Jack in the Box hamburger chain ($2,500.)”

    Now I’ve got to add them to the list of businesses I’m boycotting.

  16. Jason was factually correct that the Peace & Freedom, Green and Libertarian Parties all opposed Prop. 11 in 2008. I was factually wrong to say the opposite. I myself was personally very much in favor of Prop. 11.

  17. #12 Edelstein was consistent with the US Supreme Court’s opinion in Burdick v Takashi. Where it was goofy was where it decided that it was OK for San Francisco to make up election procedures based on ballot arguments, and to change those procedure some time after runoff elections had been implemented.

    And a 3-member minority in Edelstein while concurring with the opinion, stipulated that they were not overturning Canaan based on the timing of the two elections (June-November in San Diego for Canaan) and (November-December in San Francisco for Edelstein). The 3-member minority in Edelstein said they could not decide whether the 4-member majority was overturning Canaan or not.

    In both Canaan and Edelstein the court said it was OK for a chartered city to not follow the write-in procedures in the Elections Code. This will not be the case for elections conducted under Proposition 14.

    Everything else in the Elections Code says that write-ins are fine. There is one new section that makes no grammatical sense. It can be interpreted to mean that write-in votes will be tabulated, but even if a candidate receives all the votes he won’t be elected; or that even if a write-in candidate has fully complied with the procedures to have his write-in votes tabulated they won’t be tabulated.

    The simplest solution is to rip out that one section, and put in a sore-loser provision like in Washington State, where a losing candidate in the primary can not run as a write-in candidate in the general election. But other candidates are free to.

  18. Prop 14….is mean’t to be more freedom not less. If third parties with a askew’d views…think this limits them, they in fact have “limited” themselves. Do you third party members believe in “affirmative action?” This is in essence what you are crying about. As it stands…third parties want “special” ballot stance…because in “their view” they are the little lesser commodity. Don’t you think you can run with the “bigboys?” Quit complaining and build a bigger base..that would attract more voters so you can compete. Don’t settle for “affrimative action” type policies.

  19. How is it “more freedom” for the voter to be limited to just two candidates in the final, deciding election?

    You say that parties being empowered to nominate a candidate for each partisan office on the general election ballot is “affirmative action.”

    Now that California will no longer let parties officially nominate candidates for any state or congressional offices: 47 states will still empower parties to officially nominate candidates for Congress and most state offices.

    And 50 states and the District of Columbia will still empower parties to have official nominees for U. S. president.

    There’s an awful lot of “affirmative action” in the U. S., isn’t there?

  20. #23 I don’t think Arizona has official candidates for President. Their certificate of ascertainment for 2008 doesn’t show any.

  21. #23 yes, for a matter of fact there is quite a lot of ‘affirmative action” going on under different guises. Is this right or correct or healthy? No, until this great country comes up with a better solution the voting method is the best we can muster. And the will of the voter still stands.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *