The California Secretary of State’s web page, as of early afternoon, June 15, shows that Proposition 14 passed with 53.8% of the vote. The margin had been reported at 54.2% on the morning of June 14. The change is because more and more votes have been counted. There is no likelihood that the outcome will change, however. UPDATE: on June 16, the margin is 53.7%. UPDATE: on June 18, it is 53.6%.
The closest statewide race for any California June 2010 election is the Republican race for Insurance Commissioner. Currently the total stands at 814,647 for Brian Fitzgerald, and 814,413 for Mike Villines.
George Will had an interesting column on Proposition 14.
I just wish he had not waited until after June 8 to write it.
Hello all, new reader, first time commenter…
Prop 14 was a true referendum on the political party system in California. I have seen many arguments on this website and elsewhere arguing that Prop 14 is a flawed proposition, but I just don’t see that.
Take into account that an overwhelming majority of people that voted on June 8th were, in fact, PARTY MEMBERS. You had voters vote against the very system in which they are an active participant, obviously seeing what countless others have seen, that the American political party system, two-party or otherwise, is a top-down power trip that needed to be dissolved.
I would further submit that if Prop 14 had been placed on an General Election ballot in November, where most people that do not affiliate with a party bother to come out and vote, the results would have been even greater in favor of its passage.
Voters don’t want Chairman anymore, they don’t want to be told be a party what their political views should and should not be. Voters don’t want their elected constituents asking his or her political party which way to vote on an issue instead of voting the way of the people being represented.
Prop 14 was denounced by ALL ballot qualified parties in CA and yet, those same registered party voters passed it anyways.
The passage of Prop 14 promises to be the “one” in a “one-two” punch to completely reform not just California politics, but American politics as we know it. Punch “two” is on the way folks, stay tuned…
The two party system has been with us forever and it works. Now special interest will control Public Policy
especially the Government Unions that now have bankrupt California. Voters are subject to expensive campaigns that have agendas not in the best interest of California.
Unruh said “Money is the mothers milk of politics”.
Special Interest Lobbist have the money! not the people.
Richard, is there anyway to tell how many of the voters in each party primary voted on Proposition 14, (or any of the other proposed amendments for that matter)? One reason I would like to know, is this is a good measure of how loyal were the members of the 3rd parties (which held primary elections) to the option or privilege of selecting party nominees for the various offices down ballot.
For example, as of the vote count today – June 15th – by the California Secretary of State’s office, at most some 35,425 AIP members voted for party nominees. It would be interesting to know how many AIP members voted for or against Proposition 14? Was it more than 35,425 members or less than 35,425 members?
This comparison of votes would either help prove that most AIP members really think of themselves as “independents” or “no party,” or it would help prove that most of the AIP members know they are members of a political party known as AIP.
It also could help establish the party loyalty of the other 3rd parties.
If you can obtain this information, or know where it can be obtained, I feel there are others than myself who would be interested in seeing and studying such data.
One could estimate it for the major parties and perhaps the DTS voters, if one assumed they voted consistently across the state or perhaps a county, using precinct returns.
This might be harder for DTS voters, who may not be uniformly “independent”. Some voters may be Democrats, but don’t want a public record of that. Others may think of themselves as being independent, but consistently vote for one party of the other.
If separate ballots are used for the partisan and non-partisan elections there is no way to tie them together. Even if there are same physical ways, it is dubious whether the relationships should be reported. Let’s say that you are the only Peace&Freedom Party voter in your precinct. If it was reported how many P&F voters voted for each non-partisan office and issue, it would be the same as if there was no secret ballot.
A Survey USA poll shows members of both parties supported 14.
But that is NOT the point. The point is FASCISM. In every democratic nation in the world all political parties and independents are on the general election ballot. Period.
Prop 14 BANNED four opposition political parties from the general election ballot. If that happened in any other country the world would be screaming dictatorship. I am screaming dictatorship right now!
The jack-boots are goose stepping.
“I have seen many arguments on this website and elsewhere arguing that Prop 14 is a flawed proposition, but I just don’t see that.”
Anthony Cinelli, then I suggest you give Steve Peace a call, since he is the one who wrote Prop. 14, and have him explain to you the problems he readily admits are a part of the flawed Proposition 14. The author of it admits Prop. 14 is flawed, so if you can’t see any flaws, look harder past your bias to the truth.
Peace admits Prop. 14 is flawed because it kills independent candidates’ chances of getting to the election and Prop. 14 is flawed because it does not allow voters the opportunity to vote write-in during the election. The author of Prop. 14 has said those flaws will need to be fixed in the legislature.
Proposition 14, if the voting started today, would fail miserably. The more people learned about this flawed, closed election system, the more they moved to the NO side. The more they learned that big money special interests were behind Proposition 14 and buying votes in typical fashion, the more they rejected this lousy reform. AARP, the richest special interest in the US, got their mail-in voters in line and won this with false and misleading information before any poor oppostion had a chance. Those same mail-in voters who favored Prop. 14 were also bought and sold by PG&E and the insurance company because more voted Yes on those also (I don’t know if AARP told them to vote yes on those).
In any event, the cheerleaders of this closed, two party election system must now back up their empty rhetoric with results, and that is something they can not do. Prop. 14 did not make elections non-partisan, it rigged elections for rich Ds and Rs only, and party bosses will have more power than ever before. People that voted for Prop. 14 were voting for some utopian dream that does not exist. They will be proven delusional in short order in CA. If they weren’t blind, the proof that Prop. 14 does not work is already out there everywhere.
There are much better election systems than this overly simplistic Top Two format that was put on the ballot without any debate or discussion about alternatives or flaws. Not to mention the fact that less than 9% of registered voters approved of Proposition 14.
It is really sad that people who really do want election reform were sold this bogus piece of junk that will only help the Republicans and Democrats maintain control over the ballots by keeping independent challengers out of the election.
Thanks for the info Jeff, much appreciated. I’ve read Prop 14 and thought it actually very refreshing: short, to-the-point, and easily comprehended – a stark contrast from most of the legislation that comes out of Sacramento.
Third parties and independents should not see Prop 14 as the “death-knell” you portray it as, at least not until we see the first outcome of the 2012 primary held under it’s provisions.
As your typical voter, I unfortunately don’t hear enough about third-party and/or independent candidates in general elections. Most “main stream” media outlets don’t cover the third party candidates in generals and because of that, many voters end of uninformed of the breadth of choice they actually have in electing their representative.
Media coverage has always meant a lesser sort of victory for third parties, exposure, and getting their party message out to a mass audience. Of course getting elected is the top prize, but you now have a situation in primaries where a third party can win by actually being #2, win a sizable prize for placing second.
The prize for coming in #2 for third parties? Guaranteed media exposure in the general going head-to-head with one of the big two parties. Sure, there will be districts where third parties will be essentially locked out. However, in strategic districts where the Dems or Reps have an overwhelming majority, the third party can be that #2 in the primary.
Third parties, and independents, will have something that will ultimately help build their party and spread their unique messages: media coverage in the general, being able to pit their party message against one of the big two. And with this increased media coverage, voters in current “locked down” districts will increasingly vote third party and/or independent, with each third party #2 showing success feeding another, building on itself, constantly improving with each election.
I’m hopeful for 2012 when I actually see a third party candidate go head-to-head with a “big-two” candidate in a general election, ANY general, no longer relegated to being the “red-headed stepchild”.
Is it going to be hard work to break the top 2? Definitely, however the spoils to the third party or independent that does go head-to-head with a “big 2” party candidate will no doubt be golden.
Third party and independent candidate theme song through 2012:
The Doors, “Break On Through (To the Other Side)
…in Jim we trust…
Cinelli, that first outcome you seek was shown years ago in both Louisiana and Washington.
Frankly, if you don’t see the flaws and unconstitutionality of the proposal, then you’re not seeing the obvious.
Move past the lying title and get straight to the brass tacks–it reduces voter choice in the general election, where it really matters. Political parties could abandon the primary system tomorrow in favor of a caucus/convention system if they wanted to, but Prop 14 locks them into a primary they may not want. That infringes on freedom of choice, plain and simple.
As has been noted previously on this site: Washington state first used its “top two” for state and congressional offices in 2008. For the first time since WA became a state in 1889, there were no independents or small party candidates in the final election for any congressional or statewide state office.
Suppose that both major parties decided to hold caucuses or conventions to endorse candidates. And suppose that (1) all candidates sought their party’s endorsement, and (2) both parties required the candidates to pledge to support the winner of the endorsement. Assuming that all candidates kept the pledge, there would be only one Democrat and one Republican on the first-round ballot of the “top two.”
The “top two” forces the top two vote-getters to finance and conduct TWO general election campaigns.
It’s incredible that Californians have purposely limited themselves to just two choices in the final, deciding election.
#7 Jefftrigg writes “Peace admits Prop. 14 is flawed because it kills independent candidates’ chances of getting to the election … The author of Prop. 14 has said those flaws will need to be fixed in the legislature.”
My bullshit meter pegs on that one. Care to provide some evidence?
#9 Louisiana has used its system for over 30 years. Currently it has a larger share of candidates elected as independents in its legislature than any state that has partisan elections but one (Virginia). Currently independents hold the balance of power in the House of Representatives, Democrats have a majority in the Senate, and Governor Jindal is a Republican.
When the Lieutenant Governor of Louisiana resigned (to become mayor of New Orleans), the legislature confirmed his replacement within two days. When the Lieutenant Governor of California resigned (to become a congressman) the California legislature took almost 6 months to confirm his replacement, and cynically timed the confirmation in an attempt to prevent 800,000 Californians from being represented in the budget debate this summer (Because Proposition 13 requires budget approval by 2/3 of the legislators elected, this would have meant that 2/3 of 39, or 26 senators could approve a budget, that than 2/3 of 40 or 27 if all Californians were represented in the Senate.
#10 Remind me how Californians elect their Superintendent of Public Instruction, or county supervisors, or mayors and city councils in most major cities.
http://blogs.kqed.org/capitalnotes/2010/06/04/prop-14-the-agent-of-change/
“The major parties will no doubt find ways around Prop 14 (Republicans are already saying as much in the press), but the minor parties will, no doubt, suffer. Should their candidate not be one of the top two vote getters in June — an unlikely case in most races — that party will no longer appear on the November ballot. Also left out of Prop 14 — write-in candidates. The measure’s architect, Steve Peace, maintains that both problems can be addressed by the Legislature and governor modifying the state’s election’s code.”
…
“Peace and his organization have started a push to change state election law to make it easier for an independent candidate to run for office. Currently, non-party affiliated candidates have to collect thousands of voter signatures in a small amount of time — compared to the handful of signatures needed by someone who belongs to an officially recognized party. The Legislature’s only independent legislator, Assemblymember Juan Arambula (I-Fresno, though he was elected as a Democrat) says the “deck is stacked” in favor of the parties. Last week, the California Independent Voter Network called on the Legislature to amend the law… or face possible legal action later in 2010. “We have to join a party,” laments Peace. “Otherwise, we’re second class citizens.”
When it comes to free and equal elections providng a democracy within a diverse population, Jim Riley’s meters on more than bullshit are completely off, just for the record.
Cinelli, you are dreaming dude. The auther of Prop. 14 is fighting to get legislation passed so that independent candidates are not still treated as second class citizens. Your dream may happen one in a thousand elections. The other 999 minor, alternative voices will be shut out of the election. It will eliminate all but one or two parties in close to 999 out of 1000 races. It was a gamble with people’s ability to participate in our election process, and it was the wrong bet that independents and alternative parties will end up paying most the bill for.
#14 Proposition 14 reduced the number of signatures to run for state office as an independent candidate from 173,000+ to 65 (not 65,000 but 65). For legislative and congressional candidates from several 1000 (and average of 6,000 for Assembly, 12,000 for Senate, and 9,000 for Congress) to 40.
Go watch the video of the Proposition debate between Steve Peace and Richard Winger before the Escondido Democrats. Peace clearly understood that Proposition 14 would reduce the signature requirement for independent candidates.
The passage of Proposition 14 makes that change moot.
The only office in California that still has high signature standards is President.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_14,_Top_Two_Primaries_Act_(June_2010)
Yet to come — the standard lawsuit by the usual suspects ???