On July 15, Congressman John Delaney (D-Maryland) spoke about his HB 2655, which mandates top-two primaries for congressional elections, and also directs that Congress study redistricting for U.S. House districts. Delaney spoke on the telephone to a conference call audience organized by IndependentVoting. IndependentVoting is the new name for the group that was once the New Alliance Party, then the Patriot Party, then part of the Reform Party, then Committee for a Unified Independent Party.
Here is a link to the entire 28-minute conference call. Congressman Delaney does not mention the top-two part of his bill until the nine minute mark. The only advantage to a top-two primary that he mentions is so that independents can vote in primaries. Neither he, nor hostess Jackie Salit, mentions that independents can also vote in congressional primaries if the state has an open primary, or a semi-closed primary, or a blanket primary. From listening to the call, one would never know that in two-thirds of all U.S. House districts, it is already possible for independent voters to vote in congressional primaries of both major parties, without that voter having to join the party. In still other districts, independents can vote in Democratic congressional primaries but not Republican ones.
When Jackie Salit describes the bill, early in the call, she says it applies to all federal office. But it does not apply to presidential elections.
Congressman Delaney seemed more eager to talk about the part of the bill that would require a study of independent redistricting commissions. Neither he nor anyone mentioned that in November 2014, there were three candidates on the ballot in Delaney’s district: Delaney received 94,704; the Republican received 91,930; and the Green received 3,762. Delaney represents a swing district and he might feel that a top-two system would be better for him personally, because in a top-two system the Green would not have been on the November ballot.
Dismal idea.
About to have an EVIL and VICIOUS NATIONAL ANTI-Democracy gerrymander ???
i.e. think FRANCE July 1789.
How many gerrymander districts would NOT have 1 D and 1 R ??? — i.e. more and more NON-votes.
—-
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
listening to Rep Delaney talk about “structural blocks” that
otherwise continuously pose barriers to the efforts of voters to get a handle on the supposed electoral democracy undercuts the idea political reform happens, and his bill is more structural blocks. (minor parties banished from election ballots)
Delaney should come back when he can unpack structural blockages.
Top Two is a small step forward in unity and voting reform in single-winner election districts.
It lowers the threshold to 33.33% plus one vote in the primary, and a third party or independent candidate has a good chance to be heard when they can unite enough voters like never before.
Top Two has been very helpful for those who seek unity and has exposed the dividers who are against any progress because people understand the mathematical equality.
Top Two passed in California by a majority of voters and from my experience, we had a large increase in interest in unity.
Many have said “I don’t understand” and “I am not interested” and many have punched the emotion buttons rather than doing the simple math.
Are you interested in unity among the voters to get things done collaboratively, not unilaterally?
Check out pure proportional representation (PR), the USA Parliament has been promoting and using PR for 20 consecutive years and it works fine.
http://www.usparliament.org
You probably did not understand when he said that his district had been drawn for a particular legislator. MD-6 had been represented by a Republican, and had been dismembered by the Maryland legislature, with the portion extending to the western tip of Maryland stuck in with Montgomery County suburbs.
Had the Democratic legislator won the 2012 primary, he would be in Congress now, and for the next few decades.
Maryland has closed primaries. But even if independents could choose their primary, they would be stuck with one primary. They might have to choose between voting in the Democratic primary to have a choice in the race for Congress, or voting in the Republican primary to choose their legislator.
Do you think that it should be legal to contribute to a Democratic congressional candidate and a Republican legislative candidate before the primary? What about displaying yard signs or bumper stickers? Or perhaps holding luncheons, or attending rallies, or simply advocating with your friends and co-workers for both candidates?
“Top Two has been very helpful for those who seek unity and has exposed the dividers who are against any progress because people understand the mathematical equality.”
There is a philosophical disagreement about reformers about what election reform ought to entail.
Some believe that the electoral process should be reformed to engineer more collaboration. This implies that the electoral process should be designed with a specific outcome in mind.
Others, like myself, believe that the purpose of an election is for voters to cast a ballot that represents their interests and values so that politicians represent their constituents.
I think we should debate this difference directly rather than argue over it in a proxy way, such as over specific reforms like top-two.
If one believes in the former purpose of elections, then top-two looks ideal. It does empower the median voter, at least in theory (scholars like Shor et al. have shown that polarization has not decreased in CA since Prop 14).
However, if one believes in the latter purpose of elections, then top-two is harmful, because it limits voters’ choices to two (sometimes of the same party) in the general election, with no option for a write-in.
“It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don’t want and get it.” – Eugene V. Debs
For the many clueless —
Each legislative body exists ONLY because ALL of the Electors-Voters can generally NOT appear in person and vote on laws, etc.
ALL of the major legislative bodies in the U.S.A. are currently EVIL and VICIOUS and ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander regimes — USA Congress, all 99 houses of State legislatures, many larger city councils, etc.
P.R. =
Party Seats = Total Seats x Party Votes / Total Votes.
Much too difficult for lots of MORON reformers to understand.
I agree with political scientist Arend Lijphart that the United States should eliminate government-administered primaries for parties to choose their nominees. See his chapter on pages 73-82 in “Solutions to Political Polarization in America”, a book published this year and edited by Nathaniel Persily.
Back to the BAD OLDE DAYS of the 1880s – with tyrant boss hacks picking robot party hack candidates ???
NO thanks.
—
NO primaries, caucuses and conventions.
ONE [general] election day.
Ballot access ONLY by equal nominating petitions – to get serious candidates.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
In the 1880’s there were no ballot access barriers at all. No filing fees, no petitions, no declarations of candidacy. Utter freedom for all voters to vote for anyone they wished.
There is a great book on the pre-primary era called The Demise of the American Convention system by John F. Reynolds.