In September 2008, former California State Senator Steve Peace (D-San Diego) had filed a proposed initiative with the California Attorney General. However, according to the Sacramento Bee of October 31, he has withdrawn his own initiative. The article does not explain why. However, the initiative had been flawed. Perhaps Peace withdrew it so that he, or someone else, could do a better job of drafting it. Thanks to Kevin Takenaga for this news.
THE Steve Peace, of Attack of the Giant Killer Tomatoes.
Look him up in the Encyclopedia, under Gray Davis and ‘political hack’.
Donald [I hate Steve Peace] Lake
“Top-Two” is two candidate communism. It will result in a one party system with competing factions, but no choice in elections.
Even if the necessary signatures were secured, it would not be voted on until the June 2010 primary, and if approved, not implemented until 2012. If it were on the June 2010 ballot, then you would have an electorate that was disproportionately partisan.
While non-affiliated voters may vote on ballot measures, they may be less inclined to turn out for an election that is coincident with party primaries. If the major political parties open their primaries to non-affiliated voters, those voters who do so may be co-opted into being partisans, or convinced that they would lose the right to “choose” which party’s primary they voted in.
If the gubernatorial primaries are hotly contested, the campaign against the initiative would claim that this could the last such chance to determine who will be on the general election ballot.
The original proposal would also eliminate party registration. Opponents would claim that this would eliminate your right to choose to be independent.
In Washington, there was no such problem since there was no party registration, along with a long practice of not being forced to declare a party affiliation in order to vote in party primaries. Under the blanket primary, voters could freely switch between parties on a race-by-race basis.
Under the 2004 pick-a-party primary, party affiliation was secret. Nonetheless over 10% of voters failed to cast a vote for a gubernatorial candidate, either by failure or refusal to designate a party, or by voting for a candidate who was not of “their” party. In 2008, the percentage of persons not voting for a gubernatorial candidate was about 0.5%.
But California has long had party registration, so they could be better off following the example of Oregon.
By waiting, they can get the proposition on the November 2010 ballot, where they can appeal to independent voters, and isolated or disgruntled partisans. And they will be able to take advantage of the experience of Washington and Oregon.
In Washington, the 2009 legislature will have an opportunity to clean up its election laws. And there will be further litigation on whether a 1st Amendment right to express a preference for a political party extends to cases where that preference is published by the government or where the name of the party is trademarked.
After the citizens of Oregon pass Ballot Measure 65 on Tuesday, the legislature will have an opportunity to clean up loose ends as well. For example, the authority of a party to “endorse” is based on that party having a certain number of registrants, or having a much smaller number of registrants AND having had some success in attracting votes to candidates that they have “nominated”. But now they will only be able to “nominate” candidates for President.
Oregon could resolve this problem by measuring electoral success on the basis of candidates “endorsed” by a party in the primary or general election, with some refinement to account for candidates with multiple party endorsements.
Initiatives in California can get voted on in odd years if the Governor agrees, so the proposed California “top-two” could be in 2009.
There is no way to “clean up” a “Top-Two” system. It is a new form of COMMUNIST elections.
If implemented in enough states it would lead to acts of terrorism, and organized efforts to overthrow the government, since the citizens would realize that they were no longer free and have no choice at all in elections in America.
As bad as elections and ballot access are today, Top-Two is a thousand times worse. It must be resisted at all cost.
The big difference between a Communist system and the “top two” monstrosity is that there is only one candidate in the former, while there are two candidates per office in the final, deciding election of the “top two.”
Why should the voters be limited to just 2 choices in the final, deciding election? I’m certainly glad we’ll have more than 2 choices for president tomorrow.
The governor would not appear to be able to call a special statewide election until after the initiative had qualified, and would not be required to do so. It might not be tactically wise to call a special election for a measure that might be perceived as being self-serving when the state is having major budget woes.
Re: #6. A Top 2 system is an integrated two-stage process where all candidates regardless of party affiliation appear on the ballot in the first (or primary) stage, and where all voters regardless of party affiliation may vote, to determine which two candidates advance to the 2nd stage where the voters make their final choice between the 2 candidates with the most support.
A trial system such as that used by Massachusetts in the late 18th century is another possibility. But it has the weakness that it is indeterminate as to when the final election will occur.
If one compares the 2008 Louisiana congressional elections, with the 2006 Louisiana congressional elections, it is readily apparent that there are much fewer choices on the ballot today, than there were 4 years ago, and there would be even fewer had not Gustav delayed some of the primary runoffs.
How many Libertarian candidates were there in 2006, and how many in 2008?
NO primaries are needed.
Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A.
Ballot access for THE election via equal nominating petitions.
Proportional Representation for legislative bodies and Approval Voting for NONPARTISAN executive / judicial offices — including U.S.A. Prez. and the Supremes.
Much too difficult for the armies of New Age ignorant MORONS to understand — who just love the ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander systems in the U.S.A. — both houses of Congress, the Prez/VP Electoral College and all houses of all State legislatures — with the resulting ROT of special inteerest gang laws and powermad top officers.