C-SPAN will broadcast the national meeting sponsored by the Committee for a Unified Independent Party. It will air on Friday evening, February 13, at 8:25 pm eastern standard time. It lasts almost 90 minutes.
The Committee for a Unified Independent Party holds itself out as the defender of independent voters. One of the speakers at its January 25 national meeting was Phil Keisling, former Oregon Secretary of State, and the prime mover behind the initiative in Oregon last year to impose a “top-two” system. The voters defeated that initiative. CUIP is also intervening in federal court in Idaho to represent the interests of independent voters, and against the Republican Party lawsuit to win a closed primary for itself.
Wait, so the guy who wanted to drown out third parties is a supporter for this CUIP? I’m confused.
I’m confused, too, Jason. I thought Phil Keisling was a Democrat.
Not only does the “top two” harm third parties, it also makes it nearly impossible for independent candidates to reach the second round. You’d think independent voters would be concerned about independent candidates.
Vis-a-vis the Idaho case: Why should a voter who steadfastly refuses to join a political party be allowed to help choose a party’s nominees– unless that party invites that voter to do so?
CUIP contributed substantial funds to the top-2 primary initiative in Oregon in 2008. I urged CUIP not to support the measure, which would have have eliminated all petitioned-for candidates in every general election.
Hmm… this smells suspicious to me.
If CUIP is supporting top-two, and if CUIP is trying to argue against the free association rights of political parties, then why is CUIP represented on the COFOE board? These are serious attacks against the rights of third parties to compete, and I believe them to be attacks against principles embodied in the bylaws of COFOE.
CUIP is certainly free to advocate for whatever it wishes to advocate for, but if CUIP is advocating for things which are contrary to COFOE’s Statement of Principles, then CUIP is violating the terms of its COFOE membership.
Top 2 of course increases the chance that candidates who appeal to independent voters will be elected. Whether or not those candidates style themselves as independents is less important.
The Oregon Top 2 initiative in no way inhibited the rights of like-minded citizens to organize in order to recruit, support, or endorse candidates, whether on a ad hoc basis or as part of a political organization, party, or gang.
The only meaningful restriction it places on political organization is their ability to prevent candidates from being placed on the ballot, and on voters, who based on where they live may be effectively disenfranchised, or forced into a dishonest political association to simply be allowed to vote.
Wake up Jim Riley!
“Top two” is just n e o – c o m m u n i s m. It enforces a two party monopoly on the people and eliminates alternatives. It is an evil system. It is worse than the duopoly we have now, because, in the end, the duopoly will become a single entity under “top-two.”
“Top-two” increases the chance that nobody but the state sanctioned candidates will ever have a chance to be elected, or even heard, in an election. It would be much better to make all elections non-partisan and have all candidates run with no party label at all in the general election. But, we must allow ALL candidates on the ballot in the General election.
People are confused about parties. Parties are groups of people that want to support a single candidate for every office in an election. They set up a system to choose such a candidate. They can do this any way they want to. It is none of the government’s business how they do so.
Then, in the general election, the rules for each candidate to appear on the ballot should be the same. Every candidate should be allowed to appear, whether a party candidate, new party candidate, or independent candidate, or anyone in a non-partisan election.
Obviously, CUIP’s idea of a “unified independent party” is really a plan to create another third party. They are just trying to trick people who are true “Independents” in to believing that they are part of some party.
“Independents” are really people who have no party, they are “unaffiliated.” That term has a negative connotation in some people’s minds, so we should retain the term “independent” to mean “unaffiliated.”
The CUIP plan is clever, but doomed to fail. True “Independents” tend to be smarter than typical Dems and Reps, and generally more ornery. Most of them will not fall for the ploy that they are automatically members or supporters of some group just because some charlatan has named his party “independent something-or-other.”
Jim, it sounds great to say that citizens can work together and get anyone they want on the ballot, but that’s not the way it works. If a small group of citizens is going up against a party machine, there’s a 99% chance the citizens are going to lose.
What is COFOE? I mean, what do they actually do? What have they accomplished?
CUIP is very much involved with the Independence Party of New York. That party is currently one of the three McCain parties in New York (the other two being the Conservative Party and the Republican Party).
If the Independence Party of New York had really desired to express its indendence last year, it would have nominated the Nader-Gonzalez ticket for president and vice president.
COFOE sponsors and pays for ballot access lawsuits. COFOE cases that have won include the 2006 victory against the Illinois ballot access laws for independent candidates for the legislature (a petition of 10% of the last vote, due in December of the year before the election), and the 2004 victory against the North Carolina ballot access law for statewide independents, a petition of 2% of the number of registered voters.
COFOE is currently sponsoring lawsuits against the number of signatures for independent candidates for Congress in Illinois (which has lost so far), North Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia). The latter three cases are pending in U.S. District Courts. All of COFOE’s money comes from donations from people who read Ballot Access News. CUIP is aware that a majority of the Board of COFOE opposes top-two. However, CUIP supports other parts of the COFOE agenda, including all the lawsuits mentioned.
#7 Top 2 simply ensures that when the final choice is made, that the candidate who is chosen has widespread support among the People.
It is a right of any citizen to support any candidate for any office, by voting for them, campaigning for them, making campaign contributions, etc., regardless of their purported membership in any political organization, party, or gang.
You are correct that political parties attempt to keep people from voting for other candidates, but the State should not support these efforts.
Under the Oregon Top 2 proposal, any qualified person could file for election. Any party could endorse whichever candidates they wanted to (so long as the candidate accepted the endorsement). The political parties could make this decision however they wanted to. What it would take from the political parties would be the authority to dictate who could not run for office.
What are the limits on political parties that you would accept? May party members vote for a candidate of another party? Change jobs? Date or marry who they chose? The Plantation Party might want to create that level of dependency, but I don’t think the courts would uphold it.
Oregon elects its county commissioners at the May election, subject to a runoff in November, so voters are used to seeing all candidates on the May ballot for some offices, and only some in November.
“general” does not translate to “November”. It means an election in which all (or many) offices are contested. Since all candidates would appear on the ballot it would be more general than under the current system.
” Top 2 simply ensures that when the final choice is made, that the candidate who is chosen has widespread support among the People.”
This is just what they said about elections in the USSR. Widespread support. No choices.
Sorry. You are wrong about this one.
General election, in the US, does translate to “November.”
And in the US today, the duopoly and the State have already merged. “Top-two” cements the deal into a formal structure that is even harder to tear down.
Partisan primaries reinforce the duopoly or monopoly by channeling political activity into the dominant parties. If a party can get 60% of the vote in an area, any person who seriously wants to to be elected will join that party. Voters who want to have a choice, will be forced to participate in the primary of the dominant party. The less dominant party will likely have weaker candidates and an uncontested primary. In the general election, the voters who voted in the primary will think that they have a stake in the election of the candidate of their party.
#14. It is true that certain districts are dominated by one party. This will still be the case under “top-two c o m m u n i s m.”
The difference is, that with free, open elections, at least the alternative parties and candidates are allowed to participate (in States with fair ballot access). They can run in the general election and try to spread their message.
Sure, the opportunistic, scum-bag politicians who only care about winning and power will just seek the nomination of the dominant party. But, why do we want to have only one primary where there are two winners and we all have to run with those same scum-bag opportunists?
People who have principles deserve to have their own primary and run against their own kind of people. We deserve the right to build up our consitituencies in our own venues, away from the dominant, evil, scum-sucking kleptocrats who control America today.
WE DO NOT WANT TO BE IN THE SAME PRIMARY WITH THAT KIND OF SCUM!
Finally, under “top-two c o m m u n i s m,” the alternative parties are not allowed on the general election ballot at all. They will be shunted aside in what is just a one-party primary for every candidate. So, they never will be heard at all. They will never get the chance to build up and grow. It leaves no alternative for their members in the political arena – so, they will have to turn to violence.
There is no doubt that the Oklahoma City bombing was the outgrowth of bad ballot access laws that kept alternative candidates off the ballot, who would have appealed to McVeigh, et al. “Top-two” is worse. The outcome for America will be worse.
Top-Two C o m m u n i s m must be abolished in Washington State. The people of America’s other States must be warned not to go down this dangerous path to tyrrany.
#14: “If a party can get 60% of the vote in an area, any person who seriously wants to to be elected will join that party.”
There are lots of exceptions to this statement. It certainly was not true of the Minnesota Reform Party in 1998, when Jesse Ventura only got 2-3% of the total primary vote and yet was elected governor in November. In Alaska and Connecticut in 1990, non-major party candidates were elected governor. An independent was elected governor of Maine in 1994 and re-elected in 1998 (an independent had also been elected Maine governor in 1974).
#15: “Top-Two… must be abolished in Washington State. The people of America’s other States must be warned not to go down this dangerous path to tyrrany.”
I expect the federal courts to either force changes or strike down the Washington “top two.”
Going back to 1915, on the “top two” for all state offices– or for state AND congressional offices– the 2004 Washington state measure has been the only one approved by the voters. Last November’s “top two” initiative in Oregon was rejected by nearly 2/3 of the voters.
The BIG QUESTION: Why should the voters be limited to just two choices in the final, deciding election?
Yes, the independent “elected Maine governor in 1974” was James B. Longley (39.14 percent of the total vote).
The 1974 Democratic nominee for Maine governor was George Mitchell, who was later majority leader of the U. S. Senate.
In 1998, Jesse Ventura’s election had nothing to do with the Minnesota Reform Party. Had the election been a Top 2 election, he might still have been elected. And there certainly was not a single dominant party in Minnesota.
Walter Hickel had been previously elected governor as a Republican. Subsequent to his second term as the nominal candidate of the AIP, he rejoined the Republican Party.
Lowell Weicker had previously been elected Senator from Connecticut prior to his election as Governor.
As the lawyer for the Love party pointed out in oral arguments in Foster v. Love, the election system used in Louisiana was the same as used in all states in 1872 when Congress established the uniform congressional election date. If the People are to choose their representative there is no reason to permit political parties or the State to interfere in that choice.
I seriously doubt that Ventura could have won in a “top two” system, since he was elected with 37%.
The point about Hickel and Weicker is that they were both elected in 1990 as non-nominees of either major party (Hickel switched back to the GOP in 1994, the last year of his term).
In 1872, the parties in most states nominated congressional candidates by convention. The Louisiana “top two” has no means of nomination, although the party central committees sometimes endorse candidates.
We have a system now that allows a candidate, such as Ron Paul, to lose in the primaries, drop out, run as a 3rd party or independent and still win in the general election in November.
We have a system now that allows a candidate who is behind the pack in 3rd place, as a third party or independent, to move ahead in time for the general election and win.
Candidates who come from behind to win are almost always the better choice.
Top-Two C o m m u n i s m would eliminate all of these candidates from the running. It would systematically limit EVERY election to only the state annointed candidates. The top-two choices of a one party state.
Top-two is pure evil. It is not democratic at all. It is anti-liberty.
Top-two must be stopped and abolished everywhere.
The fact that Louisiana has had a “top-two” styled system for many years is not an argument that supports “top-two.”
I have always felt that Louisiana’s system is rigged, biased, undemocratic and should be changed to a plurality vote in the general election.
The French have never had a decent government nor a decent system of elections. God help those stupid enough to imitate them. And since I love France, studied Poly Sci with Maurice Duverger at a French University in Paris, and lived there for an extended period, I can give this as an expert opinion.
#21: I don’t think we’ll have to worry about the “top two” for presidential elections.
#22: As you may know, Louisiana last year restored party primaries in congressional elections. They have runoff (or second) primaries, but 50%-plus is not required to win the general election.
The main similarity between the Louisiana “top two” and the French system is that 50%-plus is needed to win (this is not the case in Washington state, since write-ins are permitted there). I understand that any mayor in France can nominate a candidate for president.
In France’s last presidential race, the Socialist Party held a primary to pick its nominee. The polls were open from 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and 50%-plus was required to win. A runoff was not necessary, as the woman candidate got more votes than her two male opponents combined (she, of course, finished second in the general election).
Click here for the history of the Louisiana “top two” (this was written prior to Washington state’s adoption of the “top two”).