California voters will vote on the “top-two” system in June 2010. Recent press reports say that two former Speakers of the California Assembly, Willie Brown and Robert Hertzberg, support the idea. Also, California Forward, a prestigious organization formed last year, does not support “top-two” yet, but its leaders say they support some type of primary election change. They believe that the current semi-closed primary (in which independents can vote in either major party’s primary for Congress and state office, but which otherwise is a closed primary) is responsible for the election of Republicans to the state legislature who are too partisan and inflexible.
Many people who support “top-two” are unaware that the system, in practice, results in a complete absence of minor party and independent candidates from the November ballot. In Washington state, which used the system for the first time in 2008, no minor party or independent candidates appeared on the November ballot for either Congress or for statewide state office, for the first time since Washington has been a state.
Many “top-two” supporters also believe “top-two” is the only constitutional system that will discourage ideological, overly-partisan Republicans from getting elected to the legislature and blocking changes that need a two-thirds vote in the legislature. However, there are at least five other systems that might get what the proponents desire, and which have less legal impediment than “top-two” does:
1. California could return to cross-filing, which was used between 1914 and 1958. This is the California term for fusion. The California legislature between 1914 and 1958 was known for being very non-ideological, with a substantial number of legislators having been nominated by both major parties.
2. California could try non-partisan elections for the state legislature. The voters considered this idea in 1915 but defeated it.
3. California could try a classic open primary, in which the practice of voters joining political parties on the voter registration form is abolished. Then, on primary day, each party has its own primary ballot, but all voters are free to choose any party’s primary ballot.
4. California could try a system in which any candidate is free to either run in the “top-two” primary, or instead skip the primary and qualify directly for the November ballot. The California blanket primary, used in 1998 and 2000, had this characteristic to a certain degree; independent candidates stayed out of the primary and petitioned directly to the November ballot. In this proposed new system (which has never been tried in any state), candidates could choose to run in the primary, and the top two vote-getters would be on the November ballot. Candidates who ran in the primary and didn’t place in the top two would not be able to appear on November ballot. However, candidates who skipped the primary could qualify for the November ballot. The incentive a candidate to run in the primary would be that the candidate expects to qualify among the top-two and wishes to campaign in the primary season.
5. California could use Instant-Runoff Voting and abolish the primary completely.
In 1988 in Washington, the only independent/3rd party candidate was for the Office of Commissioner of Public Lands.
In the November 2008 legislative elections, there were 5 independent/3rd party candidates on the ballot, averaging 28% of the vote. In November 2006 only one, who receive about 4.5% of the vote.
The number of legislative races in which November voters had no choice declined from 34 in 2006 to 24 in 2008.
Despite the lack of compelling statewide races (and no US Senate contest), more votes were cast for governor in the Top 2 primary in August 2008 vs. the Pick A Party primary in September 2004, when King County Executive Ron Sims ran for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. There was a big drop in votes cast in King County between 2004 and 2008, balanced by increased participation in most other areas.
Thank you for this post.
None of these facts contradicts anything I said in my post. And the five minor party or independent candidates in Washington in November 2008 for the legislature were only on the November ballot because only two people filed for the primary.
I will be running a chart in the October 1 2009 Ballot Access News print version that details the Washington state history. I have often offered Jim Riley a chance to see my print issues, but when I ask him for his postal address, he does not respond, so I am unable to communicate with him that way.
The push to retain the two party systems and strangle any effort by minor parties or independents has continued to be one of the best ways for the political elite to maintain control on the masses. It is a racist strategy conducted by both of the major political parties. Take the situation of Arkansas. With over 95 percent of the registered voters choosing to be independents who vote the person and the issue rather than the party, the two major parties hold everyone else hostage to their ideology.
While this continues to allow them to consolidate power in many other states, in Arkansas the populist wave is growing. Unhappy with Blanche Lincoln’s representation of Arkansas in Washington and the racist plantation owner mentality of the republican’s in the rest of the state, the voters continue to vote the individual based on his merits, message and experience.
The primary example in Arkansas is Trevor Drown, from Russellville, the former Green Beret, small business owner and UPS employee who many consider the common man of Arkansas. His refusal to take corporate money, listen to party politics and leadership style of daring to make a difference is resonating throughout the state. While he may not have the funds, he has the people’s ear and he is receiving more supporters every day. Trevor chooses to meet with people from all walks of life, listens to them, their concerns and what they are looking for. That in itself is different from so many professional politicians. As he meets people, he is building support and a grassroots movement has sprung up. Next spring when he needs to get the 10,000 signatures to get on the November ballot he will easily do this. The money and funding will come, it will be slow but, it will build momentum as time goes by. When people from all over see the impact he is making, we will see a fundamental change in the way campaigns are conducted. It will not be politics as usual. Drown will eventually face a Democratic Incumbent who has collected so much money from corporate donors, it can only be described as obscene. The winner of the republican primary will either be another bloated political party hack or a racist plantation owner, who uses the church to rally support and be the fake conservative voice. Thankfully it will not work this time and a true independent, an American will represent Arkansas.
P.R. legislative bodies.
A.V. NONPARTISAN executive / judicial elections.
NO party hack caucuses, primaries and conventions.
The party hack regimes are subgroups of PUBLIC Electors — with ZERO independent power in PUBLIC nominations for PUBLIC offices — with such PUBLIC nominations totally controlled by PUBLIC laws — part of the total election process.
Much too difficult for the armies of New Age MORONS in the various regimes to understand.
In 2004, Gov. Schwarzenegger, former Gov. Pete Wilson, ex-L. A. mayor Richard Riordan, and Leon Panetta were among the supporters of the “top two” (“open primary”) initiative, Prop. 62. This monstrosity nevertheless lost in 51 of the state’s 58 counties.
In 2008, California independents could vote in the Democratic presidential primary but not the Republican presidential primary. It’s also worth noting that all of the state’s elections for municipal and county offices are nonpartisan: every voter receives the same ballot.
The failed October 1915 special referendum was for nonpartisan elections for ALL state offices.
The classic open primary, in my view, has at least as much legal impediment as the “top two.” In fact, I believe that the days of the state-mandated open primary are numbered. If California were to adopt that system, it would be inviting further litigation for itself.
It should also be noted that California voters have until 15 days before an election to change their registration. So, for example, an independent who wanted to vote in the 2008 Republican presidential primary just had to change his or her registration.
Why should we have to change our registration in order to vote in a party primary election? On August 4th of this year, I changed my registration from PFP-CA to I Decline to State a Political Party. Most likely, I will vote in the Democratic Party Primary Election next year (since “Decline to State” voters are allowed to do that). If the law was to be changed, I most likely would not be doing that because I am not willing to change my registration to the Democratic Party. (It would take something like Tom Hayden declaring for governor to make me change to the Democratic Party for even a short amount of time.)
With all of that being said, though, I am still very much against the “top two” nonsense. What blatant and terrible discrimination against independent and/or minor party candidates.
Maybe Mao was right when he said: Political power comes from the barrel of a gun.
#8: Why should someone who steadfastly refuses to register with a party be permitted to participate in that party’s candidate-selection process– unless the party invites him or her to do so?
You don’t have to pay dues, lick envelopes, or knock on doors… all you have to do is sign a piece of paper. And you can later switch back to independent status if you like.
Again: California’s only major-party primary in which independents were not eligible to vote was last year’s Republican presidential primary.
I recently helped defeat the same thing in Oregon, Ballot Measure 65.
Nom65.org was a website I put together, feel free to steal anything, particularly talking points or the washington results analysis.
I spoke at a number of fora about it, and was interviewed by media many times. If you need some help, let me know.
Seth
This is a very good site: Nom65.org.
# 9 — See 19 Apr 1775 — Day 1 of the American Revolutionary WAR — due in part to the American Colonies having ZERO *real* representation in the then Parliament in then Great Britain — along with the EVIL hereditary monarch, the EVIL hereditary House of Lords and the UNREPRESENTATIVE House of Commons with many, many gerrymander *rotten boroughs* — very low population area — many directly controlled by the monarch and the lords — one overall totally EVIL vicious monarchy – oligarchy situation.
P.R. and A.V. now.
#10: Actually, Steve, the Democratic Party has invited “Decline to State” people to vote in its primary elections. That is my point. The law should stay as it is (and be expanded to let more people know about this option).
#9: Richard Kuszmar Says:
September 5th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Maybe Mao was right when he said: Political power comes from the barrel of a gun.
Phil Sawyer replies:
Mao certainly was correct about that. The “barrel of a gun” is the bottom line. V.I. Lenin put it in an even better way: “The basic question of every revolution is that of state power.”
For an expanded perspective on all of this, here is a must-read (more than once) book: “Allende’s Chile: An Inside View” (by Edward Boorstein).
#14 See the circa 100 MILLION murdered humans in the 1900s due to *state power* — WW I Central Powers, WW II Axis powers, various communist regime purges – Stalin 1930s, Cambodia 1970s, etc. etc.
Lots of EVIL statist control freaks on Mother Earth — all doing the work of the DEVIL ??? Duh.
How many New Age statist control freaks are in the U.S.A. and State minority rule gerrymander regimes – trying to get TOTAL power ???
Will the left/right stuff in CA set off Civil W-A-R II ??? Stay tuned.
#14: And the California Republican Party has invited “Decline to State” voters into all of its primaries except the presidential primary.
In Tashjian v. Connecticut Republican Party (1986), the US Supreme Court empowered parties to invite independents to vote in their primaries. Although it’s not necessary, many states go ahead and remove any doubt by enacting laws saying that parties may invite independents.
The American Independent Party of California also allows “Decline to State” registrants to participate in its primary elections.
Regarding the Republican Party of California, it is difficult to imagine many DTS voters even wanting to participate in its primarys. The GOP is an anachronism; it serves no useful purpose at all. It will be a minor-sized party by 2012.
#3 The trend has been for the number and strength of 3rd party and independent candidacies to decline. The difference between 1988 and 2008 is quite superficial.
While it is factual to note that there was one independent statewide or congressional candidate in 1988, it is otherwise of no significance.
#17: I know that the American Independent Party invites “decline to state” voters into its state and congressional primaries.
Does the AIP also invite DTS voters into its presidential primary?
It looks as though the effort to restore closed GOP primaries will be a hot issue at the September 27 state Republican convention.
Don’t be surprised if the Republicans make a big comeback nationally in 2010.
It has the practice of the American Independent Party to allow the DTS voters to vote in its Presidential primary. When California’s voters voted to change to the Consolidated Primary in th emid-90’s (Where all the candidates for an office are on the same ballot like our Special Election rules) the AIP DID NOT join the suit to have it overturned. I believe that all other ballot qualified parties at the time [Richard can you verify this?] joined in a suit that ended up successfully overturning the choice of the people.
Clearly, the AIP leadership at the time was much more comfortable with that change in the election law than all of the other parties.
California’s Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, and Peace and Freedom parties joined in the lawsuit against the blanket primary.
Hey Deemer, that “choice of the people” stuff only goes as far as not violating the rights of the individual–something the CA Supreme Court seemed to have forgotten in terms of Prop 8 recently.
Otherwise we have no preservation of the rights of the minority if the majority votes them away. No thanks, I prefer a republican form of government over democracy.
#20 and #22: Yes, the problem with the state-mandated blanket primary was that it violated the First Amendment rights of the political parties (California Democratic Party v. Jones [2000] and Reed v. Democratic Party of Washington State [2004]).
I believe that, when it has the opportunity, the US Supreme Court will also strike down the state-mandated open primary, in which each voter picks a party on primary day.
Any idea how those of us outside California can help fight this attack on democracy? Donations to the GP of California? Anything else?
I helped Seth oppose Measure 65 (2008) in Oregon. I agree that his website was the best “no” site. I hope he maintains it forever.
It is not surprising that “big money” Democrats and Republicans would support a top-two primary similar to the current Washington system, which allows any candidate to list on the ballot any actual or fictious party that the candidate “prefers.” This system essentially destroys the value of party labels on the ballot, thereby forcing voters to rely on other information about the candidates. Of course, the “other information” is provided by means of expensive media advertising. Thus, the top-two primary makes candidates even more dependent on spending as much as possible on their campaigns.
#25: In the “top two,” the top two finishers are forced to conduct TWO general election campaigns. This is another feature that makes campaigns more expensive and discourages people from running.
In recent years, two former Louisiana governors considered running again but decided against it. If Louisiana had party primaries, they likely WOULD have run, thus giving the voters more choices.