The Public Policy Institute of California released a poll on September 11 about various ideas for changing California government and politics. Among the findings was that 70% of the voters favor the “top-two” proposal that will be on the ballot in June 2010, and only 23% oppose it. See here for the survey results. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
Hell, why not? Democracy is dead in American. We might as well pass this Fascist crap and make it official.
When I ran as a “prefers Grange Party” candidate, I found myself explaining very fundamental concepts to almost everybody regarding free association and how it’s derived from our 1st Amendment. Some actually believed there was a “Grange Party” and were attracted to such a group. They liked the notion of a “regular person†banding together with like-minded others to amplify their voices.
At the same time, they like how the top-two “takes on the parties” i.e. – the incumbent “private†political associations that are integrated with our government.
These conversations reveled the paradox that people like political association and they don’t!
Washington’s Top-Two is a mutation of non-partisan runoff elections. It’s a system where the candidate sends a cue to voters – on the ballot – regardless of what any political association thinks. This is a “wrecking ball†on free / private association. But again, voters like that – and they don’t. It depends on who takes the hit!
Krist is on to something. Most people support the idea of political parties in the abstract, but many don’t like the ones we actually have. They don’t see any alternative to the kind of parties we have, so they are left with a contradiction.
#2 California has party registration. Under current laws, “registrion” is an expression of an intent to vote in a party’s next primary. A “declined to state” voter is literally someone who has not state which party primary they intend to vote in. Under the Top 2 proposal in California, this would be recast as a “disclosure of party preference.”
You would not have been able to indicate a preference for the “Grange Party” on the ballot unless you had previously disclosed such a preference on your voter registration. Further, your previous disclosures over the past 10 years would be publicly available, so a past expressed preference for the SalmonYoga party might have an effect on your election chances.
In California, the state will distribute sample ballots from the recognized political parties to voters who had disclosed a preference for that party, by which the party may indicate any endorsements they may wish to make.
And elections for party officers would continue to be limited to voters who had disclosed a preference for the party (unless the party adopted a rule permitting non-disclosers to participate).
It should be noted that Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed had made similar legislative proposals last session, and will likely bring them forward again.
Political parties would be recognized if they secured 100 signatures. A candidate could not express a preference for a non-existent party. So your Grange Party ploy would not have been possible unless you had first got 100 other voters to sign up.
And participation in the election of party officers would be limited to those who publicly affiliated with the party at the election (same as is done for the presidential preference primary).
Where I write about Washington’s system as a blunt instrument, the California proposal looks more like a Rube Goldberg contraption.
Either way, the intent of The State is as plain as day – sideline political association.
I say let people come together and nominate candidates to stand in front of voters. Be it with nominating conventions, unassembled caucus / firehouse primary, web / technology based or even backroom coronations, let’s have a private process.
It should up to voters to determine the substance of a nominee. These candidates can either be seen as ambassadors promoting the policy proposals of a group, or EVIL – HACK – MORONS! A party designation on the ballot is a cue that helps voters choose – or not choose – a candidate.
A true partisan top-two election is still a majority-voting system. Folks can vote their conscience in the primary then get a second choice / look in the general.
The point of the Grange Party stunt was to bring attention to a settlement for Washington’s continuing legal battles over I-872. My message was to drop the association diluting “prefers party†business and let private parties stand candidates for election within the top-two arrangement.
But private political association is a horrific idea to The State. It’s no surprise there will be an attempt in Olympia to circle the wagons with more ballot access barriers couched in the business-as-usual precepts of major / minor party status.
This sudden reversal in the California electorate over the top-two issue (if actually correct) is very concerning. If this terribly discriminating measure (against independent and/or third party candidates) somehow passes and becomes law, we (the people) are going to have to be really creative and find ways around it.
One thing that we could do would be to re-create the Reform Party of California and make it the second largest party in the Golden State. That would take a lot of money though. We would have to be able to reach out to all of the “Decline to State” voters; all of the American Independent Party voters; and others. The best thing to do would be for the Reform Party of California to disband as a political party and make itself into a the Reform Caucus. Then it could enter, en masse, into the American Independent Party of California. It does not matter whether the “reform party” is called Reform or American Independent.
As I mentioned, all of that would be very costly and it would also take a lot of hard work and clock time. One would hope that things never become that dire of a situation. Of course, if the Reform Party of California was really serious, it would already be doing what I suggested above (and I have mentioned that several times in the past, also. and the idea did not seem to interest anyone reading this website).
By the way, Jim, “I Decline to State a Political Party” stands for much more than just the people who are not willing to say “which party primary they intend to vote in.” It also includes many true indpendents. That is the most direct way to register “independent” in California. If one registers “independent” or “Independent,” that person will still be called “Decline to State” and receive the “Decline to State” sample ballot in the mail (please correct me if I am wrong about this, Richard). There are other reasons to register “Decline to State” also. Although one of the main motives that I had for doing that (back on 8-4-09) was because I wished to be “independent” of the current system in the Golden State, I also had another reason. Currently, I hold membership in two smaill parties that do not have ballot access in Califonria: the Communist Party USA; and the Socialist Party USA. There makes little sense to take on all of the red-baiting that might happen if I was to register as CPUSA
[Well, I was not finished with the above (#6) but must have hit an incorrect button. My apology for the typos; I wish that I could have had a chance to finish proofreading the article.]
To continue: ” … if I was to register as CPUSA” right now. While it is possible that I may eventually be expelled from the Socialist Party USA for being a member of the Communist Party USA; it has not happened yet and I hope that it does not. I would like to see the two parties join together again (actually, they should never have split in the first place). However, as the old saying goes, “once a Communist, always a Communist.” That is the Party that has my primary allegiance.
There is no secret about which party primary I intend to vote in next year. Right now, I am planning on voting in the Democratic Party Primary Election.
Yahoo’s dislike of the name of certain political parties; and its subsequent “Your comment is waiting modertion” deal; does have a silver lining. I can apologize, in advance, for the typos that I made in (right now) #6. I made the errors because I hit an incorrect button and the message was submitted before I could finish proofreading my article. So I can ask you all to disregard them and not think that I am illiterate and/or lazy. Thank you.
A poll taken nearly nine months before an election doesn’t amount to much. As I recall, there were polls in 2004 that showed the “top two” (Prop. 62) winning, and it lost in 51 of California’s 58 counties. Once the voters are shown the downside of the “top two” monstrosity, I’m confident they’ll make the right decision.
Californians have had the good sense to defeat the “top two” twice– in 1915 and 2004.
Last year, the proponents of Oregon’s M65 claimed that polls showed the “top two” (“open primary”) winning. Nearly 66% wound up voting against it.
If a state is stuck with the “top two,” the parties, of course, may still nominate/endorse candidates. In my view, the wise thing for a party to do is to require any candidate seeking its endorsement to pledge to support the party’s nominees. But there’s no legal way to prevent such non-endorsed candidates from running in the popular election anyway, since, in the “top two,” the state does not recognize party nominations/endorsements.
#5: “A true partisan top-two election…”
I’ve never understood how “partisan” can be used to describe the “top two,” since it’s a nonpartisan system: the parties have no way of officially nominating candidates.
#5 What advocates of conventional partisan primary systems do not recognize is the harm that that they have on political association which is not based on party and the right to vote and participate in the election of public office holders. As Justice Stevens noted in his dissent in Jones, any court in the land would reject a law that attempted to restrict a citizen from contributing to a candidate or otherwise campaigning or supporting any candidate regardless of party affiliation. The state simply has no business regulating your free speech in that manner.
What kind of absurdity is it where one can legally contribute thousands to a candidate but it is illegal to actually vote for them?
If one finds themselves in election districts that are dominated by one party or the other, they may find themselves prevented from having any effective vote. If you live in a Republican congressional district and a Democratic legislative district, when you pick a party primary, you are simultaneously eliminating yourself from having any choice who one or the other representative is. Pick a Party is effectively “pick an office”.
The system proposed in California permits voters to come together in support of an individual candidates, first by signing their petition, and then by supporting their campaign either financially or by direct participation.
Political parties are free to recruit candidates, give their support financially, and even have endorsements of individual candidates distributed to members of the party.
In Washington, if the legislature had simply adopted the legislation proposed by SoS Reed, the remaining legal issues about I-872 would have been resolved. They would have required that the parties that a candidate expresses their preference for be real, so you would not have been able to express a preference for the “Grange Party” and it would have made sure that the PCO’s were chosen by voters who had publicly disclosed their party affiliation. If you read Judge Coughenour’s opinion carefully, it really says that the litigation should be over, and the parties working with the state and Grange to tie up lose ends.
If Washington wanted to really simplify matters, they would place the presidential election under Top 2 as well.
#6
California Election Code Section 2151:
“At the time of registering and of transferring registration, each elector may declare the name of the political party with which he or she intends to affiliate at the ensuing primary election. …”
“The voter registration card shall inform the affiant that any elector may decline to state a political affiliation, but no person shall be entitled to vote the ballot of any political party at any primary election …”
(snipped exception about DTS voters voting in a party primary subject to the rule of the party since that is not an essential element of party affiliation is discretionary at the whim of the party and not the voter).
The reason you get a separate sample ballot is because California mixes non-partisan local and county races and issue referendums in an election that is billed as a “partisan primary”.
P.R. and A.V.
NO MORONIC primaries filled with extremist party hack voters and candidates are needed.
The party hack primaries since 1890 have directly caused the armies of gerrymander MONSTERS in the Congress and State legislatures — with the resulting about 14 TRILLION dollars in all govt accumulated deficits === a DIRECT threat to the survival of Western Civilization.
The leftwing / rightwing party hack gerrymander BARBARIANS are at the gate — wanting TOTAL control of everybody 24/7.
#10: You love to quote the losers in court rulings, don’t you?
“… the harm that that (sic) they have on political association which is not based on party…”
Your cherished “top two” makes it nearly impossible for independent candidates to reach the final election and thus have a chance to get elected, whereas, in a partisan system, qualifying independents are listed on the general election ballot.
Furthermore, if lightning strikes and an independent makes the “top two” runoff, he/she then faces a SECOND general election campaign; in a partisan system, independents only have to conduct ONE campaign.
“What kind of absurdity is it where one can legally contribute thousands to a candidate but it is illegal to actually vote for them?”
You evidently mean a candidate in the jurisdiction where the voter lives. If a citizen thinks enough of a candidate to give him thousands of dollars, that citizen should have no problem doing what it takes to vote in that candidate’s party primary: either register with that party, or, if it’s an open primary, vote in that party’s primary.
I wonder how many voters actually face the situation you describe in your third paragraph. In my state, e. g., state legislators and members of Congress are elected in different years.
I suspect that you would be extremely happy if we were to “really simplify matters” by totally abolishing political parties (since you don’t want them to even perform their basic function of nominating candidates).
#11, last paragraph: When there are nonpartisan offices and/or questions on the ballot on primary day, there has to be a separate nonpartisan ballot available. There is at least one court precedent for this, in a Maryland case.
I am opposed to The State registering party affiliation and don’t like the Pick-A-Party Primary (publicly funded / administered nominations). I get the point of such an endeavor but I think this reform has outlived its usefulness.
One party dominating a district is due largely to the single-member / seat system. However, the simple settlement I propose for Washington can address this problem.
In ‘08, there were two races in Washington where the “prefers Democratic Party†candidate beat the actual Democratic Party nominee. (House 36 LD and Wahkiakum County commissioner.) Because of the specific dynamics of these respective races, I believe voters would have elected the same candidates if they were on the ballot as independent’s. In other words, independent and even 3rd party candidates have a chance under a top-two with an authentic associational component.
Indeed, lightning can strike when candidates speak to mainstream issues and the mores of most voters.
And here’s my point – Democrat’s would have lost the seat to an independent because the party nominated a candidate who didn’t connect with voters. There goes one-party domination in the district!
The US Supreme Court, within ruling I-872 as facially constitutional, requested an as-applied challenge and Judge Coughenour mailed out the formal invitations. Perhaps the details in the races I’ve mentioned will be submitted as evidence of harm?
As Justice Scalia noted in his dissent in Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party: “Washington’s only plausible interest in defending I-872 is precisely to reduce the effectiveness of political parties.â€
Gary wrote: “Hell, why not? Democracy is dead in American. We might as well pass this Fascist crap and make it official.”
Hmmmm…..Why stop at Top 2 ? How about Top 1 then in November List the winner with the entry of “No” in the second line. Then we can make like the old Soviet Union !
#13 AFAIK only Mississippi, Louisiana, Virginia, and New Jersey hold legislative elections in odd years. I have lived in a congressional district that was 70% R and a state senate district that was 70% D. And of course many voters may have to choose whether they want to vote for state offices of a dominant party, or local or legislative offices of a different dominant party.
When a state mixes up non-partisan races with a partisan primary, it tends to exclude non-affiliated voters from participating in the election. You can see this in both Oregon and California which have party registration and also non-partisan elections at the same time. It is like telling agnostics that they can vote for mayor, and send them down to a polling place situated between tent revivals for the Baptists and Methodists, who may also vote for mayor as they enter their facilities. The mayoral turnout will be disproportionately comprised of Baptists and Methodists.
Your solution of having a separate non-partisan ballot is superficial.
What if someone simply wants to place a yard sign for a candidate of the “other” party? He wouldn’t have to wait until after the primary to support the candidate. So why can’t he actually vote for the candidate at the point when all candidates are on the ballot and all voters may participate?
If the independent candidate really has a meaningful chance to win the election then he will be able to finish in the Top 2 in the primary. And there is no reason that the primary can not be in close proximity to the general election. Isn’t there about a month between the primary and the runoff in Louisiana?
If there were no political parties, there would still be candidates on the ballot, so being the gatekeeper deciding who you may or may not vote for is hardly an essential function. And they can still perform functions such as candidate recruiting, financial support, GOTV drives, and otherwise supporting candidates.
#14 Here is the key part of Judge Coughenour’s ruling:
“Now that the Supreme Court has held that I-872 can be implemented without violating Plaintiffs’ right to association, Plaintiffs will not be able to strike down I-872 in its entirety. Instead, the best that Plaintiffs can achieve is to invalidate certain portions of I-872’s implementation and enjoin the State from implementing I-872 in specific ways that lead to voter confusion or other forms of forced association.
For example, if Plaintiffs’ challenge the specific wording used on the ballot or in the voter’s guide, they should identify the language currently used and request specific relief to remedy any resulting confusion.”
So here is my solution. Parties are recognized based on petition. 1/10 of 1% of the gubernatorial vote for a major party (about 3000), 100 for a minor party. Affiliation with the party will be public record, similar to participation in the presidential primary.
Each general election, voters will be permitted to (re)affiliate with any existing party. Pledge cards will distributed with the general election ballot, but will be returned by separate envelope, and perhaps with a different deadline.
A party by rule may determine (1) whether a candidate must be affiliated with the party in order to express a preference for it; and (2) whether expression of a preference requires an endorsement petition (qualification for the ballot would be by fee; endorsement by petition).
An endorsement petition would require 1/10 of 1% of total vote in previous gubernatorial election, or 1% of party members, whichever is less. This would be scaled based on district size. So if the statewide threshold was 3000, it would be 62 for a legislative district.
A party by rule could determine whether endorsement petitions could be open or closed (eg whether non-members could sign the endorsement petition). In effect, the endorsement procedure would ensure that the candidate who expressed a preference for a party had a bona fide association with that party.
Parties would be required to organize bottom up in the spring of odd years, either by convention (minimally at the county or LD level) or by mail election of party officers. Major political parties may have the state conduct an election of party officers among voters affiliated with the party.
Switch the presidential election to Top 2. Elector candidates would be expressing a preference for the state party, and of course would require the permission of the presidential and vice presidential candidate.
Now what will really happen is that parties will drag out litigation for years, including probably another visit to the Supreme Court, while interfering with the legislature’s attempts to pragmatically deal with issues related to campaign finance, election of PCO’s, etc.