On December 3, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger spoke to the Silicon Valley Leadership Group/CEO Roundtable in San Jose. He urged the audience to contribute generously to the campaign to pass the “top-two open primary”, a ballot measure set for the June 2010 ballot. He said, “There will be only two real opponents to the open primary measure, Republicans and Democrats. But that’s where you come in. We all know that if we have the $20,000,000, we can win, because the parties will spend money against it.”
Back in 2004, when the same idea was on the California ballot, Schwarzenegger raised almost all of the money for the campaign for that measure. In 2004, it was defeated by the voters by a vote of 46%-54%. The biggest contributor in 2004 in favor of “top-two” was Countrywide Home Lending.
The Los Angeles Times carried this lengthy story about “top-two” in its November 27 issue. It quoted three individuals who are in favor of the proposal, Senator Abel Maldonado, former Senator Steve Peace, and Allan Hoffenblum, a campaign consultant for Republicans. It devoted 16 lines to quotations from them. The only person it quoted against “top-two” was Democratic Party state chair John Burton, but it only gave him 3 lines, and then it quoted Hoffenblum again saying Burton was being a hypocrite.
Neither the Los Angeles Times, or any other newspaper in California, has yet mentioned that the proposal (1) eliminates write-ins at the general election; (2) vastly increases the difficulty for a party to remain ballot-qualified; (3) shuts off all avenues to the November ballot that are later than mid-March of the election year; (4) treats candidates unequally in the June primary by letting some of them list a party preference but not letting others do so. The Los Angeles Times has rejected two attempts to get an op-ed printed to mention these points, saying “We’ve got too many pieces vying for too little space.” However, on December 3, the paper again ran a story in favor of top-two, by George Skelton, saying the system will elect more moderate legislators. Neither Skelton nor any other Los Angeles Times writer has ever presented any evidence in favor of this idea. Nor have they acknowledged that Political Scientist Thad Kousser studied the California legislature, and found that the legislature elected in the blanket primary didn’t behave any differently than legislative sessions elected under a normal system.
To read a letter sent to some leaders of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, by Richard Winger, on December 3, see here.
A two party state is one party away from being a one party state.
NO primaries are needed.
P.R. legislative and nonpartisan A.V. executive/judicial — to really bankrupt the special interest gangs.
The more I read about “top-two”, the more leery I get. A quick question. If the top two candidates tie or there’s a dead heat between the candidates, how does the system work with this?
Too bad they didn’t recall him when there was a point to. If all the third party members signed his recall petition, that petition would be over 3/4 done…
The Maldonado measure says if there is a tie in the primary for second place, then the November ballot would list the person who came in first, and both people who tied for second as well. So that is the only circumstance at which three people would be on the November ballot, if there were a tie for 2nd place.
What was the interest of Countrywide in top two? In other words, what did they hope to gain or whose favor were they seeking?
All sorts of local nonpartisan top 2N primary election – general election systems in the U.S.A. manage to survive — city / village councils, mayors, clerks, etc.
The quicker that the extremist party hack regimes in the U.S.A. get wiped out the better — to perhaps even save Western Civilization.
Sorry – NO constitutional *right* for ALL party hack parties to get their party hack extremist candidates on the official general election ballots — with the party hack label involved.
Get real — 95 plus percent of the gerrymander districts in the CA legislature are de facto ONE party.
Would top 2 reduce the number of party hack extremists in the CA legislature from such gerrymander districts ???
Only 2 New Age govts — more or less government – to control everybody 24/7.
P.R. and A.V.
Top two just makes it official that we live in a Fascist state where only “approved” parties are allowed to run.
Countrywide probably just wanted to get in the good graces of Governor Schwarzenegger.
#7: Nonpartisan (“top two”) elections are fine for local offices because (1) the national parties do not get involved in local elections, and (2) local officials are concerned with providing services, rather than with policy issues.
Louisiana has had instances with its “top two” state and congressional elections when the national Republicans and the state Republicans supported opposing candidates in the same election.
There doesn’t seem to be a Republican method of fixing potholes or a Democratic method of performing autopsies.
#11 Who gives a damn what the national extremist party hack Donkeys and Elephants have to say about the internal politics of ANY State ???
Sorry – Bush II — one more party hack MORON — undeclared wars, deficits
Sorry – Obama — one more party hack MORON — undeclared wars, deficits
P.R. and A.V. = REAL reforms — instead of the JUNK top 2 stuff, the JUNK IRV stuff, the JUNK NPV for Prez stuff, etc.
The national parties shouldn’t care about elections for the US Congress?? And state candidates certainly don’t mind getting money and other assistance from their national party.
In 1915, California had a ballot measure for a “top two” for state offices. This was correctly called “nonpartisan elections.” Despite strong support for the “top two” from legendary Gov. Hiram Johnson, it was rejected by 58.2% of the voters.
In 2004, the “top two” (Prop. 62) had the backing of Gov. Schwarzenegger, ex-Gov. Pete Wilson, ex-L. A. mayor Richard Riordan, Leon Panetta, and others. It nevertheless was defeated, losing in 51 of the state’s 58 counties.
Schwarzegger evidently thinks he’ll have better luck as a lame duck getting this monstrosity passed.
# 12 ALL votes in the past control the present and future ???
The top secret stuff in the 1787 Federal Convention by the then ruling elitists (including slave owners and small State hacks) controls all FOREVER ???
New Age MINDLESS idiocy.
How come 10 of 16 U.S.A. Const. Amdts in 11 to 26 relate to elections ???
More Democracy NOW — wipe out all monarchy / oligarchy stuff — to save the human race from the party hack MORONS in high places who are doing their EVIL worst to destroy Mother Earth.
#5 Mr. Winger, thanks for your answer. Have a great day and keep up the fight!
Re: letter by Richard Winger to Silicon Valley Leadership Group.
#1. In 1930, the incumbent in CD 3, Charles Curry, Jr. died less than a month before the election. Under the cross-filing system used in California at the time, he was the only candidate on the ballot. Voters were forced to write in their candidate, and electing Charles Curry, Jr., son of the deceased incumbent. Under similar circumstances today, it is likely that the deceased candidate would have been elected, which would trigger a special election to fill the vacancy. And there is absolutely no reason that an election for Congress could not be delayed in case of the death of one of the nominees (this system is followed in Britain, even if the deceased candidate is from a minor party such as the MRLP).
The legendary senator Hiram Johnson died in August 1945, with 17 months remaining in his elected term. William Knowland was appointed to fill the vacancy. 15 months later, at the November general election, Knowland was elected to a full term (1947-1953). On the same day, Knowland was elected as a write-in candidate in a special election to fill the final two months of a term, which he had already served 15 months of. The number of votes cast in the special election was about 20% of the votes cast in the concurrent general election (it is an error to claim that Knowland was elected at the general election as a write-in candidate). Congress was not in session after the election. Under current California law, special elections are not held to fill the final two months of a senate vacancy, and special elections have filings for appearing on the ballot.
In 1982, Ron Packard lost the Republican primary for CD 43. He then ran as a write-in candidate and won the general election, defeating both the Republican and Democratic nominees. Given the nature of the district it is quite possible that he would have qualified for the general election in a Top 2 primary (in the general election, the Democrat finished 3rd).
Had a similar situation occurred under Washington’s Top 2 law, Packard could not have been elected, because Washington’s sore loser provisions apply to write-in candidates and votes alike. So while Washington does permit write-in votes in the general election, it does not count them for candidates that sought to qualify in the primary and failed.
On the other hand, California does not set a threshold for qualifying as a write-in candidate in the Top 2 primary. So unlike the current California law that prevents nomination of partisan write-in candidates unless they receive a certain percentage of the vote.
The restriction on counting write-ins is irrelevant for practical purposes, and it would not be applicable to circumstances similar to the 3 elections that Richard Winger has cited.
Re: letter by Richard Winger to Silicon Valley Leadership Group.
#2, I disagree with Richard Winger’s interpretation of SB 6 and SCA 6 with regard to “unqualified” parties.
Section 4 of the Election Code states 4 “Unless the provision or the context otherwise requires, these general provisions, rules of construction, and definitions shall govern the construction of this code.”. I believe that, in context, the Election Code provisions with regard to party affiliation are inexplicable if we rely solely on the definition of “party” in Section 338.
Section 338 is currently part of the Election Code. If it applied universally throughout the election code, then it would be impossible for a voter to designate a non-qualified party when he registered (Sections 2150, 2151, and 2155).
It would be impossible for a county election official to report the collective number of registrants in “non
-qualified parties (Section 2187), if parties is restricted to mean qualified parties.
It would be nearly impossible for a new party to qualify, or an existing party that has lost its qualification to regain its qualification if voters could not designate a non-qualified party affiliation, or retain an affiliation with a disqualified party (Sections 5003, 5100.5, 5101). This is true even though Section 5000(a) reiterates that the definition in Section 338 applies to Division 5 (beginning with section 5000).
Party affiliation is largely aspirational, indicating a voter’s intent to participate at an ensuing partisan primary (Section 2151). The voter might not actually vote; or his party might not qualify to conduct a primary, but the aspiration remains. This is also true of voters who had registered an affiliation with the Reform Party or Natural Law Party prior to their disqualification. Presumably voters who are still affiliated with these parties aspire that they re-qualify to conduct partisan primaries in the future.
A voter must sign their voter registration application so as to certify its truth and correctness, subject to perjury charges (Section 2150(a). For the State of California to treat a registration where a voter certified the truth of their party affiliation by their signature, as if they had declined to state an affiliation, has serious 1st Amendment ramifications.
So it is clear that, in context, the definition of party in Section 338 does not directly apply to “party” affiliation of a voter, except in those cases where a party is qualified to participate in a primary (which SCA 4 and SB 6 would restrict to presidential preference primaries and the election of party officers).
SCA 4 in the Second Section (c) provides that existing party affiliations of voters be carried forward. While this it not part of the amendment to the California Constitution, it is an expression of the legislative intent of the People in enacting the amendment. Further Second Section (b) declares that it is the intent of the People that the legislation enacted by the legislature (SB 6) implements the Top 2 primary set forth in SCA 4.
SB 6 adds Section 300.5, which defines “Affiliated with a political party” with respect to a voter or candidate for a voter-nominated (Top 2) office to mean the party preference disclosed on the voter registration. Since this definition is specific to Top 2 elections, it supersedes Section 338 when they are in conflict.
SB 6 (Sections 2151-2154) recasts the meaning of party registration from a “declaration of intent to affiliate with a political party at the ensuing primary election” to a “disclosure of party preference”, but does not in any way restrict a voter from disclosing a preference for a non-qualified party. While registration forms will continue to provide a list of qualified parties, just as they currently do, voters are not restricted to that list. “Declined To State” voters are recast as “No Party Preference”. There would be no change in existing party registrations, including those for non-qualified parties, unless it is initiated by the voter.
There can be no conclusion other than that a voter may continue to disclose a preference for a non-qualified party. And according to the definition in Section 300.5, the preference of a candidate is that disclosed on the candidate’s voter registration.
Section 8002.5 provides that a candidate for a voter nominated office may choose between having his disclosed party preference appearing on the ballot or having a blank space (there are 3 indications of party preference: “My party preference is the _______ Party”; “No Party Preference”; and a blank space). A candidate who has disclosed a party preference, may not choose “No Party Preference”, but may choose to simply have his party preference omitted. If a candidate may not choose to have that his disclosed party preference (which he certified as to its truth and correctness by signing his registration affidavit) then it is not a choice at all. SB 6 provides no authority to suppress disclosure of a preference for a non-qualified party, nor to prevent a candidate for a voter-nominated office having that preference appearing on the ballot.
Section 8121 is modified to require the Secretary of State to post on the SOS web site the 10-year party affiliation history of all candidates. This would necessarily include any affiliation with non-qualified parties, or with parties that are no longer qualified.
Section 338 defines a “party” as a political party that has qualified for participation in any primary election.” But “qualified parties” have not qualified to participate in a primary election for a voter-nominated office, just as they have not qualified to participate in elections for nonpartisan offices, even if various offices are mixed on the ballot (voters registered with qualified parties will continue to elect party officers at the June primary).
Moreover political parties are not entitled to formally nominate candidates for voter-nominated office. While qualified parties may any endorsements included in the sample ballot, this does not constitute full participation in a voter-nominated primary.
Re: letter by Richard Winger to Silicon Valley Leadership Group.
#3. SB 6 has an effective date of January 1, 2011. Statewide candidates in the 2010 gubernatorial election will be nominated by the current partisan primary system, and parties will retain their party qualification on the basis of their performance in 2010. The next gubernatorial election will be in 2014, so that the effect of SB 6 on party qualification will not be seen until the 2016 presidential primary.
Under the current system, there is a disincentive for voters to register with a minor party. While it would help the party to retain its qualified status, it would restrict the voter to participation in relatively meaningless primaries, if there is a primary contest at all. In California, congressional and legislative nominations by 3rd parties is declining, this is especially true since the blanket primary was ruled unconstitutional in Jones. There are almost never two candidates on the primary ballot of minor parties. A voter who wishes to have a meaningful choice in the June primary will either switch to one of the two major parties, or change their registration to Declined To State (DTS) and hope that the major parties will continue to permit DTS voters to vote in their primary.
3rd party voters may also vote in the presidential preference primary of their party. But in California, the preferences of the voters are often ignored by the parties. In 2008, 4 of the 6 qualified parties placed someone on the general election ballot who was different than the voters preferred. In some cases, the nominee was not even on the primary ballot.
Party qualification is virtually meaningless if it is reduced to an exercise of getting 2% of the vote for some down-ballot race in order that the party may try nominate someone 4 years later so that the party may attempt to maintain its qualification. It is quite possible that if all 3rd parties ran a full statewide slate, some or all of them might not be able to gain 2% support in any race.
Under Top 2, affiliation with a 3rd party will no longer effectively disqualify a voter from participating in the primary. If there is a candidate from the party, the voter may vote for them. If not, they may vote for an independent candidate or a candidate of another party who best represents their viewpoint. Qualification of independent candidates is much easier under SB 6.
So it is quite possible that under Top 2, 3rd parties will be able to maintain the registration numbers that permitted them to be qualified in the first place, instead of being trapped on a treadmill of getting 2% of the vote in order to attempt to get 2% of the vote …
And between 2010 and 2016 there is plenty of time to align the qualification standard so that it matches the election for which it is most applicable, the presidential preference primary. For example, if a party has 1% of total voter participation in its presidential primary, it would be entitled to place the primary winner on the general election ballot.
The California Election Code for an unqualified party is “political body”.
Re: letter by Richard Winger to Silicon Valley Leadership Group.
#4 The number of 3rd party congressional and legislative candidates on the general election ballot in California has been declining, especially since the blanket primary was overturned in Jones. Rarely does a 3rd party candidate get above 10% unless one of the major parties fails to contest the seat (in 2008, the Libertarian candidate in CD 38 received 18% of the vote in a race with no Republican).
If there is a meaningful contest between a Republican and a Democratic, 3rd party members may feel squeezed, so that if the contest is perceived as being close, they may vote for a major party candidate. In a Top 2 primary, they may feel freer to vote their true preference, knowing that a vote for a 3rd party candidate will not harm their opportunity to vote in the decisive election.
Jim Riley lives in Texas, a state with such miserable ballot access laws that Ralph Nader was not on the ballot in either 2000 or 2004, even though he is the candidate who placed 3rd both times. Other important presidential candidates who weren’t on the ballot in Texas were John G. Schmitz (third place finisher in 1972), David Bergland (third place finisher in 1984), Ralph Nader in 1996 (fourth place finisher that year), and Chuck Baldwin (fifth place finisher in 2008).
Because all these presidential candidates were off the ballot in Texas, voters who wanted to vote for them had to cast write-in votes, and Texas elections officials had to spend extra time and energy to count them (which costs the taxpayers more money).
If the Maldonado measure had already been in effect in California, the Peace & Freedom Party would have been off the California ballot in 2008, and Ralph Nader would not have been on the California ballot in 2008 either. PFP would have been off the ballot because if Maldonado had already been implemented, parties with registration of less than 1% of the last gubernatorial vote would be off the ballot.
I cannot understand the psychology of someone who lives in Texas, and who is very interested in election law, but who doesn’t participate in asking the Texas legislature to improve the ballot access laws. Instead, he sits at his computer and writes comments in favor of something in California that will give the voters fewer choices here in California. He puzzles me. I have e-mailed him privately, but he doesn’t respond. I can’t phone him because I don’t know his phone number. If he doesn’t want to communicate privately, OK, but why not at least set forth the underlying philosophy? It would also be fun to know if Jim Riley has ever voted for a minor party or independent candidate for any office, and also which major party he favors.
Re: letter by Richard Winger to Silicon Valley Leadership Group.
#5 In California “a petition” for an independent candidate requires an extremely large number of signatures. Only two independent candidates qualified as independent candidates for Congress in 2008, a number which was exceptionally high. Both candidates would have qualified for the general election under a Top 2 primary.
SB 6 would reduce the petition requirements for independent candidates for Congress in California by a factor of over 250 times.
In Louisiana independent candidates have actually been elected to the legislature under that state’s open primary system. Two such independents currently serve in the legislature.
There is absolutely no reason for California to hold its primary so many months earlier than the general election. Many States hold their primary in September or August.
#18 “political body” occurs in the California election code in Sections 5000-5003 and 10706.
10706 pertains to congressional and legislative special elections, which are conducted using a partisan blanket primary. If I understand it, if two candidates are affiliated with the SalmonYoga party run in a congressional special primary election, only the one with the greatest number of votes may advance to the general election, where he will still appear as an independent candidate. SB 6 amends 10706 so that congressional and legislative special elections are conducted using the Top 2 system (if a candidate receives a majority in the primary, no second election is held). If two candidates had disclosed a preference for the SalmonYoga party and the finished 1, 2 in the special primary election, both would qualify for the special general election.
Sections 5000-5003 pertains to political organizations that are formally attempting to qualify political party. Once citizens formally organize and notify the Secretary of State that they wish to qualify as a party, they may request that the Secretary of State count the number of party affiliations made prior to the formal notice.
There is no time restriction as to when the party affiliations must have been made. It is clearly the practice in California to count registration affidavits executed years before the voters organized into a political body, let alone gave notice to the Secretary of State of that fact.
Under SB 6, a voter in California may disclose a preference for a qualified political party, a formerly qualified political party, a political body seeking to qualify as a political party, or a political entity that may or may not in the future seek to form a political body and seek to become a qualified political party.
#20 Was Linda Jenness on the ballot in Texas in 1972?
Chuck Baldwin received more votes in Texas in 2008 than he did in California.
The Peace and Freedom Party re-qualified in February 2003 with 79,462 registrants. They had lost about 1/4 of that by the time of the next gubernatorial primary in June 2006. It may well be due to the fact that this loss of support was due to a realization that minor party registration actually limits a voter’s participation in the political process. Only 6,717 P%F affiliated voters, about 11%, actually voted in the June 2006 primary. Changing the role of qualified parties may actually enhance the probability that the P&F would retain its status under the 1% rule.
Ralph Nader won the presidential preference primary of the Green Party in February 2008. A reasonable interpretation of the California Constitution would have required that he be placed on the general election ballot as the nominee of the Green Party. He could have also qualified as an independent candidate.
Texas only requires 500 signatures for an independent candidate to run for Congress compared to over 10,000 in California. Texas does use an election system similar to Top 2 for special congressional and legislative elections. In addition, since Texas does not have party registration, participation by both voters and candidates is more fluid than in states that have more restrictive registration laws.
In fact, the Top 2 open primary will increase choices for Californians, just as it has in Washington and Louisiana.
Yes, I have voted for an independent or minor party candidate. You have an interesting concept of fun.
#15 SB 6 appears to have a conflict with regard to the counting of write-in votes in the general election for a voter-nominated office.
Section 13(b) of the Election Code declares the right of a voter to cast a write-in vote for any office and to have that vote tabulated, and for any candidate to campaign as a write-in candidate for any office, subject only to the limitations of Section 15341.
Section 15341 is a limitation on election officials to only count votes for declared write-in candidates, and requires declared write-in candidates to comply with Part 3 of Section 8, beginning with Section 8600. Section 8700 violates the US Constitution and is unenforceable. Section 8650-8653 is specific to write-in candidates for presidential electors, and Section 8605 applies to partisan offices, and are thus irrelevant to voter-nominated (Top 2) offices.
This leaves Sections 8600-8604 plus Section 8606 which was added by SB 6. Sections 8600-8604 provide the manner in which a write-in candidate qualifies (ie form of application, timing). A candidate could comply with these requirements either prior to the primary or prior to the general election.
The new section 8606 is a restriction on election officials, and is not something which a candidate may comply with.
Ballots are required to provide a space for voters to write in a candidates name. There does not appear to be any variation for the general election of voter-nominated offices. A write-in candidate would be capable of complying with all provisions within Part 3 of Section 8 that he is capable of complying with.
So on what basis could Section 8606 ever come into play?
A further problem is that Section 8606 is literal nonsense:
“8606. A person whose name has been written on the ballot as a write-in candidate at the general election for a voter-nominated office shall not be counted.”
“person” is modified by “whose name has been written on the ballot as a write-in candidate at the ganeral election for a voter-nominated office”
What does it mean for “a person” to “be counted” or “not be counted”.
Jim in #23 answered your question from #20, Richard, that he has indeed voted for an independent or minor party candidate, but he did not say which major party he favors.
The thing that puzzles me about Jim– and I’ve mentioned this before– is that, since he’s so gung-ho about his beloved “top two,” why doesn’t he contact at least one member of the Texas legislature and ask that individual to introduce a “top two” bill (TX, of course, does not have the initiative)? But I guess it’s more gratifying to pound away on his keyboard, posting essays on a California-based site about the glories of the “top two.”
Re: letter by Richard Winger to Silicon Valley Leadership Group.
The reason that Joseph Cao was elected in Louisiana was because Hurricane Gustav had disrupted its election schedule. Under Louisiana’s partisan primary system there is the possibility of a 1st party primary; a 2nd (runoff) party primary; and a general election. If there is only one candidate for any of these elections, it is skipped. In one congressional district there was only one candidate, so all elections were cancelled. In another, there were only two Republican candidates, so only the first Republican primary was held, limited to Republican voters only.
So depending on the congressional district, the skipped elections allowed a general election to be held as schedule in early November (coincident with the presidential and senatorial election).
But in two CD’s all three elections had to be held. This meant that, the 2nd primary was conducted coincident with the presidential general election, and the congressional general election election was held in December.
Because the presidential election was open to all voters, while the congressional primary was limited to partisan voters, Louisiana employed “lockout” devices on their voting machines which an election judge would manipulate to prevent voters from voting in certain races. A voter in Louisiana who would have shown up to vote in the presidential election would have had their party registration checked, an election judge would then manipulate the voting machine before they were permitted to vote for president, and incidentally, the congressional 2nd primary.
In CD 2, turnout for the 1st Democratic primary was 69K, for the 2nd Democratic primary (coincident with the presidential election) turnout was 169K. William Jefferson, indicted in 2006, and just recently convicted in 2009 won the Democratic nomination.
President-elect Obama refused to campaign for Democratic nominee William Jefferson. Senator Mary Landrieu refused to campaign for William Jefferson, even though she is from New Orleans. Turnout for the general election was 65K, just 38% of the 2nd primary.
Joseph Cao managed a narrow victory, not because of the energetic campaign of the Green or Libertarian candidates, who in this case probably cost Cao more votes than they did Jefferson, but because few voters turned out for the “general election”.
Louisiana continues to use its open primary for statewide and legislative offices, and the legislature currently has two members who were elected as independents.
For those who are not familiar with Louisiana politicians, David Duke and William Jefferson are to Louisiana as Tom Metzger and Duke Cunningham are to California.
#25 While Richard Winger lives in California, I would hardly consider BAN to be a California site.
It was interesting that when Richard had contacted the sponsor of legislation in Louisiana that would have prevented minor parties from nominating candidates under Louisiana’s partisan congressional election scheme, that the sponsor had marveled (in the webcast public hearing) that someone in California would be interested in Louisiana election procedures.
You’re not convincing anyone Jim. You’re a right-wing hack pushing to exclude voter choices from the November ballot. Go back to Texas and take David Cobb with you.
#28 The partisan primary system eliminates meaningful choices from the November ballot and transfers that choice to a limited portion of the electorate.
#29 Top two by definition eliminates all but two choices from the November ballot. Almost invariably in statewide and Congressional races, the top two will be Democrats and Republicans. Even in many state legislative races, thuird parties and independents will be shut out. I want my ballot to look like something besides Democrats and Republicans, Democrats and Republicans, Democrats and Republicans.
In states without registration by party, there is no limitation on who can vote in partisan primaries. The only limitation is that you cannot hop around from party to party in different races. Even in some states with registration by party, independents are allowed to vote in primaries. In some other states with closed primaries, it’s easy to switch registration temporarily. I don’t really have a problem with close primaries.
#30 Why wouldn’t you want your general election ballot to simply include a series of straight party boxes? Why would anyone ever want to vote for candidates on their individual merits?
Top 2 permits all voters to choose from among all candidates for all offices in the primary. The two candidates which have the most support are then put before all voters in the general election.
In California in 2008, all independent candidates for Congress would have qualified for the general election under a Top 2 system. Louisiana has two independent legislators elected under their election system (where the runoff is conditional based on whether one candidate has a majority).
“California in 2008, all independent candidates for Congress would have qualified for the general election under a Top 2 system.”
Um, yes, all two of them would have. There would have been another race in which a Libertarian faced a Democrat. Cindy Sheehan was the only non-major party candidate who would have made it into the general election by beating out a major party candidate. In the other races, the candidates made it by default- there would have been only two candidates on the primary ballot.
In the current system, there were 26 House races in California with third parties and independents on the ballot in November. Under top two, there would have only been three. I’d prefer the more open general election any day.
#28: “You’re a right-wing hack pushing to exclude voter choices from the November ballot.”
The California proponents of the “top two” are mistakenly promoting it as a way of electing more “moderates.”
#31: “Top 2 permits all voters to choose from among all candidates for all offices in the primary. The two candidates which have the most support are then put before all voters in the general election.”
Voters may indeed choose among all the candidates in the preliminary round. But the price they pay is that they are limited to just two choices in the final, deciding election, both of whom may be from the same party.
The “top two” also forces the top two vote-getters to conduct and finance TWO general election campaigns, making for more expensive campaigns.
I suppose the “top two” wouldn’t be so bad IF there were no political parties. BUT– and I know this kills you, Jim– we DO have political parties.
#33 Somewhat cited the 2006 election for Controller where Abel Maldonado sought the Republican nomination. Here are the vote totals:
John Chiang 1,157,724 29.3%
Joe Dunn 1,014,418 25.7%
Tony Strickland 689,065 17.4%
Abel Maldonado 626,552 15.9%
Jim Stieringer 210,691 5.3%
Bret R. Davis 91,758 2.3%
David L. Harris 76,310 1.9%
Laura Wells 32,091 0.8%
Warren Mark Campbell 30,631 0.8%
Donna Tello 16,700 0.4%
Elizabeth Cervantes Barron 4,047 0.1%
Please explain why you believe that Stieringer, Harris, Campbell, Tello, and Barron should or should not have appeared on the general election ballot, while neither Dunn or Maldonado should not.
The voters could have chosen to vote for them in the primary, but they did not. What rationale did California have for requiring an independent candidate to have 165,572 signatures to get on the general election ballot, when they placed a candidate who received a mere 4,000 votes on the ballot. If 165,572 is a modicum, what is 4,000?
You have asked in the past about the number of candidates that advance to the general election. If you want more than 2, then how about 5% or 1%.