The December 23 issue of Fox & Hounds, a California politics blog, has this commentary on the “top-two open primary”.
Comments
Fox & Hounds, California Politics Blog, Has Commentary on “Top-Two Open Primary” — 50 Comments
Mister Winger is a 21st Century Secular Saint and I for one sure appreciate his on going ‘Chinese guy standing up to the PLA tanks in Tenniman Square’ spit in their eye stance. His article is the lead off commentary in today’s Fox and Hounds. We type among great ness. Hey, even if we do not ‘fix’ the sorry Democan/ Republicrat mess, we can at least leave a trail of published protest[s]!
P.R. and A.V. – before it is too late in the U.S.A.
NO primaries are needed.
Total Votes / Total Seats = EQUAL votes for each seat winner — via pre-election candidate rank order lists to transfer surplus and loser votes.
See the P.R. system in Germany since 1949 (repeat 1949 after the Allies rebuilt the political system in the old West Germany) – both the larger leftwing and rightwing party hack groups try to be a bit moderate — due to 1 or 2 minor parties in the middle = the balance of POWER.
The P.R. system in Israel produces about 7-10 parties having seats in the Israeli Parliament — ONE at large district — the entire country.
YES or NO on each bill in each nation.
The German and Israeli voters sort out what’s what at each P.R. election —
NO *giant* party hack swings in the number of seats for each party.
Excellent observation by Demo Rep.
While the lion’s share of the credit for Germany’s current political system belongs to the Allies, who insisted on a system of proportional representation in Germany’s legislative elections to ensure stability and prevent the kind of single-party totalitarianism represented by the Nazis, the Christian Democratic Union’s Konrad Adenauer also deserves plenty of credit.
Adenauer, of course, had chaired the constitutional convention that guaranteed that proportional representation would be used in electing half of the Bundestag, Germany’s national parliament.
There are currently five parties represented in the Bundestag with several other minor parties, including the newly-formed Pirate Party — which polled a staggering 845,000 votes in the recent parliamentary elections — clamoring for representation.
Aided immensely by the Marshall Plan, Adenauer, who became Chancellor of West Germany in 1949 at the age 73 and served until the age of 87, ushered in what some historians have described as an economic miracle, the birth of a robust consumer society in the 1950s. By the time he left office in 1963, West Germany was well on its way to establishing itself as a world economic power, a close competitor to Japan. It also led Europe in worker participation in the management of industry.
Adenauer, who was twice imprisoned by the Nazis during World War II, knew how to build political coalitions and governed effectively in a multi-party environment.
Perennial presidential candidate Harold E. Stassen, the one-time “Boy Wonder” of American politics and a serious contender for the presidency in 1948 and 1952 who continued to seek the brass ring while in his seventies and eighties — waging his final bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 1992 at the age of 85 — was fond of citing the example of West Germany’s Konrad Adenauer as somebody who governed effectively as an octogenarian.
As Eisenhower’s disarmament advisor, Stassen had worked closely with the German Chancellor in the 1950s.
But Germany and Israel have Party List ballots. The esteemed Mr. WInger allows others on this excellent site to disparage party members and their leaders as “hacks” and “evil”. The taunting has gone on for way too long!
The irony is that DemoRep is a loyal member of one particular minor party, and he willingly lets himself be nominated for public office, year after year, on a minor party ticket. This minor party nominates by convention, not primary.
# 3 P.R. had been in the 1919 German Constitution — BUT such constitution had an ABSOLUTELY F-A-T-A-L loophole permitting the regime to suspend various parts of the German Bill of Rights.
Mar 1933 the APPOINTED Hitler alleges an emergency – the Reichstag Fire in Feb. 1932 (allegedly done by the nazis) — such loophole used — major major major EVIL in Germany 1933-1945 — about 70 million killed in WW II — due to the EVIL MORON 1919 Allies permitting Germany to have the FATAL defects in such 1919 Constitution.
Were the forces of King George III and Hitler E-V-I-L ???
Can NOT stand the political heat ??? — get OUT of the political kitchen. Paraphrase of Prez Harry S. Truman.
The really EVIL party hacks do NOT appear on this list — they are too busy making EVIL deals behind closed doors — having undeclared wars, making gerrymanders, making bailouts, etc.
To the many clueless forks –
only 2 main things have prevented total world chaos due to EVIL monarchs / oligarchs —
1. majority rule aka Democracy (from ancient Greece)
2. separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers (esp. from the 1600s-1700s — the *celebrated* Montesquieu — the Spirit of the Laws).
Note the many violations of both in the U.S.A. and all 50 State regimes — that have produced the current EVIL super political – social – economic MESS in the U.S.A. — esp. minority rule gerrymanders, executive officer vetos and appointed judges (esp. the party hack Supremes).
# 4 Equal nominating petitions for all candidates — NOT controlled by the party hack leaders.
# 5 NO P.R. in my local regime. All the minor party votes in my local regime are protest votes against the EVIL party hack Donkeys and Elephants.
With *pure* P.R. ALL States would elect minor party legislators.
Krist Novoselic Says:
December 23rd, 2009 at 5:19 pm
But Germany and Israel have Party List ballots. The esteemed Mr. WInger allows others on this excellent site to disparage party members and their leaders as “hacks†and “evilâ€. The taunting has gone on for way too long!
Phil Sawyer responds:
Well, Richard believes in freedom of speech. Of course he is going to allow some of the “taunting” that you mention. I am certain that there is a point beyond where people can not go because one never reads anything really terrible on these pages (that stays for very long, anyway).
Personally, I have read many things, here, that I thought reflected very bad manners on the part of certain people – and wished that those people had not written what they had. However, we live in the sort of society where “anything goes”; it is difficult to be surprised by what happens on a website that allows freedom of speech. We need to change the nature of the society in which we live in order to get at the root of the problem. As long as we have a capitalistic society, we are going to have to put up with such abuses of civility. Just look at the Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.
Just to clarify a point, before anyone asks: I believe in democratic socialism and there would certainly continue to be freedom of speech. What I am referring to in writing about the “root of the problem” is the sort of “dog eat dog” nastiness that happens in any capitalistic society.
Mr. Winger’s analysis of turnout in Washington under the Top 2 primary overlooks several significant difference between 2004 and 2008. Foremost was that the Democratic gubernatorial primary was contested, with Attorney Christine Gregoire facing King County (Seattle) Executive Ron Sims.
In 2004, 31.7% of registered voters were from King County. 31.5% of primary voters were from King County, so King County voted at a rate comparable to the rest of the state. 37.3% of Democratic voters were from King County, as were 37.8% of Democratic gubernatorial voters, but only 23.4% of Republican voters. So King County was significantly more Democratic leaning than the rest of the state. And many of them apparently came out to vote for favorite son Ron Sims, who collected 47.9% of his votes in King County. By comparison only 34.1% of Gregoire’s votes came from King County. The simple truth is that Ron Sims was driving turnout in King County.
If we compare turnout in 2004 with that in 2008 for areas outside King County, we see an increase in turnout from 44.60% to 45.99%. And if we exclude neighboring Pierce and Snohomish counties, we see an increase in turnout from 44.61% to 48.00%, a 13% increase in number of voters. 9 of Washington’s 39 counties enjoyed a better than 10% increase in turnout. Meanwhile turnout in King County dropped from 46.35% to 34.86%. Rather than 31.5% of voters as in 2004, only 24.9% of state voters were from King County.
Additional factors favoring higher turnout in 2004 were that there was a US Senate election in 2004, with none in 2008; and the primary was moved from September 2004 to August 2008. While neither of the major party senate candidates, incumbent Patty Murray or challenger Congressman George Nethercutt had significant opposition, the high profile office and candidates would have increased overall awareness of the primary. The move from September to August may have hurt turnout as well, as the focus of many Washingtonians may have been to the outdoors to take advantage of drier and warmer summer weather before school started.
And while statewide voters and especially Seattleites wanting to vote for Ron Sims had turned out in marginally greater numbers in 2004, fewer actually voted!
For decades before 2004, when Washingtonians had voted in the primary, they had been able to vote for the candidate of their choice regardless of the candidate’s party affiliation. If you thought that a candidate would be a more able senator or representative you could vote for him, while also voting for the candidate of a different party for governor if you thought she would be best for Washington. Any voter younger than 90 had been doing this their entire voting life (unless they had lived in some other State).
But then the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that voters when they cast their vote, had in their own minds determined whether they were Democrats or Republicans, just as effectively as if it had been stamped on a registration card and recorded by some government office. Anyone who then crossed the party line was engaging in party raiding and interfering in the internal affairs of the other party, never mind that if they did the exact same thing at a general election they would be exercising free choice.
So beginning in 2004, Washington voters were forced to declare a party allegiance in order to vote in the primary. Even though this was done in secret by marking a choice on the ballot, 7.8% of voters refused (or failed) to do so. And then another 4.2% of voters refused (or failed) to vote for a gubernatorial candidate. A remarkable 14.4% of voters who marked that they were a Libertarian did not vote in the only contested race (for governor) in the only Libertarian primary ever held in Washington! Maybe they believed in the liberty to vote for the candidate of their choice. Overall, 12.0% of voters did not cast a vote that counted in the gubernatorial primaries. In 2008, the comparable figure was 0.9% or 1/13 as many. In 2004, almost 1 in 8 voters could had been just as effective if they had discarded their ballot in the trash bin as they were by depositing it in the ballot box.
Because of this awful system, only 39.7% of registered voters actually voted in the 2004 gubernatorial primary, compared to 42.2% in 2008. Effective participation in the 2008 gubernatorial primary was up 10.7% over that of 2004, despite the lack of a Ron Sims to pull Seattle voters to the polls, without a US Senate race to attract media attention, and a shift of the primary date into the summer.
In November 2004, Washington voters rejected this bad partisan primary system by a 3 to 2 margin, replacing it with the Top 2 primary. Delayed 4 years by litigation from party hacks, it was finally permitted to go forward after a favorable US Supreme Court ruling in spring of 2008.
In August 2008 Washington voters were able to once again voter for whichever candidate they thought best for each office, whether governor, attorney general, congress, or legislator. The 2 candidates with the most support from actual voters were then placed on the November ballot, where voters were able to make the final decision on who would serve them for the next few years.
Bottom line:
2004 primary votes cast for governor: 1,303,024
2008 primary votes cast for governor: 1,442,457
Increase in primary votes cast for governor (2004 to 2008) 10.7%.
I think the idea that some clause in the Weimar Constitution or some change in election laws would have prevented Hitler from taking power is wishful thinking. There were long roots of ultra-nationalism, anti-Semitism and absolutism in German history. No piece of paper or election law was going to prevent Hitler or a Hitler-like personage from taking power given the situation in Germany in the 1930s.
The difference in post-war Germany is NOT a better Constitution or election law-it is that World War II, unlike World War I, ended in a crushing defeat and occupation. That was sufficient to deliver a clear message and to imprint for a very long time where the previous ways of thinking ultimately led.
I know this is an election law site and the tendency is to see election laws as of paramount importance. I’m all for better and fairer election laws, but ultimately, they are only designed to reflect popular will. If the people want a Hitler they will get one-laws can only, at best, delay the inevitable.
#2 Okay, I give up. What is AV?
Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed, a fervent supporter of “top-two”, confidently predicted before the 2008 primary election that Washington state primary turnout would rise in 2008, because “top-two” had finally been implemented. But, instead it fell.
Every time a prediction made by “top-two” supporters turns out not to be true, those supporters come up with reasons why it didn’t turn out to be true. If one talks about Louisiana with supporters of “top-two” (the other state that has used that system, and also a place where primary turnout dropped), they all say, “Oh, well, Louisiana is a special case; it doesn’t apply to western states.” But, in the end, the political culture of a state is more important in determining what kind of person gets elected, than what kind of primary system the state uses. Louisiana used a closed primary from the 1900’s decade until 1975, when it switched to “top-two”, but it was still Louisiana and the 1975 change didn’t fundamentally change the type of politician who got elected. Edwin Edwards got elected in 1972 under a closed primary and he got re-elected in 1975 using “top-two”. The same old incumbents got re-elected before the change and after. People who put all their faith in a change of system to drastically improve society are not being realistic.
Jim Riley posts vigorously in favor of “top-two” but he never makes a philosophical statement as to why he is in favor of it. I post frequently against “top-two” but I explain why. I think minor party campaigns contribute to society by introducing new ideas, and unpopular ideas, and giving them a chance to be circulated. Minor party candidates are free to say exactly what they think, because they generally don’t expect to get elected anyway. Major party nominees censor themselves and very often don’t say what they really think, because that would injure their chances of getting elected or re-elected, and they are often more interested in their own careers than anything else.
# 7 # 8 How about looking at the ANTI-King George III regime pamphlets, etc. in 1761-1776 regarding freedom of speech — all sorts of attempted purges by the KGIII regime for *seditious libel* — look it up on the internet.
How about the ANTI-capitalist murderous purges of the Stalin regime in the 1930s, the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia in the late 1970s, etc. ???
Capitalism = Saving = Capital Investments = Houses, factories, cars, trucks = JOBS, JOBS, JOBS — regardless of anti-capitalist EVIL MORONS.
How come the anti-capitalist ex-U.S.S.R. is DEAD ???
NO shortage of EVIL BASTARD leftwing / rightwing statists trying their EVIL worst to stop freedom of speech, press, assembly and petitions at all times and at all places.
See the New Age control freak Donkeys in all regimes in the U.S.A. with their campaign finance stuff trying to stop such speech, press, assembly and petitions — i.e. to subvert the 1st Amendment and have PERMANENT leftwing Donkey control of all regimes in the U.S.A.
# 11 A.V. = Approval Voting — for electing NONPARTISAN executive / judicial officers — vote for 1 or more [approved = tolerable], highest win.
P.R. for legislative body elections — Total Votes / Total Seats = ALL voters get represented = REAL Democracy.
Abolish the EVIL executive officer vetoes = a carryover from divine right of kings in the Dark Age.
# 10 — LOTS of party hack MORONS among the Allies in causing the conditions to happen in Germany in 1919-1933.
Including even the failure to reapportion the gerrymander U.S.A. House of Reps. after the 1920 Census – a blatant subversion of the U.S.A. Constitution.
Including even the many at large U.S.A. Reps. elected in many States in 1932 after the required reapportionment done after the 1930 Census.
i.e. MAJOR party hack anti-Democracy evil insanity in many national regimes in 1919-1939
— including the evil insane deficits in the U.S.A. with both Hoover and Roosevelt — failure of the U.S.A. to be ready for WW II in 1939 — barely ready on 7 Dec 1941 (after the 1939-1941 blasting of the Polish, British, French, Russians and Chinese, etc. by the EVIL Axis monsters).
So “Party Hacks” delayed Washington’s Top-Two? Take that Richard Shepard – Attorney for WA Libertarian Party.
#13 So I am to believe that failure to re-apportion the US Congress caused the rise of Hitler in Germany? Your Dad and I worked hard to raise a son who types nonsense like that?
#12 On August 4, 2008 Secretary of State Sam Reed issued a prediction that turnout in the Top 2 primary could reach 46%. The press release concluded with this caveat: “Reed acknowledged that election turnouts are candidate- and issue-driven, and that a downward factor in this primary is a lack of numerous competitive-high profile races. There is no U.S. Senate race here this year, and Gov. Chris Gregoire and challenger Dino Rossi are widely expected to advance to the General Election.”
As it turned out Gregoire and Rossi collectively received 94.6% of the vote, with the other Democratic and Republican candidates, 3.0%, and 2.4% for minor and independent candidates. The 2.38% for minor party and independent candidates exceeded the minor party vote (2.26%) cast in the 2004 general election.
If one had a modicum of curiosity (1% will do, no need for 3%, 5% or even 10%) one would look more carefully at differences between the 2004 and 2008 elections. One might wonder why turnout in King County fell from 46.4% to 34.9%, while elsewhere in the state turnout rose from 44.6% to 46.0%; and if we exclude Pierce County and Snohomish County to the immediate north and south of King County, we see an increase from 44.6% to 48.0% for the rest of the state.
The difference between 2004 and 2008? In 2004, King County Executive Ron Sims was a candidates for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. Ron Sims got 47.9% of his vote in King County, while the county only contributed 31.7% of the total primary vote.
In 2008, 60K fewer King County voters voted for governor than did in 2004, but Gino Rossi received 13K more, and Christine Gregoire received 44K more. Ron Sims went from 109K to 0. So the most logical conclusion is that 57K of Sims voters switched to Gregoire or Rossi, and and 52K stayed home.
And remember 10.7% more persons cast an effective vote in the 2008 gubernatorial primary than did in 2004
Since Krist Novoselic is the Democratic County chairman from Wahkiakum County, perhaps he can explain why he thinks 25% more voters in that county voted in the 2008 primary vs. in 2004.
#15 — ALL sort of accumulated stuff in the West got Hitler going in 1933 — regardless of New Age Mom imposters on this list.
The U.S.A. House of Reps did happen to pass laws (or NOT pass laws) on foreign relations issues in 1923-1933 — even economic stuff related to Germany.
Count the about 70 million dead in World War II due to Hitler and the know-it-all party hacks in the West in 1918-1939 — even perhaps talk to some Allied survivors while they are still alive.
ONE *modern* world with lots of interacting party hack stuff since circa 1492.
How come England managed to have the ELECTED House of Commons starting in the 1200s — even with its many gerrymander *rotten boroughs* up to 1832 — very low population areas controlled by a party hack lord or even the king/queen of England ???
#9: “For decades before 2004, when Washingtonians had voted in the primary, they had been able to vote for the candidate of their choice regardless of the candidate’s party affiliation.”
You’re referring to the blanket primary, in which all candidates appeared on the same primary ballot, enabling the voter to cross party lines from office to office; the top vote-getter from each party advanced to the general election. Justice Scalia said in California Democratic Party v. Jones(2000) that the BP had simply moved the general election one step earlier in the process, at the expense of the parties’ ability to perform their “basic function” of choosing their own leaders and nominees.
One argument that Washington state used in trying to keep its blanket primary was that, unlike California, WA does not have register voters by party. In Washington State Democratic Party v. Reed (2003), the 9th Circuit said, “These are distinctions without a difference. That the voters do not reveal their party preferences at a government registration desk does not mean that they do not have them.”
#3: Adenauer, of course, promoted supply-side economics.
Harold Stassen and MA Gov. Christian Herter led an effort to dump Richard Nixon as Eisenhower’s VP in 1956. After the effort failed, Herter and Stassen made the nominating and seconding speeches for Nixon at the Republican national convention.
I recall seeing Stassen and Sen. Eugene McCarthy (D) both attack Nixon from the same platform during the ’68 New Hampshire presidential primary campaign. Both, of course, were from Minnesota.
#12: It’s worth noting that, following a vigorous campaign in early 1972, Edwin Edwards barely edged out Bennett Johnston in the Democratic runoff for governor; Edwards then faced future Republican Gov. David Treen in the general election. Johnston was elected US senator later that year.
Gov. Edwards’s opposition in ’75 wasn’t nearly so strong.
As best as I can tell, Jim Riley likes the “top two” because the races for his state legislators and his US House member are now decided in different party primaries, and he sees the “top two” as the solution.
What is puzzling is why Jim has never bothered to contact any Texas legislators about changing to his cherished “top two.”
Jim Riley posts vigorously in favor of “top-two†but he never makes a philosophical statement as to why he is in favor of it
I have, but you have not listened. In a republic, government officials are chosen from among the populace by the people directly. Mediation of the electoral process by political parties, who are intent on maintaining their own power, and preserving a distinct and separate political class, is unnecessary and is inimical to that ideal.
I have certainly never claimed that Top 2 would increase turnout, nor produce better outcomes, other than that the elected officials would be chosen by the people directly.
Steve Rankin Says:
December 24th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
#3: Adenauer, of course, promoted supply-side economics.
Harold Stassen and MA Gov. Christian Herter led an effort to dump Richard Nixon as Eisenhower’s VP in 1956. After the effort failed, Herter and Stassen made the nominating and seconding speeches for Nixon at the Republican national convention.
I recall seeing Stassen and Sen. Eugene McCarthy (D) both attack Nixon from the same platform during the ‘68 New Hampshire presidential primary campaign. Both, of course, were from Minnesota.
Phil Sawyer responds:
Thank you, Steve, for mentioning the late, great, Eugene J. McCarthy. He has to be remembered as one of the most significant politicians in the history of our country – on many levels. It is such a shame that our country was not blessed with his leadership as President of the United States.
#18 There was no reason for the 9th Circuit to challenge the Supreme Court on the issue, especially since they had already been overturned in Jones. It was simply easier to say, that like in California, the legal purpose of the system was to choose the nominees of the political parties, regardless of the true state of mind of the voters.
Following the successful implementation of Top 2 in 2008, the Washington SOS had a poll conducted which is described in an August 28, 2008 press release.
Voters liked the Top 2 primary by 76%-19%, compared to a 28%-67% who liked the Pick-A-Party primary. By a 70%-20% voters preferred Top 2 over Pick-A-Party.
82% of independents, 66% of Democrats, and 68% of Republicans preferred Top 2 (no information was given for those who preferred Pick-A-Party, but the aggregate result showed 10% not answering, so preference by the Democrats and Republicans was probably closer to 3:1 than 2:1)
At the August 2008 Primary, King County voters by a 63% majority approved switching that county’s elections to be non-partisan elections as defined by state law.
Washington had long conducted its non-partisan elections using a conditional run-off system, where the first round was coincident with the partisan primary. It uses that system for example for electing the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Partisan elections had been conducted using the blanket primary, and then the Pick-A-Party primary. I-872 switched partisan elections to Top 2, but its implementation had been delayed by the Forces of FUD.
The initiative in King County had begun prior to the US Supreme Court’s ruling on Top 2, so the proposal could largely be seen as a way to get out from under Pick-A-Party.
King County has an interesting system for considering initiated charter changes. The County Council may propose an alternative. At the primary election, voters then vote YES/NO on whether to refer a proposal to the voters; and then choose which version is to be proposed, the initiated version or the county council alternative.
In this case, the County Council alternative was to use the state-defined system of non-partisan elections, but to allow candidates to state a party preference.
In August 2008, voters approved the use of non-partisan elections by 63% version, and voted in favor of the initiated version over the county council version. This was then confirmed in November 2008, by a 55% margin (by that time the status quo was partisan elections using Top 2, so regardless if the result, partisan primaries would be eliminated.
Voters were somewhat equivocal about whether partisan labels should appear on county ballots, but it is quite clear that they wanted to get rid of partisan primaries.
Major supporters of the King County initiative were former governors Booth Gardner and Dan Evans.
#20 Has Cleo Fields ever explained the FBI surveillance film showing him stuffing $20,000 in cash from Edwin Edwards? All I’ve been able to come up with is that Fields has said that there is a humorous explanation and that he was not a government official at the time.
#21: “In a republic, government officials are chosen from among the populace by the people directly.”
The founders provided for indirect election of US senators. To this day, the US president is not directly elected.
In a system of party primaries, party candidates are directly nominated. Officials are chosen directly in the general election.
During all those years that nominations were by caucus, convention, etc., grassroots citizens could only vote directly in the general election.
In Jones, Scalia said, “Representative democracy… is unimaginable without the ability of citizens to band together in promoting among the electorate candidates who espouse their political views.”
In his dissent, Justice Stevens acknowledged that Scalia was talking about political parties. He certainly wasn’t referring to the Rotary Club or the Junior Chamber of Commerce.
#23: It’s not surprising that Washington state voters like the “top two,” given their long history of being able to cross party lines in the first round of voting.
I had wondered how the King County ballot measure turned out. So this is a Louisiana-style system (minus party labels), in which there is no second round when a candidate gets 50%-plus in the first round?
Do any of Washington’s counties or municipalities still use party primaries in electing their own officials?
I’m in favor of nonpartisan local elections. My state already uses them to elect state and county judges and county election commissioners; special elections are also nonpartisan, e. g., the 2008 Wicker-Musgrove US Senate race (candidates for election commissioner have their party affiliations listed on the ballot).
Are party hacks connected to the “Forces of FUD”?
#24: I’ll ask my Louisiana friends about that (wonder if any of the $20,000 came out of ex-Rep. William Jefferson’s freezer).
#22: I always enjoyed listening to the witty Eugene McCarthy speak. I also admired his efforts to improve ballot access for non-major party candidates. I never wanted him to be president, however, since he was a redistributionist.
In ’68, a friend of mine had a big color poster of Hubert Humphrey on the wall of his room. The caption was, “Some people talk change. Others cause it.”
That friend today is a big Republican, incidentally.
Steve: Whatever you mean by “redistributionist,” is not actually clear to me. I am a (Left Conservative) democratic socialist, so I personally think that some redistribution is in order.
Eugene McCarthy was not a socialist and I never expected that we would get socialism from a McCarthy Administration. The bottom line is that Gene McCarthy was a very amazing person on so many levels. He really should have been elected president in 1968 (most polls showed that he would have won had the Democratic Party had enough sense to nominate him). However, 1972 (as a Democrat), 1976 (as in independent), 1988 (as an independent), or 1992 (as a Democrat) would have worked also.
Thank you, Steve, for mentioning how Eugene McCarthy helped to improve the environment for indpendent and/or minor party candidates. His 1976 independent campaign for president, and the subsequent court cases involving ballot, debate, and media access had a very profound effect on politics in our country. Many other things that Gene McCarthy did also caused significant positive change in our country.
#25 Before adoption of the Australian ballot, voters could vote for any person they wanted to. While political parties might well promote certain candidates and distribute printed ballots, votes could cross out names or prepare their own ballot.
Sometimes toughs from one party or the other would try to keep other parties from distributing their ballots, or stuff extra ballots of their own in the ballot box, but these were not legal activities.
Now that the government prints the ballot, lawyers have taken over the role of the physical toughs in trying to prevent candidates from being on the ballot, and now these activities are “legal”. It doesn’t mean that they are desirable.
Recall in 1842 when the Crawford County Democratic organization started its system of direct nomination of candidates, there were dissident township party meetings who insisted that the general election were the proper place for resolving intra-party disputes. There was absolutely nothing that the Crawford County organization could do to prevent them. It was only when formerly private activities were placed under government control that partisans could prevent alternative candidates from appearing on the ballot.
Top 2 in no way inhibits the ability of citizens to band together to promote candidates who espouse their political views.
Partisan primaries and partisan nominations inhibit the ability of citizens to band together to promote candidates who espouse their political views.
I don’t mean to be the Grinch who stole Christmas by hijacking this thread, but Steve Rankin has a remarkable memory. He’s right when he says that McCarthy and Stassen both attacked GOP frontrunner Richard Nixon during the 1968 New Hampshire primary.
Like his dovish fellow Minnesotan, Stassen, who was certainly no stranger to the snows of New Hampshire, also campaigned as a peace candidate that year.
Stassen, whose long-shot candidacy for the Republican nomination enjoyed the spirited support of two-term Manchester Mayor John C. Mongan, believed that LBJ had committed one of “the most terrible mistakes” in U.S. history when he “turned the Vietnamese struggle into an American war.” He also asserted that members of his own party, including Dick Nixon and Ronald Reagan — both supporters of the bloody conflict in Indochina — “must share the responsibility for it and cannot lead the country out of it.”
By then, most Americans had forgotten that Stassen, then a highly successful Philadelphia lawyer, had been a serious contender for the GOP’s presidential nomination in 1948 and 1952 and even fewer remembered that as the 33-year-old keynote speaker and floor manager for Wendell Willkie at the 1940 Republican national convention, he had been instrumental in bringing about the second “Miracle at Philadelphia” — the startling nomination of a liberal Republican for the presidency against FDR.
Tragically, by 1968 Stassen was considered something of a political joke.
The media, incidentally, began comparing McCarthy to Stassen as early as 1972, describing him as a “left-wing Harold Stassen,” a “Stassen in liberal garb” — as one newspaper described him — shortly after the antiwar Democrat launched a second and forlorn bid for his party’s presidential nomination that year.
The usually hostile St. Paul Pioneer Press — McCarthy’s hometown newspaper — lamented that McCarthy was showing “symptoms of Stassenitis” while nationally-syndicated columnist Stewart Alsop suggested that the former Minnesota Senator was “a classic example of Stassenization” — a politician with a compulsion to run for president without any chance of success.
When a Chicago pundit compared McCarthy to the perennial Republican presidential hopeful in 1976 while he was conducting his third campaign for the presidency — this time as an independent candidate railing against the Federal Election Campaign Act and the permanent cementing of the two-party system into the American political fabric — the tall, white-haired ex-Senator denied any similarities to Stassen. “I’m more like Abraham Lincoln,” he quipped.
As the references to Stassen persisted, McCarthy finally fired back at the conclusion of the ’76 campaign, reminding his smart-aleck critics of Stassen’s many political achievements.
Not only was the ubiquitous and brilliant Stassen the youngest governor in American history, said McCarthy, but the former president of the University of Pennsylvania also drafted the charter to the United Nations, served as disarmament advisor to President Eisenhower and had presciently warned the country about Richard Nixon nearly two decades before the Watergate scandal.
“I can stand that charge if I have to,” McCarthy said.
#26 Washington has two types of elections: “non-partisan” and “partisan”. Non-partisan elections have no party labels, but require a majority for election. If there is no majority, then the top 2 candidates appear on the ballot. If there is a majority, only the top candidate appears on the ballot, but I presume write-in votes are permitted (in 1976, 1980, and 2000, the leading candidate in the primary for Superintendent of Public Instruction had a majority; but there are definite vote totals from the general election).
“Partisan elections” have been conducted using the blanket primary, pick-a-party, and now Top 2. I-872 literally defined a “partisan election” as one in which voters could express their party preference, and then went on to define the Top 2 mechanics. That is why the courts could not sever the party labels from the law since it was an essential part of the initiative.
The Oregon and California proposals define a process by which the voters nominate candidates with the Top 2 advancing to a general election. Party labels were secondary to that process, and both provide for severance of unconstitutional provisions. IIRC, in Oregon the severance language even highlighted the partisan provisions as being severable (In Oregon, ballots would carry both the party registration of candidates, and formal party endorsements).
Washington law specifies that county elections are partisan elections. In smaller counties, the blanket primary worked just as well as non-partisan elections. You quite often wouldn’t have two candidates, but if you did, they might be of the same party or opposite party, but all voters could participate in the election of their local officials. This capability was lost under pick-a-party.
Washington also has a provision where counties can adopt a home-rule-charter and define their own system of local government, and 6 counties have done so, including the three most populous King, Pierce, and Snohomish, which together have half the state’s population.
King and Pierce counties had defined that their offices were to be filled by partisan election, perhaps simply continuing the traditional election system in Washington, which would have been the blanket primary when they adopted their charters.
When Pierce County switched to IRV, they did so because the system of “partisan election” had been switched to pick-a-party. The voter’s pamphlet arguments were quite explicit, stating the Problem as Pick-a-party and IRV as the solution. Once Top 2 was implemented, there was no longer a need for the solution and Pierce County has gone back to using “partisan elections” (actually some of their more administrative offices were switched to non-partisan elections using IRV, now they will be “non-partisan” elections using the system provided in state law which is one or two candidates advancing to the general election ballot).
Those opposing the elimination of IRV claimed that it was really a plan by the political parties to put pick-a-party back in place, citing the continuing litigation by the parties.
In King County, they essentially crossed out “partisan election” in the charter and replaced it with “nonpartisan election”. While this would eliminate party labels, the major intent was to get around pick-a-party.
The county council alternative added language that said the offices would be elected using the state law for nonpartisan elections except that candidates could express a party preference.
By the time of the final vote in November 2008, the status quo under Washington law was “partisan elections” using Top 2.
#27 The $20,000 was handed to Cleo Fields by Edwards himself so it would have been around 1997.
While Steve (#19) is also correct in asserting that Konrad Adenauer was a supply sider — a point also made by the late Jack Kemp while seeking the GOP’s presidential nomination in 1988 — the real credit for Germany’s “economic miracle” probably belongs to Ludwig Erhard, Adenauer’s Minister of Economics who deregulated the economy, eliminated price controls and lowered the country’s top marginal tax rates, much to the dismay of Germany’s Social Democrats.
By the way, during the 1940 presidential campaign the Prohibition Party’s Roger W. Babson — one of the only economists in the nation who accurately predicted the 1929 stock market crash and the ensuing Great Depression — repeatedly told his audiences that Germany and Japan, even if completely annihilated, would emerge from World War II as our chief economic rivals.
# 25 The 1787 Federal Convention happened behind closed doors in top secrecy.
Some results – the infamous 3/5 clause for counting slaves,
the blatant insane math that each State regardless of population would have 2 Senators — affecting laws and treaties and impeachment trials;
the infamous fugitive slave clause;
the gerrymander math of the Electoral College.
— all due to an EVIL conspiracy of the small State party hacks and/or the slave State party hacks.
The Senate / slavery / Electoral College timebomb went off in 1860 — and killed about 620,000 Americans in 1861-1865.
i.e. STOP worshiping any of the political structure stuff (aka party hack DEALS) the 1787 elitists did behind closed doors.
REAL Democracy NOW — P.R. and nonpartisan A.V. = REAL reforms — before it is too late and the gerrymander party hacks in the Congress and the White House (WHO ever they are) set off another timebomb much worse than 1861-1865 with their EVIL party hack extremist control freak stuff.
ALL of the other stuff is a sideshow distraction.
Darcy G Richardson Says:
December 25th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
I don’t mean to be the Grinch who stole Christmas by hijacking this thread, but Steve Rankin has a remarkable memory. He’s right when he says that McCarthy and Stassen both attacked GOP frontrunner Richard Nixon during the 1968 New Hampshire primary. [snip] …
Phil Sawyer replies:
Darcy: With all due respect to Jim Riley, and also to the Grinch (it may be that they are one and the same); I do not look at our postings as being like “the Grinch who stole Christmas by hijacking this thread.” Some of us are just not that interested in the “top-two” arguments (pro and con) and would rather talk about other things. If this bill passes in California next year (although I do not think that it will when the people learn what it is all about); many of us (in the opposition to the “top-two”) will just make the best of things and move forward (while the courts decide the merits of the case). We will try to find creative ways around the new obstacle for independent and/or minor parties. It is somewhat likely that the American Independent Party of California will become the center of battle for some of the minor parties trying to maintain ballot status. It will become much like the Peace and Freedom Party has been, over the past few decades, for the little left parties without ballot access. It is difficult to envision, though, the Peace and Freedom Party involved in this. There would be too many PFP-CA people against getting involved in a party that had George C. Wallace for its first presidential nominee (1968). One rarely can tell, though, what the future holds.
In the interest of full disclosure, I want to remind you all that I am now registered to vote with the Democratic Party. I am looking forward to receiving my sample ballot on the same day as my wife (who is Democratic and lately has received her sample ballot before me). To be fair to the County of Sacramento, though, my PFP-CA sample primary ballot, last year, while sent out later was printed on better paper.
#28: When Eugene McCarthy last ran for president in 1992, he spoke to Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition. McCarthy said that wealthy people should give 100% of their income above a certain amount to the government. He said if they didn’t, “We should take it from them.”
We’ve got lots of income redistribution in the US, but it’s obviously not enough for some people.
#30: It sounds like, instead of promoting the “top two” monstrosity, you need to be pushing for easier ballot access for independent and write-in candidates.
“Top 2 in no way inhibits the ability of citizens to band together to promote candidates who espouse their political views.”
The “top two” makes it nearly impossible for independents and small-party candidates to reach the final, deciding election, when the voters are really paying attention. The “top two” also makes it possible for the two final candidates to be from the same party. If a party does not have a candidate in the deciding election, that party’s faithful voters are effectively disenfranchised. The same is true of voters who back an independent candidate who does not reach the final, deciding election.
The “top two” enables voters to choose among all the candidates in the preliminary round of voting. But the price they pay in the final, decisive round is that there are only two choices, both of whom may be from the same party.
You obviously don’t give a damn about political parties, Jim, but a lot of people do. If you want to behave like an independent, fine, but don’t try to force everyone else to behave like an independent, too.
#31: Harold Stassen moved to Philadelphia because he thought Pennsylvania would be a better base than Minnesota for his presidential ambitions.
I once heard a Philadelphia Republican city councilman say that he had lost a race for mayor by the largest margin until Stassen broke his record. Stassen, of course, also ran unsuccessfully for PA governor.
Jack Kemp and the author Kevin Phillips disliked each other. I once heard the always-scowling Phillips say, “We are witnessing the Stassen-eye-zation of Jack Kemp.”
In retrospect, the American people played a bad joke on themselves when they replaced Lyndon Johnson with Richard Nixon as president.
#32: An election is nonpartisan when the political parties have no way of officially nominating candidates. Thus, despite what some statutes and proposed statutes say, a “top two” system is always nonpartisan.
Louisiana, which registers voters by party, puts party labels on its “top two” ballots. A number of political scientists have correctly described Louisiana’s “top two” (aka “open primary”) as a nonpartisan system.
Putting party labels on a “top two” ballot, which is mainly done for the voters’ information, does not make it a partisan election.
Blanket primaries and pick-a-party primaries are examples of partisan systems, since they enable the parties to have official nominees.
Remember that Justice Scalia in California Democratic Party v. Jones called the “top two” a “nonpartisan blanket primary.” He noted that the State still had the option of requiring the parties to nominate candidates in advance of the first round of voting.
Phil Sawyer says in #36: “If this [“top two open primary”] bill passes in California next year (although I do not think that it will when the people learn what it is all about)…”
I suspect that you’re right, Phil, but let’s not take any chances. If the “top two” is enacted there in our most populous state, the cancer may spread to other states, especially in the West.
California voters have already had the good sense to twice reject the “top two” monstrosity. 58.2% said “no” in 1915, while 54% voted “no” in 2004, as Prop. 62 lost in 51 of the state’s 58 counties.
#38 The Top 2 Open Primary law in California only requires 40 signatures for congressional candidates.
The Secretary of State in California calculates the number of signatures needed for independent candidates in each congressional district. In one district there was an error, and the registration of 250,000 was listed as 25,000. Based on that 25,000 figure, 750 signatures would be required, or 18 times as many under SB 6. If the actual registration number had been used, then it would be 187 times as large.
The rationalization for such onerous petition standards for independent candidates is that partisan candidates qualify via partisan primary election. For statewide office, an independent candidate requires 173,000 signatures (to be sure they would probably need to collect 1/4 million), and yet some parties only have 5,000 persons voting in their primary statewide.
Louisiana has an atypically large number of legislators elected as independents under its open primary system. Why should voters pay less attention during the primary?
If a person votes for a candidate in an election, and that candidates is not elected, isn’t the voter effectively disenfranchised? After all, is there any discernible difference in the effect of being prevented from voting and voting for a losing candidate? I think that is equivalent to the argument that you are making – if one supports a candidate and they are not elected, supporters are disenfranchised.
Judge Coughenour has explicitly dismissed the ballot access arguments you are making with regard to minor parties and major parties.
The candidates in the final election are the two whom received the most votes in the primary. If they happen to be of the same party it is mere coincidence.
#40 Justice Scalia surely knows the distinction between “may” and “shall”. He said a State might require partisan nomination. He didn’t say that a State couldn’t simply open up the electoral process to all candidates who could secure 40 signatures from their fellow citizens.
California already includes the designation (occupation) of candidates on its ballots, so including the party preference that a candidates had previously disclosed on his voter registration is similar information. SB 6 permits qualified parties to have their endorsements distributed to voters at State expense.
Steve Rankin Says:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
#28: When Eugene McCarthy last ran for president in 1992, he spoke to Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition. McCarthy said that wealthy people should give 100% of their income above a certain amount to the government. He said if they didn’t, “We should take it from them.â€
We’ve got lots of income redistribution in the US, but it’s obviously not enough for some people.
Phil Sawyer responds:
How much money should one person be allowed to have? You did not mention the amount? Furthermore, how do you know that Eugene McCarthy even made such a statement?
Personally, as a democratic socialist, I am more concerned with the fact that the proletariat needs to own and administrate the means of production and distribution of goods than I am over how much money any one individual person should be allowed to have.
#44: Each person should be able to keep as much money as he can legally earn… it’s none of the government’s damn business.
I know that Eugene McCarthy said that because I watched the speech on C-SPAN… I heard it with my own ears.
Translation of your last paragraph: “Workers of the world… UNITE!”
Again, Steve is right. I have a videotape of McCarthy’s speech to the Rainbow Coalition. McCarthy’s comment, which didn’t draw a lot of attenton from the mainstream media, was in keeping with his radical proposal that year for a one-time capital levy of twenty percent on the wealthiest Americans.
#44 It is super easy to be a communist / fascist utopian STATIST with the assets and/or income of OTHER persons.
See the causes of World WAR I and World WAR II — and many other international wars and civil wars in the evil rotten past.
See the ROT of the ex-U.S.S.R. 1917-1991 — some party hacks were more equal than others — and even more EVIL murderous than others – Lenin, Stalin, etc.
Govt debts in the U.S.A. – now about $ 16 Trillion — due mainly to spending for welfare and interest on prior debts = a DIRECT threat to the survival of Western Civilization.
P.R. and A.V. — before it is too late.
#42: “Louisiana has an atypically large number of legislators elected as independents under its [“top two”] system. Why should voters pay less attention during the primary?”
TWO independents in a state legislature is “atypically large”??
California voters pay more attention during the fall because the general election is the only election in which someone can actually be elected to office (and the same is true of the November election in the “top two open primary” proposal).
#43: One can work for easier ballot access for independents and write-ins without simultaneously trying to impose the “top two” monstrosity on a state.
Any predictions of how many incumbent party hacks will have a party hack opponent of the SAME party in *his/her* ONE party safe seat gerrymander district ???
— perhaps ALL of them — so that many general election voters may even perhaps elect the lesser of the 2 evil party hacks — with many voters NOT voting for either of the 2 evil party hacks ???
P.R. and A.V. — NO primaries are needed.
#48 Louisiana has 29% of the lower house members that were elected as independents. As a percentage of the membership, Louisiana ranks just below Virginia.
So Californians don’t pay attention in June when they are electing their county officials, and just pay attention when they find out in November that someone was elected in June?
“One can work for easier ballot access for independents and write-ins without simultaneously trying to impose the “top two†monstrosity on a state.
Why shouldn’t any person who gets 40 signatures appear on the ballot where any voter can vote for them? Do you understand the concept of racketeering?
Mister Winger is a 21st Century Secular Saint and I for one sure appreciate his on going ‘Chinese guy standing up to the PLA tanks in Tenniman Square’ spit in their eye stance. His article is the lead off commentary in today’s Fox and Hounds. We type among great ness. Hey, even if we do not ‘fix’ the sorry Democan/ Republicrat mess, we can at least leave a trail of published protest[s]!
P.R. and A.V. – before it is too late in the U.S.A.
NO primaries are needed.
Total Votes / Total Seats = EQUAL votes for each seat winner — via pre-election candidate rank order lists to transfer surplus and loser votes.
See the P.R. system in Germany since 1949 (repeat 1949 after the Allies rebuilt the political system in the old West Germany) – both the larger leftwing and rightwing party hack groups try to be a bit moderate — due to 1 or 2 minor parties in the middle = the balance of POWER.
The P.R. system in Israel produces about 7-10 parties having seats in the Israeli Parliament — ONE at large district — the entire country.
YES or NO on each bill in each nation.
The German and Israeli voters sort out what’s what at each P.R. election —
NO *giant* party hack swings in the number of seats for each party.
Excellent observation by Demo Rep.
While the lion’s share of the credit for Germany’s current political system belongs to the Allies, who insisted on a system of proportional representation in Germany’s legislative elections to ensure stability and prevent the kind of single-party totalitarianism represented by the Nazis, the Christian Democratic Union’s Konrad Adenauer also deserves plenty of credit.
Adenauer, of course, had chaired the constitutional convention that guaranteed that proportional representation would be used in electing half of the Bundestag, Germany’s national parliament.
There are currently five parties represented in the Bundestag with several other minor parties, including the newly-formed Pirate Party — which polled a staggering 845,000 votes in the recent parliamentary elections — clamoring for representation.
Aided immensely by the Marshall Plan, Adenauer, who became Chancellor of West Germany in 1949 at the age 73 and served until the age of 87, ushered in what some historians have described as an economic miracle, the birth of a robust consumer society in the 1950s. By the time he left office in 1963, West Germany was well on its way to establishing itself as a world economic power, a close competitor to Japan. It also led Europe in worker participation in the management of industry.
Adenauer, who was twice imprisoned by the Nazis during World War II, knew how to build political coalitions and governed effectively in a multi-party environment.
Perennial presidential candidate Harold E. Stassen, the one-time “Boy Wonder” of American politics and a serious contender for the presidency in 1948 and 1952 who continued to seek the brass ring while in his seventies and eighties — waging his final bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 1992 at the age of 85 — was fond of citing the example of West Germany’s Konrad Adenauer as somebody who governed effectively as an octogenarian.
As Eisenhower’s disarmament advisor, Stassen had worked closely with the German Chancellor in the 1950s.
But Germany and Israel have Party List ballots. The esteemed Mr. WInger allows others on this excellent site to disparage party members and their leaders as “hacks” and “evil”. The taunting has gone on for way too long!
The irony is that DemoRep is a loyal member of one particular minor party, and he willingly lets himself be nominated for public office, year after year, on a minor party ticket. This minor party nominates by convention, not primary.
# 3 P.R. had been in the 1919 German Constitution — BUT such constitution had an ABSOLUTELY F-A-T-A-L loophole permitting the regime to suspend various parts of the German Bill of Rights.
Mar 1933 the APPOINTED Hitler alleges an emergency – the Reichstag Fire in Feb. 1932 (allegedly done by the nazis) — such loophole used — major major major EVIL in Germany 1933-1945 — about 70 million killed in WW II — due to the EVIL MORON 1919 Allies permitting Germany to have the FATAL defects in such 1919 Constitution.
Were the forces of King George III and Hitler E-V-I-L ???
Can NOT stand the political heat ??? — get OUT of the political kitchen. Paraphrase of Prez Harry S. Truman.
The really EVIL party hacks do NOT appear on this list — they are too busy making EVIL deals behind closed doors — having undeclared wars, making gerrymanders, making bailouts, etc.
To the many clueless forks –
only 2 main things have prevented total world chaos due to EVIL monarchs / oligarchs —
1. majority rule aka Democracy (from ancient Greece)
2. separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers (esp. from the 1600s-1700s — the *celebrated* Montesquieu — the Spirit of the Laws).
Note the many violations of both in the U.S.A. and all 50 State regimes — that have produced the current EVIL super political – social – economic MESS in the U.S.A. — esp. minority rule gerrymanders, executive officer vetos and appointed judges (esp. the party hack Supremes).
# 4 Equal nominating petitions for all candidates — NOT controlled by the party hack leaders.
# 5 NO P.R. in my local regime. All the minor party votes in my local regime are protest votes against the EVIL party hack Donkeys and Elephants.
With *pure* P.R. ALL States would elect minor party legislators.
Krist Novoselic Says:
December 23rd, 2009 at 5:19 pm
But Germany and Israel have Party List ballots. The esteemed Mr. WInger allows others on this excellent site to disparage party members and their leaders as “hacks†and “evilâ€. The taunting has gone on for way too long!
Phil Sawyer responds:
Well, Richard believes in freedom of speech. Of course he is going to allow some of the “taunting” that you mention. I am certain that there is a point beyond where people can not go because one never reads anything really terrible on these pages (that stays for very long, anyway).
Personally, I have read many things, here, that I thought reflected very bad manners on the part of certain people – and wished that those people had not written what they had. However, we live in the sort of society where “anything goes”; it is difficult to be surprised by what happens on a website that allows freedom of speech. We need to change the nature of the society in which we live in order to get at the root of the problem. As long as we have a capitalistic society, we are going to have to put up with such abuses of civility. Just look at the Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.
Just to clarify a point, before anyone asks: I believe in democratic socialism and there would certainly continue to be freedom of speech. What I am referring to in writing about the “root of the problem” is the sort of “dog eat dog” nastiness that happens in any capitalistic society.
Mr. Winger’s analysis of turnout in Washington under the Top 2 primary overlooks several significant difference between 2004 and 2008. Foremost was that the Democratic gubernatorial primary was contested, with Attorney Christine Gregoire facing King County (Seattle) Executive Ron Sims.
In 2004, 31.7% of registered voters were from King County. 31.5% of primary voters were from King County, so King County voted at a rate comparable to the rest of the state. 37.3% of Democratic voters were from King County, as were 37.8% of Democratic gubernatorial voters, but only 23.4% of Republican voters. So King County was significantly more Democratic leaning than the rest of the state. And many of them apparently came out to vote for favorite son Ron Sims, who collected 47.9% of his votes in King County. By comparison only 34.1% of Gregoire’s votes came from King County. The simple truth is that Ron Sims was driving turnout in King County.
If we compare turnout in 2004 with that in 2008 for areas outside King County, we see an increase in turnout from 44.60% to 45.99%. And if we exclude neighboring Pierce and Snohomish counties, we see an increase in turnout from 44.61% to 48.00%, a 13% increase in number of voters. 9 of Washington’s 39 counties enjoyed a better than 10% increase in turnout. Meanwhile turnout in King County dropped from 46.35% to 34.86%. Rather than 31.5% of voters as in 2004, only 24.9% of state voters were from King County.
Additional factors favoring higher turnout in 2004 were that there was a US Senate election in 2004, with none in 2008; and the primary was moved from September 2004 to August 2008. While neither of the major party senate candidates, incumbent Patty Murray or challenger Congressman George Nethercutt had significant opposition, the high profile office and candidates would have increased overall awareness of the primary. The move from September to August may have hurt turnout as well, as the focus of many Washingtonians may have been to the outdoors to take advantage of drier and warmer summer weather before school started.
And while statewide voters and especially Seattleites wanting to vote for Ron Sims had turned out in marginally greater numbers in 2004, fewer actually voted!
For decades before 2004, when Washingtonians had voted in the primary, they had been able to vote for the candidate of their choice regardless of the candidate’s party affiliation. If you thought that a candidate would be a more able senator or representative you could vote for him, while also voting for the candidate of a different party for governor if you thought she would be best for Washington. Any voter younger than 90 had been doing this their entire voting life (unless they had lived in some other State).
But then the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that voters when they cast their vote, had in their own minds determined whether they were Democrats or Republicans, just as effectively as if it had been stamped on a registration card and recorded by some government office. Anyone who then crossed the party line was engaging in party raiding and interfering in the internal affairs of the other party, never mind that if they did the exact same thing at a general election they would be exercising free choice.
So beginning in 2004, Washington voters were forced to declare a party allegiance in order to vote in the primary. Even though this was done in secret by marking a choice on the ballot, 7.8% of voters refused (or failed) to do so. And then another 4.2% of voters refused (or failed) to vote for a gubernatorial candidate. A remarkable 14.4% of voters who marked that they were a Libertarian did not vote in the only contested race (for governor) in the only Libertarian primary ever held in Washington! Maybe they believed in the liberty to vote for the candidate of their choice. Overall, 12.0% of voters did not cast a vote that counted in the gubernatorial primaries. In 2008, the comparable figure was 0.9% or 1/13 as many. In 2004, almost 1 in 8 voters could had been just as effective if they had discarded their ballot in the trash bin as they were by depositing it in the ballot box.
Because of this awful system, only 39.7% of registered voters actually voted in the 2004 gubernatorial primary, compared to 42.2% in 2008. Effective participation in the 2008 gubernatorial primary was up 10.7% over that of 2004, despite the lack of a Ron Sims to pull Seattle voters to the polls, without a US Senate race to attract media attention, and a shift of the primary date into the summer.
In November 2004, Washington voters rejected this bad partisan primary system by a 3 to 2 margin, replacing it with the Top 2 primary. Delayed 4 years by litigation from party hacks, it was finally permitted to go forward after a favorable US Supreme Court ruling in spring of 2008.
In August 2008 Washington voters were able to once again voter for whichever candidate they thought best for each office, whether governor, attorney general, congress, or legislator. The 2 candidates with the most support from actual voters were then placed on the November ballot, where voters were able to make the final decision on who would serve them for the next few years.
Bottom line:
2004 primary votes cast for governor: 1,303,024
2008 primary votes cast for governor: 1,442,457
Increase in primary votes cast for governor (2004 to 2008) 10.7%.
I think the idea that some clause in the Weimar Constitution or some change in election laws would have prevented Hitler from taking power is wishful thinking. There were long roots of ultra-nationalism, anti-Semitism and absolutism in German history. No piece of paper or election law was going to prevent Hitler or a Hitler-like personage from taking power given the situation in Germany in the 1930s.
The difference in post-war Germany is NOT a better Constitution or election law-it is that World War II, unlike World War I, ended in a crushing defeat and occupation. That was sufficient to deliver a clear message and to imprint for a very long time where the previous ways of thinking ultimately led.
I know this is an election law site and the tendency is to see election laws as of paramount importance. I’m all for better and fairer election laws, but ultimately, they are only designed to reflect popular will. If the people want a Hitler they will get one-laws can only, at best, delay the inevitable.
#2 Okay, I give up. What is AV?
Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed, a fervent supporter of “top-two”, confidently predicted before the 2008 primary election that Washington state primary turnout would rise in 2008, because “top-two” had finally been implemented. But, instead it fell.
Every time a prediction made by “top-two” supporters turns out not to be true, those supporters come up with reasons why it didn’t turn out to be true. If one talks about Louisiana with supporters of “top-two” (the other state that has used that system, and also a place where primary turnout dropped), they all say, “Oh, well, Louisiana is a special case; it doesn’t apply to western states.” But, in the end, the political culture of a state is more important in determining what kind of person gets elected, than what kind of primary system the state uses. Louisiana used a closed primary from the 1900’s decade until 1975, when it switched to “top-two”, but it was still Louisiana and the 1975 change didn’t fundamentally change the type of politician who got elected. Edwin Edwards got elected in 1972 under a closed primary and he got re-elected in 1975 using “top-two”. The same old incumbents got re-elected before the change and after. People who put all their faith in a change of system to drastically improve society are not being realistic.
Jim Riley posts vigorously in favor of “top-two” but he never makes a philosophical statement as to why he is in favor of it. I post frequently against “top-two” but I explain why. I think minor party campaigns contribute to society by introducing new ideas, and unpopular ideas, and giving them a chance to be circulated. Minor party candidates are free to say exactly what they think, because they generally don’t expect to get elected anyway. Major party nominees censor themselves and very often don’t say what they really think, because that would injure their chances of getting elected or re-elected, and they are often more interested in their own careers than anything else.
# 7 # 8 How about looking at the ANTI-King George III regime pamphlets, etc. in 1761-1776 regarding freedom of speech — all sorts of attempted purges by the KGIII regime for *seditious libel* — look it up on the internet.
How about the ANTI-capitalist murderous purges of the Stalin regime in the 1930s, the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia in the late 1970s, etc. ???
Capitalism = Saving = Capital Investments = Houses, factories, cars, trucks = JOBS, JOBS, JOBS — regardless of anti-capitalist EVIL MORONS.
How come the anti-capitalist ex-U.S.S.R. is DEAD ???
NO shortage of EVIL BASTARD leftwing / rightwing statists trying their EVIL worst to stop freedom of speech, press, assembly and petitions at all times and at all places.
See the New Age control freak Donkeys in all regimes in the U.S.A. with their campaign finance stuff trying to stop such speech, press, assembly and petitions — i.e. to subvert the 1st Amendment and have PERMANENT leftwing Donkey control of all regimes in the U.S.A.
# 11 A.V. = Approval Voting — for electing NONPARTISAN executive / judicial officers — vote for 1 or more [approved = tolerable], highest win.
P.R. for legislative body elections — Total Votes / Total Seats = ALL voters get represented = REAL Democracy.
Abolish the EVIL executive officer vetoes = a carryover from divine right of kings in the Dark Age.
# 10 — LOTS of party hack MORONS among the Allies in causing the conditions to happen in Germany in 1919-1933.
Including even the failure to reapportion the gerrymander U.S.A. House of Reps. after the 1920 Census – a blatant subversion of the U.S.A. Constitution.
Including even the many at large U.S.A. Reps. elected in many States in 1932 after the required reapportionment done after the 1930 Census.
i.e. MAJOR party hack anti-Democracy evil insanity in many national regimes in 1919-1939
— including the evil insane deficits in the U.S.A. with both Hoover and Roosevelt — failure of the U.S.A. to be ready for WW II in 1939 — barely ready on 7 Dec 1941 (after the 1939-1941 blasting of the Polish, British, French, Russians and Chinese, etc. by the EVIL Axis monsters).
So “Party Hacks” delayed Washington’s Top-Two? Take that Richard Shepard – Attorney for WA Libertarian Party.
#13 So I am to believe that failure to re-apportion the US Congress caused the rise of Hitler in Germany? Your Dad and I worked hard to raise a son who types nonsense like that?
#12 On August 4, 2008 Secretary of State Sam Reed issued a prediction that turnout in the Top 2 primary could reach 46%. The press release concluded with this caveat: “Reed acknowledged that election turnouts are candidate- and issue-driven, and that a downward factor in this primary is a lack of numerous competitive-high profile races. There is no U.S. Senate race here this year, and Gov. Chris Gregoire and challenger Dino Rossi are widely expected to advance to the General Election.”
As it turned out Gregoire and Rossi collectively received 94.6% of the vote, with the other Democratic and Republican candidates, 3.0%, and 2.4% for minor and independent candidates. The 2.38% for minor party and independent candidates exceeded the minor party vote (2.26%) cast in the 2004 general election.
If one had a modicum of curiosity (1% will do, no need for 3%, 5% or even 10%) one would look more carefully at differences between the 2004 and 2008 elections. One might wonder why turnout in King County fell from 46.4% to 34.9%, while elsewhere in the state turnout rose from 44.6% to 46.0%; and if we exclude Pierce County and Snohomish County to the immediate north and south of King County, we see an increase from 44.6% to 48.0% for the rest of the state.
The difference between 2004 and 2008? In 2004, King County Executive Ron Sims was a candidates for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. Ron Sims got 47.9% of his vote in King County, while the county only contributed 31.7% of the total primary vote.
In 2008, 60K fewer King County voters voted for governor than did in 2004, but Gino Rossi received 13K more, and Christine Gregoire received 44K more. Ron Sims went from 109K to 0. So the most logical conclusion is that 57K of Sims voters switched to Gregoire or Rossi, and and 52K stayed home.
And remember 10.7% more persons cast an effective vote in the 2008 gubernatorial primary than did in 2004
Since Krist Novoselic is the Democratic County chairman from Wahkiakum County, perhaps he can explain why he thinks 25% more voters in that county voted in the 2008 primary vs. in 2004.
#15 — ALL sort of accumulated stuff in the West got Hitler going in 1933 — regardless of New Age Mom imposters on this list.
The U.S.A. House of Reps did happen to pass laws (or NOT pass laws) on foreign relations issues in 1923-1933 — even economic stuff related to Germany.
Count the about 70 million dead in World War II due to Hitler and the know-it-all party hacks in the West in 1918-1939 — even perhaps talk to some Allied survivors while they are still alive.
ONE *modern* world with lots of interacting party hack stuff since circa 1492.
How come England managed to have the ELECTED House of Commons starting in the 1200s — even with its many gerrymander *rotten boroughs* up to 1832 — very low population areas controlled by a party hack lord or even the king/queen of England ???
#9: “For decades before 2004, when Washingtonians had voted in the primary, they had been able to vote for the candidate of their choice regardless of the candidate’s party affiliation.”
You’re referring to the blanket primary, in which all candidates appeared on the same primary ballot, enabling the voter to cross party lines from office to office; the top vote-getter from each party advanced to the general election. Justice Scalia said in California Democratic Party v. Jones(2000) that the BP had simply moved the general election one step earlier in the process, at the expense of the parties’ ability to perform their “basic function” of choosing their own leaders and nominees.
One argument that Washington state used in trying to keep its blanket primary was that, unlike California, WA does not have register voters by party. In Washington State Democratic Party v. Reed (2003), the 9th Circuit said, “These are distinctions without a difference. That the voters do not reveal their party preferences at a government registration desk does not mean that they do not have them.”
#3: Adenauer, of course, promoted supply-side economics.
Harold Stassen and MA Gov. Christian Herter led an effort to dump Richard Nixon as Eisenhower’s VP in 1956. After the effort failed, Herter and Stassen made the nominating and seconding speeches for Nixon at the Republican national convention.
I recall seeing Stassen and Sen. Eugene McCarthy (D) both attack Nixon from the same platform during the ’68 New Hampshire presidential primary campaign. Both, of course, were from Minnesota.
#12: It’s worth noting that, following a vigorous campaign in early 1972, Edwin Edwards barely edged out Bennett Johnston in the Democratic runoff for governor; Edwards then faced future Republican Gov. David Treen in the general election. Johnston was elected US senator later that year.
Gov. Edwards’s opposition in ’75 wasn’t nearly so strong.
As best as I can tell, Jim Riley likes the “top two” because the races for his state legislators and his US House member are now decided in different party primaries, and he sees the “top two” as the solution.
What is puzzling is why Jim has never bothered to contact any Texas legislators about changing to his cherished “top two.”
Jim Riley posts vigorously in favor of “top-two†but he never makes a philosophical statement as to why he is in favor of it
I have, but you have not listened. In a republic, government officials are chosen from among the populace by the people directly. Mediation of the electoral process by political parties, who are intent on maintaining their own power, and preserving a distinct and separate political class, is unnecessary and is inimical to that ideal.
I have certainly never claimed that Top 2 would increase turnout, nor produce better outcomes, other than that the elected officials would be chosen by the people directly.
Steve Rankin Says:
December 24th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
#3: Adenauer, of course, promoted supply-side economics.
Harold Stassen and MA Gov. Christian Herter led an effort to dump Richard Nixon as Eisenhower’s VP in 1956. After the effort failed, Herter and Stassen made the nominating and seconding speeches for Nixon at the Republican national convention.
I recall seeing Stassen and Sen. Eugene McCarthy (D) both attack Nixon from the same platform during the ‘68 New Hampshire presidential primary campaign. Both, of course, were from Minnesota.
Phil Sawyer responds:
Thank you, Steve, for mentioning the late, great, Eugene J. McCarthy. He has to be remembered as one of the most significant politicians in the history of our country – on many levels. It is such a shame that our country was not blessed with his leadership as President of the United States.
#18 There was no reason for the 9th Circuit to challenge the Supreme Court on the issue, especially since they had already been overturned in Jones. It was simply easier to say, that like in California, the legal purpose of the system was to choose the nominees of the political parties, regardless of the true state of mind of the voters.
Following the successful implementation of Top 2 in 2008, the Washington SOS had a poll conducted which is described in an August 28, 2008 press release.
http://www.sos.wa.gov/office/osos_news.aspx?i=08PnLEwiOSuCQ%2f6jzhBGyg%3d%3d
Voters liked the Top 2 primary by 76%-19%, compared to a 28%-67% who liked the Pick-A-Party primary. By a 70%-20% voters preferred Top 2 over Pick-A-Party.
82% of independents, 66% of Democrats, and 68% of Republicans preferred Top 2 (no information was given for those who preferred Pick-A-Party, but the aggregate result showed 10% not answering, so preference by the Democrats and Republicans was probably closer to 3:1 than 2:1)
At the August 2008 Primary, King County voters by a 63% majority approved switching that county’s elections to be non-partisan elections as defined by state law.
Washington had long conducted its non-partisan elections using a conditional run-off system, where the first round was coincident with the partisan primary. It uses that system for example for electing the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Partisan elections had been conducted using the blanket primary, and then the Pick-A-Party primary. I-872 switched partisan elections to Top 2, but its implementation had been delayed by the Forces of FUD.
The initiative in King County had begun prior to the US Supreme Court’s ruling on Top 2, so the proposal could largely be seen as a way to get out from under Pick-A-Party.
King County has an interesting system for considering initiated charter changes. The County Council may propose an alternative. At the primary election, voters then vote YES/NO on whether to refer a proposal to the voters; and then choose which version is to be proposed, the initiated version or the county council alternative.
In this case, the County Council alternative was to use the state-defined system of non-partisan elections, but to allow candidates to state a party preference.
In August 2008, voters approved the use of non-partisan elections by 63% version, and voted in favor of the initiated version over the county council version. This was then confirmed in November 2008, by a 55% margin (by that time the status quo was partisan elections using Top 2, so regardless if the result, partisan primaries would be eliminated.
Voters were somewhat equivocal about whether partisan labels should appear on county ballots, but it is quite clear that they wanted to get rid of partisan primaries.
Major supporters of the King County initiative were former governors Booth Gardner and Dan Evans.
#20 Has Cleo Fields ever explained the FBI surveillance film showing him stuffing $20,000 in cash from Edwin Edwards? All I’ve been able to come up with is that Fields has said that there is a humorous explanation and that he was not a government official at the time.
#21: “In a republic, government officials are chosen from among the populace by the people directly.”
The founders provided for indirect election of US senators. To this day, the US president is not directly elected.
In a system of party primaries, party candidates are directly nominated. Officials are chosen directly in the general election.
During all those years that nominations were by caucus, convention, etc., grassroots citizens could only vote directly in the general election.
In Jones, Scalia said, “Representative democracy… is unimaginable without the ability of citizens to band together in promoting among the electorate candidates who espouse their political views.”
In his dissent, Justice Stevens acknowledged that Scalia was talking about political parties. He certainly wasn’t referring to the Rotary Club or the Junior Chamber of Commerce.
#23: It’s not surprising that Washington state voters like the “top two,” given their long history of being able to cross party lines in the first round of voting.
I had wondered how the King County ballot measure turned out. So this is a Louisiana-style system (minus party labels), in which there is no second round when a candidate gets 50%-plus in the first round?
Do any of Washington’s counties or municipalities still use party primaries in electing their own officials?
I’m in favor of nonpartisan local elections. My state already uses them to elect state and county judges and county election commissioners; special elections are also nonpartisan, e. g., the 2008 Wicker-Musgrove US Senate race (candidates for election commissioner have their party affiliations listed on the ballot).
Are party hacks connected to the “Forces of FUD”?
#24: I’ll ask my Louisiana friends about that (wonder if any of the $20,000 came out of ex-Rep. William Jefferson’s freezer).
#22: I always enjoyed listening to the witty Eugene McCarthy speak. I also admired his efforts to improve ballot access for non-major party candidates. I never wanted him to be president, however, since he was a redistributionist.
In ’68, a friend of mine had a big color poster of Hubert Humphrey on the wall of his room. The caption was, “Some people talk change. Others cause it.”
That friend today is a big Republican, incidentally.
Steve: Whatever you mean by “redistributionist,” is not actually clear to me. I am a (Left Conservative) democratic socialist, so I personally think that some redistribution is in order.
Eugene McCarthy was not a socialist and I never expected that we would get socialism from a McCarthy Administration. The bottom line is that Gene McCarthy was a very amazing person on so many levels. He really should have been elected president in 1968 (most polls showed that he would have won had the Democratic Party had enough sense to nominate him). However, 1972 (as a Democrat), 1976 (as in independent), 1988 (as an independent), or 1992 (as a Democrat) would have worked also.
Thank you, Steve, for mentioning how Eugene McCarthy helped to improve the environment for indpendent and/or minor party candidates. His 1976 independent campaign for president, and the subsequent court cases involving ballot, debate, and media access had a very profound effect on politics in our country. Many other things that Gene McCarthy did also caused significant positive change in our country.
#25 Before adoption of the Australian ballot, voters could vote for any person they wanted to. While political parties might well promote certain candidates and distribute printed ballots, votes could cross out names or prepare their own ballot.
Sometimes toughs from one party or the other would try to keep other parties from distributing their ballots, or stuff extra ballots of their own in the ballot box, but these were not legal activities.
Now that the government prints the ballot, lawyers have taken over the role of the physical toughs in trying to prevent candidates from being on the ballot, and now these activities are “legal”. It doesn’t mean that they are desirable.
Recall in 1842 when the Crawford County Democratic organization started its system of direct nomination of candidates, there were dissident township party meetings who insisted that the general election were the proper place for resolving intra-party disputes. There was absolutely nothing that the Crawford County organization could do to prevent them. It was only when formerly private activities were placed under government control that partisans could prevent alternative candidates from appearing on the ballot.
Top 2 in no way inhibits the ability of citizens to band together to promote candidates who espouse their political views.
Partisan primaries and partisan nominations inhibit the ability of citizens to band together to promote candidates who espouse their political views.
I don’t mean to be the Grinch who stole Christmas by hijacking this thread, but Steve Rankin has a remarkable memory. He’s right when he says that McCarthy and Stassen both attacked GOP frontrunner Richard Nixon during the 1968 New Hampshire primary.
Like his dovish fellow Minnesotan, Stassen, who was certainly no stranger to the snows of New Hampshire, also campaigned as a peace candidate that year.
Stassen, whose long-shot candidacy for the Republican nomination enjoyed the spirited support of two-term Manchester Mayor John C. Mongan, believed that LBJ had committed one of “the most terrible mistakes” in U.S. history when he “turned the Vietnamese struggle into an American war.” He also asserted that members of his own party, including Dick Nixon and Ronald Reagan — both supporters of the bloody conflict in Indochina — “must share the responsibility for it and cannot lead the country out of it.”
By then, most Americans had forgotten that Stassen, then a highly successful Philadelphia lawyer, had been a serious contender for the GOP’s presidential nomination in 1948 and 1952 and even fewer remembered that as the 33-year-old keynote speaker and floor manager for Wendell Willkie at the 1940 Republican national convention, he had been instrumental in bringing about the second “Miracle at Philadelphia” — the startling nomination of a liberal Republican for the presidency against FDR.
Tragically, by 1968 Stassen was considered something of a political joke.
The media, incidentally, began comparing McCarthy to Stassen as early as 1972, describing him as a “left-wing Harold Stassen,” a “Stassen in liberal garb” — as one newspaper described him — shortly after the antiwar Democrat launched a second and forlorn bid for his party’s presidential nomination that year.
The usually hostile St. Paul Pioneer Press — McCarthy’s hometown newspaper — lamented that McCarthy was showing “symptoms of Stassenitis” while nationally-syndicated columnist Stewart Alsop suggested that the former Minnesota Senator was “a classic example of Stassenization” — a politician with a compulsion to run for president without any chance of success.
When a Chicago pundit compared McCarthy to the perennial Republican presidential hopeful in 1976 while he was conducting his third campaign for the presidency — this time as an independent candidate railing against the Federal Election Campaign Act and the permanent cementing of the two-party system into the American political fabric — the tall, white-haired ex-Senator denied any similarities to Stassen. “I’m more like Abraham Lincoln,” he quipped.
As the references to Stassen persisted, McCarthy finally fired back at the conclusion of the ’76 campaign, reminding his smart-aleck critics of Stassen’s many political achievements.
Not only was the ubiquitous and brilliant Stassen the youngest governor in American history, said McCarthy, but the former president of the University of Pennsylvania also drafted the charter to the United Nations, served as disarmament advisor to President Eisenhower and had presciently warned the country about Richard Nixon nearly two decades before the Watergate scandal.
“I can stand that charge if I have to,” McCarthy said.
#26 Washington has two types of elections: “non-partisan” and “partisan”. Non-partisan elections have no party labels, but require a majority for election. If there is no majority, then the top 2 candidates appear on the ballot. If there is a majority, only the top candidate appears on the ballot, but I presume write-in votes are permitted (in 1976, 1980, and 2000, the leading candidate in the primary for Superintendent of Public Instruction had a majority; but there are definite vote totals from the general election).
“Partisan elections” have been conducted using the blanket primary, pick-a-party, and now Top 2. I-872 literally defined a “partisan election” as one in which voters could express their party preference, and then went on to define the Top 2 mechanics. That is why the courts could not sever the party labels from the law since it was an essential part of the initiative.
The Oregon and California proposals define a process by which the voters nominate candidates with the Top 2 advancing to a general election. Party labels were secondary to that process, and both provide for severance of unconstitutional provisions. IIRC, in Oregon the severance language even highlighted the partisan provisions as being severable (In Oregon, ballots would carry both the party registration of candidates, and formal party endorsements).
Washington law specifies that county elections are partisan elections. In smaller counties, the blanket primary worked just as well as non-partisan elections. You quite often wouldn’t have two candidates, but if you did, they might be of the same party or opposite party, but all voters could participate in the election of their local officials. This capability was lost under pick-a-party.
Washington also has a provision where counties can adopt a home-rule-charter and define their own system of local government, and 6 counties have done so, including the three most populous King, Pierce, and Snohomish, which together have half the state’s population.
King and Pierce counties had defined that their offices were to be filled by partisan election, perhaps simply continuing the traditional election system in Washington, which would have been the blanket primary when they adopted their charters.
When Pierce County switched to IRV, they did so because the system of “partisan election” had been switched to pick-a-party. The voter’s pamphlet arguments were quite explicit, stating the Problem as Pick-a-party and IRV as the solution. Once Top 2 was implemented, there was no longer a need for the solution and Pierce County has gone back to using “partisan elections” (actually some of their more administrative offices were switched to non-partisan elections using IRV, now they will be “non-partisan” elections using the system provided in state law which is one or two candidates advancing to the general election ballot).
Those opposing the elimination of IRV claimed that it was really a plan by the political parties to put pick-a-party back in place, citing the continuing litigation by the parties.
In King County, they essentially crossed out “partisan election” in the charter and replaced it with “nonpartisan election”. While this would eliminate party labels, the major intent was to get around pick-a-party.
The county council alternative added language that said the offices would be elected using the state law for nonpartisan elections except that candidates could express a party preference.
By the time of the final vote in November 2008, the status quo under Washington law was “partisan elections” using Top 2.
#27 The $20,000 was handed to Cleo Fields by Edwards himself so it would have been around 1997.
While Steve (#19) is also correct in asserting that Konrad Adenauer was a supply sider — a point also made by the late Jack Kemp while seeking the GOP’s presidential nomination in 1988 — the real credit for Germany’s “economic miracle” probably belongs to Ludwig Erhard, Adenauer’s Minister of Economics who deregulated the economy, eliminated price controls and lowered the country’s top marginal tax rates, much to the dismay of Germany’s Social Democrats.
By the way, during the 1940 presidential campaign the Prohibition Party’s Roger W. Babson — one of the only economists in the nation who accurately predicted the 1929 stock market crash and the ensuing Great Depression — repeatedly told his audiences that Germany and Japan, even if completely annihilated, would emerge from World War II as our chief economic rivals.
# 25 The 1787 Federal Convention happened behind closed doors in top secrecy.
Some results – the infamous 3/5 clause for counting slaves,
the blatant insane math that each State regardless of population would have 2 Senators — affecting laws and treaties and impeachment trials;
the infamous fugitive slave clause;
the gerrymander math of the Electoral College.
— all due to an EVIL conspiracy of the small State party hacks and/or the slave State party hacks.
The Senate / slavery / Electoral College timebomb went off in 1860 — and killed about 620,000 Americans in 1861-1865.
i.e. STOP worshiping any of the political structure stuff (aka party hack DEALS) the 1787 elitists did behind closed doors.
REAL Democracy NOW — P.R. and nonpartisan A.V. = REAL reforms — before it is too late and the gerrymander party hacks in the Congress and the White House (WHO ever they are) set off another timebomb much worse than 1861-1865 with their EVIL party hack extremist control freak stuff.
ALL of the other stuff is a sideshow distraction.
Darcy G Richardson Says:
December 25th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
I don’t mean to be the Grinch who stole Christmas by hijacking this thread, but Steve Rankin has a remarkable memory. He’s right when he says that McCarthy and Stassen both attacked GOP frontrunner Richard Nixon during the 1968 New Hampshire primary. [snip] …
Phil Sawyer replies:
Darcy: With all due respect to Jim Riley, and also to the Grinch (it may be that they are one and the same); I do not look at our postings as being like “the Grinch who stole Christmas by hijacking this thread.” Some of us are just not that interested in the “top-two” arguments (pro and con) and would rather talk about other things. If this bill passes in California next year (although I do not think that it will when the people learn what it is all about); many of us (in the opposition to the “top-two”) will just make the best of things and move forward (while the courts decide the merits of the case). We will try to find creative ways around the new obstacle for independent and/or minor parties. It is somewhat likely that the American Independent Party of California will become the center of battle for some of the minor parties trying to maintain ballot status. It will become much like the Peace and Freedom Party has been, over the past few decades, for the little left parties without ballot access. It is difficult to envision, though, the Peace and Freedom Party involved in this. There would be too many PFP-CA people against getting involved in a party that had George C. Wallace for its first presidential nominee (1968). One rarely can tell, though, what the future holds.
In the interest of full disclosure, I want to remind you all that I am now registered to vote with the Democratic Party. I am looking forward to receiving my sample ballot on the same day as my wife (who is Democratic and lately has received her sample ballot before me). To be fair to the County of Sacramento, though, my PFP-CA sample primary ballot, last year, while sent out later was printed on better paper.
#28: When Eugene McCarthy last ran for president in 1992, he spoke to Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition. McCarthy said that wealthy people should give 100% of their income above a certain amount to the government. He said if they didn’t, “We should take it from them.”
We’ve got lots of income redistribution in the US, but it’s obviously not enough for some people.
#30: It sounds like, instead of promoting the “top two” monstrosity, you need to be pushing for easier ballot access for independent and write-in candidates.
“Top 2 in no way inhibits the ability of citizens to band together to promote candidates who espouse their political views.”
The “top two” makes it nearly impossible for independents and small-party candidates to reach the final, deciding election, when the voters are really paying attention. The “top two” also makes it possible for the two final candidates to be from the same party. If a party does not have a candidate in the deciding election, that party’s faithful voters are effectively disenfranchised. The same is true of voters who back an independent candidate who does not reach the final, deciding election.
The “top two” enables voters to choose among all the candidates in the preliminary round of voting. But the price they pay in the final, decisive round is that there are only two choices, both of whom may be from the same party.
You obviously don’t give a damn about political parties, Jim, but a lot of people do. If you want to behave like an independent, fine, but don’t try to force everyone else to behave like an independent, too.
#31: Harold Stassen moved to Philadelphia because he thought Pennsylvania would be a better base than Minnesota for his presidential ambitions.
I once heard a Philadelphia Republican city councilman say that he had lost a race for mayor by the largest margin until Stassen broke his record. Stassen, of course, also ran unsuccessfully for PA governor.
Jack Kemp and the author Kevin Phillips disliked each other. I once heard the always-scowling Phillips say, “We are witnessing the Stassen-eye-zation of Jack Kemp.”
In retrospect, the American people played a bad joke on themselves when they replaced Lyndon Johnson with Richard Nixon as president.
#32: An election is nonpartisan when the political parties have no way of officially nominating candidates. Thus, despite what some statutes and proposed statutes say, a “top two” system is always nonpartisan.
Louisiana, which registers voters by party, puts party labels on its “top two” ballots. A number of political scientists have correctly described Louisiana’s “top two” (aka “open primary”) as a nonpartisan system.
Putting party labels on a “top two” ballot, which is mainly done for the voters’ information, does not make it a partisan election.
Blanket primaries and pick-a-party primaries are examples of partisan systems, since they enable the parties to have official nominees.
Remember that Justice Scalia in California Democratic Party v. Jones called the “top two” a “nonpartisan blanket primary.” He noted that the State still had the option of requiring the parties to nominate candidates in advance of the first round of voting.
Phil Sawyer says in #36: “If this [“top two open primary”] bill passes in California next year (although I do not think that it will when the people learn what it is all about)…”
I suspect that you’re right, Phil, but let’s not take any chances. If the “top two” is enacted there in our most populous state, the cancer may spread to other states, especially in the West.
California voters have already had the good sense to twice reject the “top two” monstrosity. 58.2% said “no” in 1915, while 54% voted “no” in 2004, as Prop. 62 lost in 51 of the state’s 58 counties.
#38 The Top 2 Open Primary law in California only requires 40 signatures for congressional candidates.
The Secretary of State in California calculates the number of signatures needed for independent candidates in each congressional district. In one district there was an error, and the registration of 250,000 was listed as 25,000. Based on that 25,000 figure, 750 signatures would be required, or 18 times as many under SB 6. If the actual registration number had been used, then it would be 187 times as large.
The rationalization for such onerous petition standards for independent candidates is that partisan candidates qualify via partisan primary election. For statewide office, an independent candidate requires 173,000 signatures (to be sure they would probably need to collect 1/4 million), and yet some parties only have 5,000 persons voting in their primary statewide.
Louisiana has an atypically large number of legislators elected as independents under its open primary system. Why should voters pay less attention during the primary?
If a person votes for a candidate in an election, and that candidates is not elected, isn’t the voter effectively disenfranchised? After all, is there any discernible difference in the effect of being prevented from voting and voting for a losing candidate? I think that is equivalent to the argument that you are making – if one supports a candidate and they are not elected, supporters are disenfranchised.
Judge Coughenour has explicitly dismissed the ballot access arguments you are making with regard to minor parties and major parties.
The candidates in the final election are the two whom received the most votes in the primary. If they happen to be of the same party it is mere coincidence.
#40 Justice Scalia surely knows the distinction between “may” and “shall”. He said a State might require partisan nomination. He didn’t say that a State couldn’t simply open up the electoral process to all candidates who could secure 40 signatures from their fellow citizens.
California already includes the designation (occupation) of candidates on its ballots, so including the party preference that a candidates had previously disclosed on his voter registration is similar information. SB 6 permits qualified parties to have their endorsements distributed to voters at State expense.
Steve Rankin Says:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
#28: When Eugene McCarthy last ran for president in 1992, he spoke to Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition. McCarthy said that wealthy people should give 100% of their income above a certain amount to the government. He said if they didn’t, “We should take it from them.â€
We’ve got lots of income redistribution in the US, but it’s obviously not enough for some people.
Phil Sawyer responds:
How much money should one person be allowed to have? You did not mention the amount? Furthermore, how do you know that Eugene McCarthy even made such a statement?
Personally, as a democratic socialist, I am more concerned with the fact that the proletariat needs to own and administrate the means of production and distribution of goods than I am over how much money any one individual person should be allowed to have.
#44: Each person should be able to keep as much money as he can legally earn… it’s none of the government’s damn business.
I know that Eugene McCarthy said that because I watched the speech on C-SPAN… I heard it with my own ears.
Translation of your last paragraph: “Workers of the world… UNITE!”
Again, Steve is right. I have a videotape of McCarthy’s speech to the Rainbow Coalition. McCarthy’s comment, which didn’t draw a lot of attenton from the mainstream media, was in keeping with his radical proposal that year for a one-time capital levy of twenty percent on the wealthiest Americans.
#44 It is super easy to be a communist / fascist utopian STATIST with the assets and/or income of OTHER persons.
See the causes of World WAR I and World WAR II — and many other international wars and civil wars in the evil rotten past.
See the ROT of the ex-U.S.S.R. 1917-1991 — some party hacks were more equal than others — and even more EVIL murderous than others – Lenin, Stalin, etc.
Govt debts in the U.S.A. – now about $ 16 Trillion — due mainly to spending for welfare and interest on prior debts = a DIRECT threat to the survival of Western Civilization.
P.R. and A.V. — before it is too late.
#42: “Louisiana has an atypically large number of legislators elected as independents under its [“top two”] system. Why should voters pay less attention during the primary?”
TWO independents in a state legislature is “atypically large”??
California voters pay more attention during the fall because the general election is the only election in which someone can actually be elected to office (and the same is true of the November election in the “top two open primary” proposal).
#43: One can work for easier ballot access for independents and write-ins without simultaneously trying to impose the “top two” monstrosity on a state.
Any predictions of how many incumbent party hacks will have a party hack opponent of the SAME party in *his/her* ONE party safe seat gerrymander district ???
— perhaps ALL of them — so that many general election voters may even perhaps elect the lesser of the 2 evil party hacks — with many voters NOT voting for either of the 2 evil party hacks ???
P.R. and A.V. — NO primaries are needed.
#48 Louisiana has 29% of the lower house members that were elected as independents. As a percentage of the membership, Louisiana ranks just below Virginia.
So Californians don’t pay attention in June when they are electing their county officials, and just pay attention when they find out in November that someone was elected in June?
“One can work for easier ballot access for independents and write-ins without simultaneously trying to impose the “top two†monstrosity on a state.
Why shouldn’t any person who gets 40 signatures appear on the ballot where any voter can vote for them? Do you understand the concept of racketeering?