The San Luis Obispo Tribune has this column, by Bob Cuddy, about California’s Top-two Open Primary ballot measure. In the opinion of this blog, the Cuddy column is the best commentary yet written about Proposition 14. It makes a point that other commentary has not made. Why don’t politicians like Senator Abel Maldonado (author of the bill that put Prop. 14 on the ballot) and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger have the courage to become independent candidates, if they are so dissatisfied with their own parties? The column does not mention those two particular politicians specifically, but that is the implication.
Bob Cuddy (and perhaps Richard Winger) appear to not have noticed that there are extremely few minor party and independent candidates on the general election ballot.
In 2008, California had 53 congressional, 20 senate, and 80 assembly races, 153 in total. There were 355 candidates for an average of 2.32 candidates per race.
29 congressional, 13 senate, and 62 assembly races, 104 total had 2 or fewer candidates (68%).
There were 40 Libertarian candidates (26% of races), 8 Peace & Freedom candidates (5%), 6 Green candidates (4%), 3 independents (2%), and 1 American Independent (1%). Cuddy says to say goodbye to the American Independent Party. They’ve already left.
There have been 9 independent congressional candidates since the 1970s, out of a total of 900 races. If Prop 2 passes, I suspect there will be as many independent candidates in 2012 as there were in the preceding 20 elections.
Actually, there were independent and minor party candidates on the ballot in 26 out of 53 House of Representatives races in 2008. There was an average of 2.45 candidates per race. If California had been under Proposition 14, there would have been 1.87 candidates per race. If Proposition 14 passes, there may be substantially more independent candidates in the primary, but probably not in the general election.
As for the point raised by Bob Cuddy, if Proposition 14 supporters are so concerned about electing moderates, there is a way to accomplish that: Start a new party. If the Democrats are so dominated by the extreme left and the Republicans are so dominated by the extreme right, it should be easy to get about 89,000 voters to re-register with a new centrist party that speaks for the majority of the people. This new party should carry every statewide race and win a majority in the state legislature without too much trouble.
Okay, okay, I am pretty much clue less and do not know much more than the basics …………
#2
CD 1, 5, 6, 9. 10, 15, 16, 26, 27, 29, 35, 47, 48,49, 50, 51, 52, and 53 had 3 candidates (18 districts).
CD 3, 7, 8, 14, and 46 had 4 candidates (5 districts)
CD 12 had 5 candidates (1 district)
24 districts had more than 2 candidates on the ballot. Perhaps you were counting write-in candidates.
There were 130 candidates on the ballot for 53 seats or 2.45 per race. Under Prop 14, there would have been at least an average of 1.92 candidates per race (this assumes that write-in candidates in the general election would have been write-in candidates in the primary, and been nominated).
But there would have been at least 180 candidates on the primary ballot or 3.40/race. This assumes that the two independent candidates who qualified by petition would have run in the Top 2 primary. There were also 15 write-in candidates in the general election who might have qualified for the primary ballot if they were willing to pay the filing fee.
And if we compare the number of credible candidates (here defined as those who received 5% of the total vote) there were 134 candidates who received at least 5% of the primary vote, vs. 105 candidates who received at least 5% of the general election vote (2.53 vs. 1.98).
In California’s 1998 general election, there were multiple small party nominees for governor.
I watched a very interesting debate on C-SPAN among the small party nominees.
#5 In 1998, 7 parties each had a single candidate for Controller, so that the (blanket) primary did not eliminate any candidates.
Thus all voters could vote for any of 7 candidates in both the June primary and the November general election. All 5 minor party candidates received a larger share of the vote in the primary.
The belies the claims of some that voters won’t vote for minor party candidates in the primary, or that minor party voters won’t vote in the primary. The current partisan primary system suppresses the turnout of minor party and independent voters in the primary where numerous non-partisan county and city officers as well as propositions are voted on. Prop 13 was approved at the June primary.
#6: You’ve picked out one office. Interesting that you didn’t analyze the ’98 governor’s race.
In a system of separate party primaries, small party members usually have few choices, since those parties generally have few if any contested primary races. In the blanket primary, in contrast, all candidates of all parties were listed on the same ballot, and every voter got that ballot. So, for example, someone who voted in an uncontested primary for controller still could choose among contested primaries for other offices (the top vote-getter from each party advanced to the general election).
In the blanket primary, it was easier for non-members to “swamp” contested small party primaries, since those parties have fewer members than the major parties.
With the “top two open primary,” the five small party candidates for controller would not even be on the ballot in the final, deciding election. When a small party’s message is kept out of that final election, the party loses its main reason for existing.
The US Supreme Court has given little weight to the argument that certain election systems increase turnout.
What Justice Scalia said about the blanket primary also applies to the “top two open primary”: It simply moves the general election up to the first step in the process, at the expense of the parties’ ability to perform their basic function of choosing their own nominees.
#6 The controller’s race was chosen because there weren’t any contested nominations and there were 7 party candidates.
In both the primary and the general election voters could consider the merits of the individual candidates to be controller as well as the platforms of the parties. The voters of California demonstrably found the candidates of those parties lacking in the primary AND to an even greater extent in the general election.
There really was no reason for them to be on the general election ballot. They were only there because of the mechanics of the blanket primary.
The purpose of the election was to choose the controller. The voters simply did not support the candidates who happened to be running on the minor party line. If a a candidate gets 0.6% of the vote in June and 0.5% of the vote in November it shows that the candidate should not have been considered for the final choice.
If I would have done an analysis of the 1998 gubernatorial race it would have been to point out under a Top 6 Open Primary, only one minor party candidate would have qualified general election. The support for the minor party candidates in the general election was similar to their support in the primary.
You clearly missed the point about turnout under the California partisan primary system. It selectively suppresses turnout for non-partisan elections and ballot issues.
You perhaps do not want voters who are not Republican or Democrats voting in the non-partisan race for county commissioner or on ballot issues.
How about having the media and even BAN just publish the ENTIRE Prop 14 LEGAL LANGUAGE and have a contest of how many court cases will result (by the party hacks) if it passes ??? — with word by word legal analysis by the usual suspects.
P.R. and A.V. with NO primaries = REAL reforms — NOT the JUNK bogus so-called reforms like top 2, IRV, NPV, etc. etc. etc.
Elections have many essential functions, other than choosing which individual will hold a particular office. Elections are the chief means by which citizens talk to their leaders, the leaders talk to the citizens, people think and debate about how to solve our common social problems.
This statement is especially true in California, where the legislators each have 450,000 constituents or 900,000 constituents. Ordinary people just wouldn’t have a chance to see their legislators if the legislators weren’t out campaigning. And some of that campaigning is done jointly, as for instance at candidate debates, which are frequently televised or put up on you tube. We are already suffering as a society because so many individuals only listen to media that they already agree with, so they don’t hear opposing viewpoints. Joint campaign appearances by candidates who are opposing in each other are the last best venue for getting citizens to hear all points of view.
#10 Abolish the minority rule U.S.A. Senate or elect it in odd number years using P.R. for 2 year terms >>>> DIVIDE ALL high population States — so the *average* voter can actually detect which state senators and state reps actually live nearby.
Election = making choices — candidates and issues.
More government or less government = NOTHING NEW in 6,000 plus years of STATISM.
The New Age less government folks (Tea Party folks, etc.) regard the more government control freak folks as being more and more EVIL and INTOLERABLE to get along with — just in case any body has been in outer space since 1929 (repeat 1929).
Will the Obama mouth set off Civil War II ???
Stay tuned.
See the mouths going off in 1773-1776 and 1859-1861.
P.R. and A.V. — to END the EVIL rule of the EVIL gerrymander party hacks.
#8: A “top SIX open primary”? That’s a new one on me. Now that you mention it, if you’re going to promote nonpartisan elections, you should promote a “top three” or a “top four” (or a “top SIX”?), so at least voters would have greater choice in the final, deciding election.
“In both the [general election] and the [runoff] voters could consider the merits of the individual candidates… as well as the platforms of the parties.”
What’s the point of considering those merits, since, in the “top two,” the chance of small-party and independent candidates reaching the runoff is practically ZERO? And when the two runoff candidates are from the same party, the voters only have ONE party’s platform to consider (sorta simplifies matters, doesn’t it?).
In the “top two,” the voters get to choose among ALL the candidates in the preliminary round. But the price they pay is that they only have two choices in the final, deciding election.
I say that the faithful adherents of ALL parties deserve to have a candidate in that final election.
On primary day in California, as I understand it, there is a separate nonpartisan ballot. Independent voters also have their choice in state and congressional elections of the Democratic, the Republican, or the American Independent primary ballot, each of which includes the nonpartisan races and questions. In presidential primaries, independents are eligible for a Democratic or an AIP ballot (unless the AIP has recently begun excluding independents).
And, of course, a voter may register with a party as late as 15 days before the primaries.
“There really was no reason for [the small party candidates] to be on the general election ballot.”
As far as you’re concerned, there’s really no reason for political parties– especially small parties– to be in the universe.
#10 “Elections have many essential functions, other than choosing which individual will hold a particular office.”
Elections have one essential function. To choose which individual will hold a a particular office.
The Top 2 Open Primary in no way prevents ordinary people from seeing their legislators. The legislators would be campaigning during the primary, just like they do now. And those who are nominated, will campaigning before the general election, just like they do now.
Top 2 Open Primary does not prevent joint appearances to debate during the open primary.
Proposition 15 would require participating candidates to appear in debates in both the primary and general election campaign. Presumably the primary debates would be for the benefit of the public at large and not just adherents of the individual parties.
Though Proposition 15 is oriented towards the current partisan primary system, its basic structure and principles could be applied to voter-nominated offices. Of course, you would have to rip out all the provisions that favor or disfavor candidates because they are from a major party or minor party or an independent. The simple fact is that the current partisan primary system made Proposition 15 more complex than it would be under a Top 2 Open Primary.
#12 Justice Scalia in Jones did not specify a particular number of candidates that would qualify for the general election.
If I were going to increase the number of qualifying candidates, I would base it on some standard such as share of the vote. Perhaps the nth place candidate would qualify if he received 1/2 of 1/n of the vote, with a minimum guarantee of 2 qualifiers (assuming 2 candidates ran).
So a 3rd place candidate would need 1/6 of the vote, and 4th place candidate would need 1/8 of the vote and so on – plus that the preceding candidate had also qualified.
If 70% of the voters favor one party, under the current partisan system, 30% of the voters are given NO choice in who their elected official is. All voters should be able to participate in the actual decision making process.
If an independent voter chooses a partisan ballot based on the governor’s race, then they are stuck with whatever legislative races and other races for whatever area they live in. And partisan voters are similarly restricted. Voters registered with non-qualified parties are given no choice.
#14, fourth paragraph: In Jones, Scalia suggested that voters living in one-party jurisdictions should simply JOIN THE PARTY (if they want to participate in the party’s candidate-selection process).
Fifth paragraph: What you describe is a party candidate recruitment problem. People like you– who don’t give a damn about political parties– should be out recruiting independents to run. You can vote for them, since, in a system of party primaries, independents only run in the general election.
It sounds like you want to engage in a political one night stand: You want to be able to help nominate the candidates of multiple parties without committing yourself to ANY party (of course, there are no official party nominees in the “top two open primary”).
You must really hate states like Pennsylvania, in which independents can only vote in the general election.
#15 Why should someone have to have to recruit candidates in order to be able to vote? Maybe they should pay a poll tax and pass a literacy test as well.
You are trying to make this too hard.
Some candidates want to run for office and they are free to do so.
Parties are free to encourage candidates to run, to recruit candidates, to support candidates financially and otherwise.
Voters then get to vote for who they want to represent or govern them. They are free to choose who they want.
The two candidates with the most voter support then advance to the general election.
Parties are free to support whichever candidate they wish, to provide support financial and otherwise,
The voters then choose between the two finalists.
I didn’t say that anyone has to recruit candidates. I suggested that if (1) you are dissatisfied with the lack of choices, and (2) you despise political parties, then you can always recruit some good independents to run.
Some people expect to be able to cling to their “independent” status AND participate in the parties’ candidate-selection process– even when the parties do not invite them to do so.
#17 Maybe I am satisfied with the choices offered among those candidates who have filed, but I am prevented from choosing from among them.
Imagine that you go to a debate before the primary, and ask one of the candidates, “If you are elected, will you seek repeal of the NNth Amendment?, and the candidate responded, “I think you are getting the cart before the horse here. I’m not actually seeking to become your congressman, but rather to become the nominee of our party. It is premature to speculate about what I would do if elected, before I have even been nominated.”
He would be laughed off the stage.
Or if you met a candidate as you walked out of a store, but he was of a different party, do you think he would ignore you, or tell you to contact him after the primary?
Of course not.
California current requires 2700 times as many signatures to run for Governor as an independent vs. a partisan candidate. They require more signatures for an independent than the combined registration of the Green and Peace & Freedom parties.
The political parties are free to support whoever they want to under Top 2. The State of California will even pay for distribution of sample ballots with their endorsed candidates. They can invite whoever they want to participate in the process of deciding which candidates, if any, that the party wishes to support.