On March 22, the New York Times printed this op-ed, in favor of “top-two” primary systems, written by former Oregon Secretary of State Phil Keisling.
On March 27, the Times published three letters opposing “top-two”, which can be seen at this link. The three letters that are critical of the idea are from (1) Eric S. Maskin, a Nobel Laureate in Economics; (2) Linda Williams, chair of the Oregon Independent Party; (3) Rob Richie, chair of Fairvote. The Times, on the same day, carries two letters commenting on Thomas Friedman’s March 24 column in favor of Instant Runoff voting. Those two letters are from David A. Holtzman and Theresa Amato. The Amato letter mentions the need for ballot access reform.
Richard:
would you post your letter to NYT in response to Keisling oped?
Both Richie and Maskin agree that all voters should be allowed to vote for all candidates, but they instead push for IRV. Meanwhile Amato advocates opening up the ballot access laws.
What they will get if Proposition 14 is defeated is continuation of the same old same old. Proposition 14 would reduced the signature requirement for statewide office in California from 176,000 to 65.
In practice, IRV functions like a plurality election. Voters are often forced to guess which candidates will survive to the runoff or their vote will be discarded as “exhausted”. There are 23 partisan candidates for governor in California in 2008. There are multiple candidates for each party, except the Libertarians. If a Peace&Freedom voter were to use up his 3 votes on the 3 Peace&Freedom candidates, it would be the same as if he uses up his one vote on a single Peace&Freedom candidate in the fall. American Independent and Green voters might use up two of their votes on party candidates.
At the end of the day (or the night or weeks) what will matter is how many voters had enough insight to cast a vote for Jerry Brown or Meg Whitman.
Under a conventional Top 2 election, Brown and Whitman would face off in November and voters would know what their real choices were and not have to guess.
Linda Williams misrepresents the Top 2 system proposed in Oregon. Oregon, like California has party registration. Under the Top 2 proposal in Oregon, ballots would have included both party endorsement and party registration of candidates. Such a system would have permitted a party such as hers (Oregon Independent Party) to endorse candidates in the primary, especially in cases where no party members were running. Minor party legislative candidates are extremely rare in Oregon, and in many cases there are not even 2 candidates on the ballot. In 2008, there were fewer candidates per legislative race in Oregon than there were in neighboring Washington.
Under Proposition 14, California will have a similar system. Candidates will have their party registration appear on the ballot. In addition, a 10-year history of their party registration will appear on the Secretary of State website.
In addition, parties will be able to have a sample ballot with their endorsements distributed with the voter’s pamphlet. As in Oregon, they would not be restricted to endorsing party members. An ever increasing share of California voters are permanent by mail voters. Every election they receive a voters pamphlet and a ballot. This gives voters the opportunity to look over the candidates and the voters pamphlet and endorsements, and make their own choice.
Short editorial —
P.R. and nonpartisan A.V.
NO primaries are needed.
Keisling’s editorial just got national television coverage. Bob Schieffer used his end-of-show commentary on Face The Nation to talk about it and say that top-two primaries couldn’t be any worse than what we have now.
#2, paragraph 2: The signature requirement could be lowered without simultaneously screwing up the election system by imposing the “top two open primary” monstrosity.
“[In instant runoff voting] Voters are often forced to guess which candidates will survive to the runoff or their vote will be discarded as ‘exhausted.'”
Let’s apply that reasoning to the “top two open primary.” When someone votes for a candidate who does not reach the second round, that person’s vote is “exhausted.” He must then vote for the “lesser of the evils,” and both candidates may be from the same party. Such a voter is effectively disenfranchised in the final, deciding election.
#5 It coulda been changed, and perhaps it shoulda been changed, but it hasn’t been changed, has it.
Why hasn’t it??? John Burton really wanted it changed but his corporate puppet masters wouldn’t let him??? (John Burton is chair of the Califonia Democratic Party and served a total of 25 years in the legislature).
If the People approve Proposition 14 it will be done.
Let’s imagine that the voters of a district decide to choose a representative. There are lots of suggestions. Some have more support, some have less support. The voters support two candidates more than any other. Before the final decision is made there is additional debate before a final decision is made. It is certainly arrogant to claim that the candidates supported by the largest share of voters are “evil”.
What if it were an election to decide what would be served for breakfast. Some folks wanted biscuits and gravy. Some wanted grits. A few wanted moon pie. Is it really disenfranchisement if those who favored moon pie were given a second chance to help make a final decision?
Absolute support = YES/NO
Relative support = Number Votes
Too difficult for any marginal MORON voters to understand — since many know-it-all columnists are total MORONS ???
#6: A party’s faithful voters deserve to have a candidate from their party in the final, deciding election– not just in the preliminary round. And when the two final candidates are from the same party, that party is split.
A citizen certainly has the right to be an independent. But a citizen has no business forcing everyone else to behave like independents– which is what the “top two open primary” does. It takes away the parties’ ability to perform their basic function of officially nominating candidates for elective office.
BTW: Could those who favor Moon Pies get a Nehi Cola to go with it? And why didn’t you mention Stage Planks?
The Independent Party of Oregon took no position on the Open Primary, with two of the party’s top officers opposing and two of the party’s top officers playing an instrumental role in putting the measure on the ballot.
We have no data to suggest whether or not a majority of IPO members support the reform, but the majority of Oregon’s non-affiliated voters supported the measure in exit polling.
Sal Peralta
Secretary, Independent Party of Oregon
#8 Why do members of a private organization “deserve” to have a candidate on the ballot? They have the right to support a candidate, to vote for him and encourage others to vote for him. If that candidate receives a relatively small number of votes, why should he be involved in the final choice.
Do members of political parties also “deserve” to have their nominees elected?
The basic function of a political party is not to act as a quasi-state agency in the administration of elections. The basic function of a political party is to support the election of candidates who if elected office will govern in a manner that is consistent with the views of the political party.
Political parties don’t have a federal constitutional right to have have their nominees on the general election ballot. But according to Williams v Rhodes, US Term Limits v Thornton, Cook v Gralike, and other US Supreme Court cases, voters have a constitutional right to vote for anyone for Congress in November if that candidate meets the constitutional requirements to be a member of Congress and if the candidate has a modicum of voter support. Congress has said, since 1872, that congressional elections are in November. If states want to have a run-off when someone doesn’t get 50% in November, then they may do that in December. California’s Prop. 14 prevents voters from voting for such candidates for Congress in November, so it is unconstitutional. Munro v Socialist Workers Party, another US Supreme Court decision, says there is no constitutional distinction between a petition hurdle for getting on the November ballot, and a vote test prior to November, for getting on the November ballot. A 30% hurdle is too high to be constitutional. It tramples on the rights of voters who want to vote for someone in November who has a modicum of support, but not support so high as to place first or second at a preliminary election in June.
#10: It’s my opinion that a party’s faithful voters deserve to have a candidate in the final election.
48 states enable each party to have a candidate in the general election for all or most state offices.
49 states enable each party to have a candidate for each seat in the general election for the US Congress.
50 states and the District of Columbia enable each party to have a candidate in the general election for president.
So a great many people agree with me on this. Besides, why should the voters be limited to just two choices in the final, deciding election– both of whom may be from the same party?
Justice Scalia quoted a previous decision that said that nominating candidates is “a basic function” of a political party (California Democratic Party v. Jones).
#11: “California’s Prop. 14 prevents voters from voting for such candidates for Congress in November, so it is unconstitutional.”
The same is true of Washington state’s “top two.”
The ENTIRE nomination / election system is PUBLIC.
PUBLIC Electors nominating PUBLIC candidates for PUBLIC offices.
Sorry — NO mention in the Constitution of any minimum percentage of ALL Electors in a party hack group having a magic constitutional RIGHT to have *their* party hack nominees put on the PUBLIC ballots.
PUBLIC Electors electing some of the nominated PUBLIC candidates.
See the Texas White Primary cases in the Supremes in the late 1920s-1940s.
P.R. and A.V. — NO primaries are needed.
Nominations by EQUAL nominating petitions for ALL candidates for the same office in the SAME election area.
#11 You are over-expansively interpreting the US Supreme Court rulings.
In Williams v Rhodes, Ohio law provided primaries and access to the general election ballot for some political parties, but effectively denied it to any challengers. It was Ohio’s discretion whether or not to have partisan primaries and party nomination rights. But once they made that decision, then they were compelled to make the process available to challengers.
BTW, if California were to try to enforce your interpretation limiting party preferences of candidates to “qualified parties” they will lose based in part on Williams v Rhodes. If a candidate is qualified, has collected his 65 signatures, and paid the filing fee, there is absolutely no reason to deny the candidate his free speech right to express a preference for the political party he had already disclosed his preference for on his voter registration under penalty of perjury. At best California might be able to regulate against confusing, lengthy, or obscene names, and that there actually be a political party (eg ‘I Prefer Fluffy Clouds’ might not be allowed)
I don’t see how you think US Term Limits v Thornton applies. Getting more votes is not a “qualification” regulation. Arkansas sought to prevent certain candidates from attempting to get more votes – or made it hard for them to do so.
The only way I see Cook v Gralike applying is if the California Secretary of State tries to prevent a candidate from expressing his preference for the Constitution Party or Reform Party, assuming that he had previously disclosed it on his voter registration. Cook v Gralike is why California can not require a candidate to have his party preference on the ballot. But on the other hand it can compel a candidate to perjure himself by claiming to have no party preference when he previously disclosed a party preference on his voter registration.
Of course it was not until 90 years later that all elections were held in November. It is ill-defined what it means to be able to “choose” in November. In Foster v Love the Supreme Court did not even decide what would have happened if Louisiana had held an election in November with only one candidate on the ballot. Their problem was that the governor was signing certificates of election in October. I bet that Charlie Melancon and Rodney Alexander did not get their certificates of election until November 2008, even though there was no election held in November in their districts.
The Supreme Court since Smith v Allwright and Classic has decided that the primaries are part of the process by which Congress is elected. It must have known that primaries prevent certain candidates from being chosen in November.
In Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, Washington was placing party nominees on the general election ballot. Once Washington decided to have party nominees placed on the general election ballot it then had to justify the manner in which it decided which parties or candidates could appear on the ballot.
It isn’t just my interpretation that Prop. 14 won’t allow labels for all candidates. That is the interpretation of staff for Senator Abel Maldonado, the author of the bills, and it is also the interpretation of former State Senator Steve Peace, who wrote the bills, intending them to be an initiative, but there was no initiative because the legislature passed them.
Williams v Rhodes was not a political party rights case. No plaintiff in Williams v Rhodes was a political party. It is a voters’ rights case. Voters have a right to more than two choices in November.
#12 In essence you are saying that in some way, all states other than Washington,restrict participation in the political process on the basis of the political faith of voters (and even Washington violates this principle to some extent with respect to presidential elections).
The Top 2 Open Primary does not interfere with a political party’s candidate selection process.
If political parties want to kneecap other would-be candidates of that party, let them hire their own hit men in the private sector. Don’t expect the government to do it for them.
Jim Riley is wrong in stating that “Linda Williams misrepresents the Top 2 system proposed in Oregon.” First, he never even identifies anything she wrote (in her letter published in the New York Times) that was wrong. So it is difficult to respond to a charge of “misrepresentation,” when the misrepresentation is never identified. If the misrepresentation was failure to explain the “nomination/endorsement” system of Measure 65, keep in mind that the New York Times limits letters to 150 words (with few exceptions) and thus precludes complete explanations of lots of issues.
Second, the fact that Measure 65 would have allowed the parties to state their “endorsements” on the ballot does not redeem Measure 65. The parties would still have great incentive to run “ringers” (persons registered in the other parties) in order to split up the votes of members of the other parties so that none of their candidates win.
If Jim thinks that is overcome by the “endorsement” feature of Measure 65, then he must prefer backroom deals, out of the public eye, for selecting the winners of primary elections. To the extent that a party endorsement on the ballot is not influential with voters, then the “ringer” system remains unimpeded. If the party endorsement on the ballot is influential, it means that the decision of who advances from the primary election is to be made by the parties, in advance of the primary election, using whatever unregulated internal processes they wish to use (including secret backroom deals). Measure 65 provided no required process for the parties to use to decide whom to “endorse.” The party primary system was imposed by good government reformers in order to stop the backroom deals that parties used to nominate candidates for the general election ballot. Measure 65 would, at best, have regressed to that system.
As for Jim’s other statement about legislative races in Oregon not being competitive now, the new Independent Party alone ran 3 of its own candidates for the Oregon Legislature in 2008. They won 39%, 39%, and 29% of the votes in their districts in the general election. Under Measure 65, they probably would not have been on the general election ballot at all. As for uncontested races for the Legislature, there were 23 uncontested races in 2008 but will be at most only 1 Senate race and only 6 House races not contested by both major parties. There will be fewer than that, if either major party puts some effort into the write-in winner of its primary.
Oregon, like California has party registration. Under the Top 2 proposal in Oregon, ballots would have included both party endorsement and party registration of candidates. Such a system would have permitted a party such as hers (Oregon Independent Party) to endorse candidates in the primary, especially in cases where no party members were running. Minor party legislative candidates are extremely rare in Oregon, and in many cases there are not even 2 candidates on the ballot. In 2008, there were fewer candidates per legislative race in Oregon than there were in neighboring Washington.
Richard, the last paragraph of what I just posted above is an excerpt from Jim’s comment that I accidentally failed to delete. Would you delete it, please?
Also, in my paragraph about uncontested races, I failed to state that “but will be at most only 1 Senate race and only 6 House races not contested by both major parties” in 2010.
Also, Jim believes that Measure 65’s provision that a minor party can “endorse” candidates on the ballot is a good feature that perhaps would increase the competitiveness of elections in Oregon. But (thanks in part to the relentless lobbying of Sal Peralta, who commented above), the Oregon Legislature in 2009 largely adopted that feature by itself, without the disadvantageous parts of Measure 65.
Under Measure 65, the endorsement of a party would not appear on the ballot, unless it was accepted by the candidate in writing 61 or more days before the election. In Oregon now (under SB 326 of 2009), any candidate can accept the nomination of a minor party and have that party’s name appear next to her name on the general election ballot, even if she is also the nominee of a major party. In fact, she can list up to 3 parties next to her name (if she was in fact nominated by those 3 parties).
So the Measure 65 “endorsement” system was largely adopted by the Oregon Legislature in 2009, although Measure 65 would have allowed the candidate to list an unlimited number of party “endorsements” on the ballot and would have allowed each party to endorse an unlimited number of candidates in each race, both in the primary and in the general election. The Oregon Association of County Clerks testified in 2009, however, that their computer systems could not handle more than 3 party labels per candidate, so Measure 65 would have required every county in Oregon to purchase new voting systems in order to accommodate the “unlimited endorsements on the ballot” feature of Measure 65.
It is important to note, however, that under Measure 65 each major party would have an overwhelming incentive to endorse one, and only one, candidate in each race in the primary election. As only the top two vote-getters advance to the general election, endorsing more than one candidate would simply help to split the votes of the party’s adherents, thus making it far more likely that neither of the party’s endorsed candidates would advance.
Say the ballot for a race showed 4 Democrats (2 of them “endorsed” by that party), 2 Republicans (one of them “endorsed” by that party), and an Independent party member also endorsed by the Independent Party. Ignoring other factors, the likely winners would be the Republican and the Independent. Thus, the Democratic Party would almost certainly limit its endorsements to one per race, as would the Republican Party, thus moving the selection process from the primary into an unregulated internal party process.
#15 Why does the staff of Senator Maldonado interpret it that way?
Perhaps they don’t believe that voters have a right to register with non-qualified parties? But California law treats voters registered with non-qualified parties as distinct from those who are DTS voters. It tabulates them distinctly and it prevents them voting in partisan primaries. There is no way for party registration to be changed other than by the registrant. It is pretty far fetched to believe that a voter could be found to have perjured himself on the basis of his political party, such that his registration might be invalidated. It presumes that the party registration will remain the same if a party become unqualified, and that a voter may register with a party before the SOS is notified of its existence.
SCA 14 clearly expresses the intent that existing party registration will remain the same while being recast as a disclosure of party preference. Don’t Californian have a constitutional right to disclose a preference for a political party even if that preference is not as popular?
SB 6 defines the party preference of a candidate to be the same as disclosed on his party preference. It didn’t have to make that definition, but it did (Proposition 62 in 2004 did not have this 100% alignment, and so it must be presumed that Steve Peace and Abel Maldonado deliberately omitted that language). They knew how to restrict a candidate’s party preference, but left out the language that would do so.
Everything about what appears on the ballot with regard to party preference is based on the candidate’s party preference. He is given the choice of having his preference or nothing at all.
SCA 14 says that a voter may participate in a primary without regard to his party preference. Clearly a voter can not be excluded on the basis of his preference for an unqualified party. And since the right to candidacy is an extension of the right to vote, there is the same freedom for candidates to prefer an unqualified party and the State may not restrict voting for a candidate on that basis (with regard to his party preference).
#17 This is the misrepresentation in Linda Williams letter to the editor:
Phil Keisling, a former Oregon secretary of state, sponsored a “top-two†primary measure that … would have allowed parties to advance their candidates to the general election by using “ringers†to split the primary votes of the other parties.
Anyone could register with any party and appear on the primary ballot with that party’s label. For example, Republicans could recruit people to register and file as Democratic candidates and thereby split up the Democratic vote and stop any of them from finishing in the top two. Democrats could follow the same strategy.
The problem with that strategy was that ballot would have also carried the party endorsement. Are voters in Oregon so stupid that they would simply vote for someone because it said Registration: Zombie ? “Wow he’s a Zombie just like me, must vote for him.”
In California, the sample ballot would provide endorsement information from the political parties. Since this would be before the primary, the political parties could endorse candidates who were affiliated with other parties. Under a traditional confusion system, the parties can only cross-endorse the nominee of another party after the primary.
Do you think that the Oregon teachers union was opposed to Proposition 65 for any other reason that they had outsize influence in primaries. They could choose a favored candidate and endorse him, and encourage their members to vote. Independent voters were excluded. Less organized voters would split more or less randomly among several candidates. The union-favored candidate would win the nomination and then would be elected. The opposing candidate who might have attracted the most support from the public at large was barred from the general election.
In 2008, there were 60 House districts in Oregon. 38 had 2 candidates, including 33 which were D v. R races; 19 unopposed candidates, or 32% of districts; and 3 districts where the voters had 3 choices. That is a total of 104 candidates in 60 districts or 1.73 candidates per district.
There were 16 senate races. 8 had 2 candidates, and 8 had unopposed candidates. 24 candidates in 16 races is 1.50 per race.
Overall: 128/76 or 1.68 candidates per race, with only 2.3% of races with 3 choices.
Looking at the primary races, it appears that many or so one party lopsided, challengers have simply given up. Under a Top 2 primary, a challenger might be able to qualify as a Write-in candidate. They most likely would not win, but they probably would have demonstrated that there were many voters who had not bought into the one-party system, and encourage better organized and funded challengers.
In the three districts where the OIP had candidates, in the primary there was a D+R in one primary; 1 D in another; and 2Rs in the 3rd. Presumably the OIP could have finished at least second in the district with only one primary candidate.
I don’t know what happened in the D+R district since the Republican dropped out before the general (is this common in Oregon, I think there were 3 House races where that happened?). Since the OIP candidate got 39% of the vote, he might have qualified in a 3-way primary. Alternatively, he got 39% of the vote because there was no R candidate in an otherwise competitive district.
In the race with 2 Rs, if the OIP candidate had finished 3rd it would be because it was an overwhelming Republican district, but all the voters would have been able to choose which Republican represented the district rather than simply voting for the not-Republican OIP candidate. If the Republican candidates had campaigned as if it were a R-only primary and treated Democrats and independent voters as hecklers, the OIP candidate could have finished second.
Of the 7 non-Democrat-or-Republican candidates in 2008, 5 of them were the second candidate in the district. Only 2 of them represented a 3rd choice.
In the primary, 76% of Democrats voted (there was also the presidential primary that day); 56% of Republicans; 29% of Non-affiliated voters; 33% of Other Parties. In the general election, the numbers were Democrats 89%, Republicans 88%, NAV 76%, Others 77%. So there was effectively huge disenfranchisement of independent voters by Oregon’s system of major party primaries.
#20 Under the Oregon (con)fusion law, candidates have to be nominated before another party may endorse them. It would be like the Democrats and Republicans had taken over the courthouse, and locked out everyone else and made their decisions in private. After they had decided their winners, the other parties could decide that the Democrats and Republicans had not made too much of mistake.
Under Proposition 65, the endorsements could have been made in the primary where they would have the most effect. In 2008, 3rd parties only had 8 candidates of their own (of 76 races). Their endorsement might have been influential in other races.
If the Oregon election systems could not accommodate more than 3 endorsements per candidate, the simpler solution would be to let the candidate choose which 3. Proposition 65 was not immutable.
#21 Incumbents generally don’t draw challengers from their own party.
In some cases the challenger will be an outsider, and won’t be much of a threat. In any case the party will endorse the incumbent or provide enough support to defeat the challenger.
In other cases, the incumbent may have been too independent, and the hyper-partisans in the politburo might recruit a challenger to primary him. If it is a competitive district, they might not do it, since they risk losing the seat. They would rather have someone who is with them most of the time, than someone who is with them none of the time. If it is a one-party district, they will be more likely to take the risk. They might endorse the challenger, or they might endorse both candidates, but support the challenger. In any case it doesn’t matter that there are two candidates from the party.
If the seat is not held by the party, they may have a hard time recruiting more than one candidate. If you are likely to get beat 70-30 in the general, you probably aren’t willing to commit much of your funds to the race, and you will have a hard time getting others to contribute. If the district is reasonably competitive, there is not much risk having two challengers, the incumbent party will avoid having two candidates.
That leaves the open seats, where an incumbent has been term-limited, retired, or is attempting to switch to another office. If it is a one-party district, you are going to have several candidates. They know that whoever wins the primary, will probably hold the seat until they are term-limited or voluntarily leave. If the weaker party does have two candidates they are unlikely to finish 1 2.
In a more competitive district, there may be multiple candidates from both parties. And there might be rare instances where both are from the same party. But the more independent candidate is likely to win the general election, especially if he can get endorsements from the defeated candidates.
#15 Williams v Rhodes was about equal protection.
Under the Top 2 Open Primary all voters have an equal opportunity to participate in the primary election and associate with other voters in supporting candidates for office. The barrier to entry is minimal (especially compared to the current system).
However, under the Peace-Maldonado.staff-Winger interpretation of party preferences, voters who supported a candidate who preferred a small party would be denied equal protection. While they could vote for him, he would not be able to have his true party preference appear on the ballot. This is every bit as disabling as the required pledges that were outlawed in Cook v Gralike.
If Proposition 14 gets challenged on political association grounds, the State is going to argue that the political preference of a candidate is just another piece of information that voters may consider along with the designation and other information about the candidates, and that it does not represent and endorsement or nomination by a political party. You don’t want a Justice asking you if it doesn’t represent a “nomination” why is it limited to “nomination-qualified” parties?
So even if your interpretation of SB 6 is correct, it gets overturned on constitutional grounds. It violates SCA 4 because it makes a distinction with regard to political preference of voters and candidates, and it violates equal protection and the right to free speech.
It should be noted that, in November 2008, just under 66 percent of Oregon voters had the good sense to defeat M65, the “top two” monstrosity. M65 lost in every single county.
#16: It’s perfectly reasonable for a political party to be able to control its own candidate-selection process. As the US Supreme Court has said, parties have “the freedom to identify the people who constitute the association, and to limit the association to those people only.”
“The Top 2 Open Primary does not interfere with a political party’s candidate selection process.”
A party can nominate//endorse candidates in advance of the “top two open primary,” but there is no legal way for the party to prevent unendorsed candidates from the same party from running in the “top two” anyway and splitting the vote. Thus the “top two” may prevent the party from uniting behind one candidate.
A party could even conduct its own primary in advance of the “top two.” That would be highly unlikely, however, since the party would have to pay for the primary. Hence the party’s nominee(s) would be chosen by a less democratic method.
In Louisiana’s “top two open primary,” there have been instances of the national party and the state party supporting opposing candidates. This happened with the Republicans in the 1991 governor’s race, e. g., and neither candidate made the runoff.
“If political parties want to kneecap other would-be candidates of that party…”
Any candidate who fails to win a party’s nomination is considered to have been “kneecapped” by that party??????
# 26 How about having the candidates list on the ballots what color they like most ???
Communist RED for most Donkeys, Fascist BLUE for most Elephants, etc. ??? — regardless of the MORON red/blue color switch in the 1990s on the internet.
— or even other stuff — what fast food each candidate loves or hates, etc. (with resulting lawsuits from business folks, etc.)
See the ballots used in nations having lots of folks who can NOT read — party / candidate symbols, pictures of candidates, etc.
Dan – Al 3 IPO candidates would have been in the general election final under a top 2 system as there were only 2 candidates in any of those legislative races.
Also, saying that a political party deserves to have its candidates in the final is like saying that a country deserves to have its athletes in the finals in an Olympic event, regardless of their actual performance.
Political parties have a right to control their own nomination process, but they should not have a right to prevent voters from participating in the process that determines who actually makes the general election ballot.
Also, Dan is simply mistaken in his comments about the endorsement process. The bill we passed in the Oregon legislature only allows candidates to list multiple party nominations in the general election. Measure 65 allowed it in both the primary and the general election. A superior system, in my view.
#27 Proposition 14 does not interfere with the right of voters to politically associate for purposes of supporting candidates or issues.
Voters are free to support and vote for who they want. Just because two persons support different candidates does not mean that they are “split”.
You are correct. You or anyone else can not prevent someone from running for office. You can vote for them, vote for someone else, or ignore them. You have no right to impose the power of the State to prevent them from running for office.
#28 In the oral arguments for the Washington Grange case, it was mentioned that at one time candidates could have 5 words of their choosing appear on the ballot. Under that system, a candidate could have included a color, or which fast food they preferred.
Almost all voters in Washington vote by mail, and the voters pamphlet distributed with ballots does include pictures of the candidate. I would expect that many voters use the pamphlet as they complete their ballot.
#29, second paragraph: You bring up sports competition. What if the two Super Bowl teams were from the same conference? Suppose two teams from the same league played each other in the World Series.
Third paragraph: I fail to see how political parties are preventing voters from participating. In California, for example, independents have their choice of either major party’s primary. And a voter may change his registration up until 15 days before the primaries.
States did not begin requiring parties to hold primaries until the early 1900s. When a party nominates by convention or caucus, for example, grassroots voters can only vote directly in the general election.
A voter who steadfastly refuses to register with a party has no business participating in that party’s candidate-selection process– unless the party invites him to do so.
#31, paragraph 2: I realize that you don’t give a damn about political parties. But the way a party system is supposed to work is that each party chooses its candidate(s) for the general election– usually through a party primary– and then each party unites behind its nominees in the general election. The time for party splits is during the nominating process, NOT during the final election campaign.
Of course, in the “top two open primary,” everyone might just as well be an independent, which is obviously why you’re so crazy about that monstrosity. You would just as soon abolish political parties altogether.
Paragraph 3: You seem to be saying that someone who loses a party’s nomination should nevertheless be allowed to run in the general election. The big majority of the states, to be sure, prohibit this with “sore loser” laws, which the courts apparently consider to be constitutional.
Does Texas have a “sore loser” law? If so, why don’t you file suit against it?
#31: Maybe I’m wrong about you not giving a damn about political parties. After all, you did vote in a party primary on March 2, which means that you signed a statement that you agreed with that party’s principles.
#31, paragraph 2: In an earlier comment on Texas’s special election for US senator, you stated that two candidates “split the liberal vote.”
So you clearly do believe that like-minded citizens do sometimes split their votes among more than one candidate.
#34 The purpose of an election is so the voters collectively choose who represents them.
Voters may organize to support or recruit candidates. If the organization is a political party, members are still free to make an independent decision as whether or not to support or vote for the candidates endorsed by the party.
If two candidates seek your endorsement, you should be able to keep the one who you don’t endorse off the ballot – and you want the State of Mississippi to enforce this?
#35 The signature roster included the following statement:
“A person commits a criminal offense if the person knowingly votes in a primary election or participates in a convention of a party after having voted in a primary election or participated in a convention of another party during the same voting year.”
I may or may not have read this at the time. I was signing to indicate I was who I said I was.
The ballot included the following statement:
“I am a (insert appropriate political party) and understand that I am ineligible to vote or participate in another political party’s primary election or convention during this voting year.”
I voted on a DRE device, so the above was on the first screen after signing in and choosing my language.
#36 If they were of a like mind, they would have voted the same. Perhaps they were of a similar mind.
Elections have important purposes other than choosing office-holders. Elections are a way for citizens and residents of our nation to talk to each other about policy. The general election campaign season in even-numbered years is the prime time for this.
#37: Independents and small party candidates usually know that they have little or no chance of getting elected, but they often make valuable contributions to the dialogue in the general election campaign.
When a small party’s message is kept out of the final, deciding election campaign, the party loses its main reason for existing (the “top two open primary,” of course, makes it nearly impossible for independents and small party candidates to reach the runoff).
“… you should be able to keep the [candidate] who you don’t endorse off the ballot – and you want the State… to enforce this?”
You say that the State has no business preventing candidates who lose a party’s nomination from nevertheless running in the general election.
And yet you are a fanatical advocate of the “top two open primary” abomination, in which the State prohibits all first-round candidates who finish third or lower from appearing on the final election ballot (this is almost certainly unconstitutional for congressional elections, but I digress).
Please explain your hypocritical position.
As I’ve suggested several times previously: If you’re going to advocate nonpartisan elections, you should promote a “top three” or a “top four.” Then the voters would at least have more choices in the final, deciding election.
But you’re now stuck with defending “Maldonado’s Folly,” which arbitrarily limits the voters to just two choices in the final election.
#38 The purpose of an election is to choose an office-holder (or to decide policy matters via ballot measures).
It is true that elections can be used as a vehicle for debate about policy as well. Your position appears to be that candidates from the same party only differ in personality, and offer nothing in the way of ideas.
But what will happen in the Open Primary when these candidates campaign with “I have the whitest smile”, “I have a better hair cut.” or the negative “His tie is too wide”. When asked about ideas, they will exclaim, “it is summer time, no time for idea, let’s head to the beach!”