A few weeks ago, the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce heard speakers on both sides of Proposition 14, the California “top-two” ballot measure. Here is a video of the exchange. The Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce ultimately resolved to remain neutral on the issue. The speaker in favor of Proposition 14 is Brandon Gesicki, who has been campaign manager for State Senator Abel Maldonado, the author of the measure. The opponent is Green Party activist Mike Feinstein, who was Mayor of Santa Monica in the past.
Excellent work Green Party National Co-Chair Mike Feinstein!
In 2006, the last election Washington election using major party primaries. There was one 3rd party candidate on the November election ballot for the legislature, Linde Knighton. She received 4.5% of the vote, the Republican received 13.3, and the Democrat 82.1%.
This was an open seat. In the other representative position and the senate seat, it was a 90-10 Democratic district.
Because it was an open seat, there were 6 candidates in the Democratic primary. All 6 Democratic candidates received more votes in the primary than Knighton received in the general election.
So what you ended up with was a representative chosen by 23.2% of the Democrats. Under a Top 2 system, you most likely would have had two Democrats in the general election, where the entire electorate could choose between them.
Alternatively, Knighton could have put her case forward as an alternative to those who were simply running as “Democrats” in a district where running to the left might have had more appeal than most districts.
BTW, Mike Feinstein claimed that the blanket primary used in 1998 and 2000 was what was meant by “open primary”. Was the Green Party involved at all in California Democratic Party v. Jones? The Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, and Peace & Freedom parties were formally involved, but what about the Green, American Independent, Reform, and Natural Law?
No, the Green Party was not involved in the California lawsuit.
Jim Riley always mentions that there were few minor party legislative candidates in Washington state in 2006, but he never adds that the minor parties put their resources in 2006 into their U.S. Senate campaigns.
#2: An organization that promoted the 1996 initiative for the blanket primary and the 2004 “top two” initiative was called Californians for an Open Primary. Sen. John McCain had a “pro” article on their Web site in 2004, in which he said, “My state of Arizona has an open primary.”
Arizona’s two major parties have semi-closed primaries, in which independents and registrants of unqualified parties are the only non-members who are eligible to vote. McCain evidently didn’t know the difference between that and the California “top two” proposal.
At some point after the Jones suit was filed, the Peace and Freedom Party lost its ballot-qualified status.
There was ONE minor party legislative candidate in 2006. A Few could be interpreted as two or three; and Few … candidates could be interpreted as even more.
I was not aware that the minor parties put all their resources into their senate campaigns in 2006. There is no mention of the 2006 senate election in BAN.
While googling I came across a blog from August 11, 2006 by a columnist for the Seattle Times, who noted that Richard Shepard had left a comment to one of his previous columns asking about the positions of the minor party candidates in the race (there was a Green and Libertarian). The columnist had then queried the two campaigns on the issue, as well as one Democratic challenger to Maria Cantwell. So apparently Richard Shepard at least thought the minor party candidates should be involved in the debate during the primary season.
At the time, Shepard was the campaign manager for the Libertarian senate campaign, and he was of course later the lawyer for the Libertarian Party in the Top 2 litigation.