Political Vanguard, a California blog by Tom Del Beccaro, has this column pointing out the logical inconsistencies, and the errors, in recent California newspaper editorials endorsing Proposition 14, the “top-two” measure.
Political Vanguard, a California blog by Tom Del Beccaro, has this column pointing out the logical inconsistencies, and the errors, in recent California newspaper editorials endorsing Proposition 14, the “top-two” measure.
I am shocked, shocked, that the California’s fringe (aka MSM) media are using untrue and illogical reporting supporting Prop 14 — just as they did and continue to do regarding Obama 2008 nbc eligibility scheme.
The reason that fewer voters vote in June is because there is a presumption that there is no contest worth voting for. Then the Republicans and Democrats sneak out and choose the county supervisors and city councils.
The unions like the current system because they can do a better get out the vote effort in the primaries than individual candidates can, and the official party hierarchy doesn’t want to appear that it is taking sides.
Under modern partisan laws, the Whigs would not have been permitted to run as Republicans for a couple of years. The Republicans might not have been able to petition on the ballot (remember in Illinois it is often harder to qualify for the nomination of a new party than it is for an existing party). And you quite well the Whigs would have been challenging all of the petitions.
In Louisiana, many candidates have freely switched from one party to the other. Rodney Alexander did it days before the filing deadline. So all the Whigs in Illinois could simply have switched parties if it were a Top 2 Open Primary. If it were like Washington, Abraham Lincoln could simply have said “I prefer the Republican Party”. In California, he would have had to change his registration. His registration history as a Whig would have been posted on the SOS’s website, and he could have explained why he was running as a Republican.
If today’s ballot access laws existed in 1854, the year the Republican Party was formed, the party certainly would have had trouble getting on the ballot in certain states. One of them would have been Texas, where a petition to qualify a party cannot proceed if that group didn’t inform the state during the first week in January that it intends to qualify. The Republican Party was formed on July 6, 1854, after the Kansas-Nebraska was signed into law in May 1854.
Jim is right to criticize today’s ballot access laws. But under California’s Prop. 14, no Republicans could have filed for office under any label, not even “Whig”, in July 1854, because California’s Prop. 14 shuts the door to all candidates who don’t enter the race in mid-March.
I’m making 2 points here: California’s Prop. 14 would have blocked Republicans; and Texas’ current law also would have blocked Republicans. Jim Riley lives in Texas but he never seems to lift a finger to ease Texas’ horribly rigid ballot access laws.
#3 Texas held its congressional elections on August 6, 1855, so the Republican Party would have had plenty of time to qualify. The date for filing candidacy declarations is based on the time of the election, and not a fixed time. Texans elected one Democrat and one third party candidate.
The Democratic and Whig party would have been qualified parties in 1854 in California. There were 5 Democratic candidates, 3 affiliated with the Broderick faction and 2 against. There were no Republicans in the 1854 congressional election. And under Proposition 14, candidate may express a preference for a non-qualified party.
#2: “In Louisiana, many candidates have freely switched from one party to the other. Rodney Alexander did it days before the filing deadline.”
Alexander was first elected to Congress as a Democrat in a close race. Two years later, he again qualified as a Democrat. Then, on the day of the filing deadline, he re-qualified, this time as a Republican! It was, of course, too late for the Democrats to come up with a major candidate.
Gov. Buddy Roemer, elected as a Democrat, switched to the Republicans in March 1991 and was defeated for re-election later that year.
State Sen. Mike Foster, age 65 and a lifelong Democrat, switched to the Republicans in September 1995 and was elected governor a month or so later. Sort of like joining the church one Sunday and then getting elected chairman of the board of deacons the next Sunday.
This is one of the consequences of Louisana’s long use of the “top two” (“open primary”). Parties don’t mean much… everyone might just as well be an independent.
I don’t believe in blind party loyalty, but parties should mean more than they do in the “top two open primary.”
#3: “Jim Riley lives in Texas but he never seems to lift a finger to ease Texas’ horribly rigid ballot access laws.”
I keep wondering when Jim is going to tell the first Texas legislator about the glories of his cherished “top two open primary.”
The reason that fewer voters vote in June is because there is a presumption that there is no contest worth voting for. Then the Republicans and Democrats sneak out and choose the county supervisors and city councils.
The unions like the current system because they can do a better get out the vote effort in the primaries than individual candidates can, and the official party hierarchy doesn’t want to appear that it is taking sides.
Under modern partisan laws, the Whigs would not have been permitted to run as Republicans for a couple of years. The Republicans might not have been able to petition on the ballot (remember in Illinois it is often harder to qualify for the nomination of a new party than it is for an existing party). And you quite well the Whigs would have been challenging all of the petitions.
In Louisiana, many candidates have freely switched from one party to the other. Rodney Alexander did it days before the filing deadline. So all the Whigs in Illinois could simply have switched parties if it were a Top 2 Open Primary. If it were like Washington, Abraham Lincoln could simply have said “I prefer the Republican Party”. In California, he would have had to change his registration. His registration history as a Whig would have been posted on the SOS’s website, and he could have explained why he was running as a Republican.
#2 In Louisiana, many candidates have freely switched from one party to the other. Rodney Alexander did it days before the filing deadline.
WTF is the point of having political parties if candidates just hop around them like they’re deciding which handbag goes with their outfit on that particular day?
#7, even states that use top-two have far higher turnout in November than in the first round. No state can escape the fact that Congress has made November the election day for federal office for the entire nation. Thus, in Washington state, the August 19, 2008 primary saw 1,442,457 votes cast for Governor, but the November 2008 general election had 3,002,862 votes cast for Governor. That’s more than twice as many votes cast in Washington in the general, even under a top-two system, than were cast in the top-two primary.
Richard: Comment #7 is a spam of comment #2.
That’s been happening quite a bit here in the last few days.
#9 7% more voters participated in the 2008 general election than did in 2004. This clearly must be because the two candidates were nominated by a Top 2 Open Primary vs. the old party primary system.
Everyone knows national turnout in November 2008 was higher than it was in November 2004, because Barack Obama’s nomination in 2008 stimulated millions of past non-voters to decide to vote. In the nation, 131,313,820 votes were cast for President in November 2008, compared to only 122,295,345 in November 2004.
It should be noted, too, that in Washington state, the final choice for governor was the same in 2008 as in 2004: Christine Gregoire vs. Dino Rossi.
#13 This proves that it is the method of nomination that is important, and not who is nominated.