See this 6-minute segment of the show “Colbert Nation”, broadcast the night of April 29 on Comedy Central network. California’s Lieutenant Governor, Abel Maldonado, author of Proposition 14, appeared on the show to make the case for his measure. The segment opens with a news clip about the Florida U.S. Senate race, and then leads into Maldonado’s appearance.
A sophisticated viewer who watches the segment will realize that Colbert was making fun of Proposition 14. The Sacramento Bee has already written up the segment and says that Colbert ‘endorsed’ the measure. See this story. The Bee understands that Colbert was being tongue-in-cheek, because the story puts “endorsed” in quotes. Nevertheless, it is unusual, and perhaps unprecedented, for Colbert to have a guest who speaks for a ballot measure, and if anyone wishes to ask the show to invite someone from the other side, the show can be reached at 212-649-6200.
| The Colbert Report | Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| California’s Proposition 14 – Abel Maldonado | ||||
|
||||
Dear Abel, Get rid of the white socks!
I sent them an email suggesting that they get some one else to explain why the proposition is a bad idea, even suggested Richard. Will try and send them a phone call as well.
John Burton would be an ideal guest, if the show decides to do any more on Prop 14. Colbert could bill him as the ferocious “party boss”, since he is chair of the California Democratic Party. Then he could make fun of Burton’s lack of real power. The idea that California has political bosses is a joke.
Maybe Colbert could have Burton and Ron Nehring make a joint appearance wearing tuxedos that are stitched together. Colbert could ask Burton a question about Proposition 14. Nehring would turn away and fold his arms. After Burton had answered, Colbert would ask Nehring. Burton would turn away and fold his arms, and Nehring would give the identical word for word answer.
BTW, I liked how Maldonado’s message was simple: under the Top 2 Open Primary all voters are permitted to vote for the candidate of their choice.
#4: “… under the Top 2… all voters are permitted to vote for the candidate of their choice.”
That’s true of the preliminary round, the purpose of which is to simply winnow the field of candidates. The price that voters pay for this ‘choice’ is that they are limited to just two candidates in the final, deciding election– both of whom may be from the same party.
#5 This will generally ensure majority support for the candidate that is elected, which means that electorate collectively is making a choice.
If you have a plurality election and a candidate with 25% us elected, the electorate as whole has not made a choice, but merely indicated preferences.
Do you know of an instance where someone has been elected with 25%? The lowest percentage with which a governor has ever been elected in the U. S. is a little over 30%.
The voice of the majority is the Voice of God!!
#7 It is possible if you have plurality nomination. The candidate might receive a larger share of votes in the general, but the voters weren’t necessarily choosing that candidate.
#8: You said “the candidate that is elected,” not nominated. I was speaking of final, deciding elections.
It’s certainly preferable for the winner of a party primary to get 50%-plus. But a plurality winner of a party primary almost always has more people voting for him than the winner of a convention nominaton who gets 50%-plus of the delegate votes.