This Los Angeles Times story mentions that the campaign in favor of California’s Proposition 14, the “top-two” ballot measure set for the June 8 ballot, has $2,800,000 on hand. Most of it was raised from wealthy individuals and large corporations, aided by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s fund for ballot issues. The story also mentions that the opponents have raised very little money, and therefore backers are optimistic.
There is a vigorous campaign against Proposition 14, carried on around the state in public meetings of civic groups, and in radio debates. In 2004, when another “top-two” measure was on the California ballot, opponents raised $600,000; proponents raised several million dollars; and the measure was defeated.
In 2004, you also had Proposition 60 proposed for the sole intent of wrong-footing Proposition 62.
There was virtually no money spent on either side for Prop. 60. People who don’t like Prop. 60 have alleged over and over that is was confusing. It is not confusing. It says, “A political party that participated in a primary election for a partisan office has the right to participate in the general election for that office and shall not be denied the ability to place on the general election ballot the candidate who received, at the primary election, the highest vote among that party’s candidates.”
It passed with 67.5%, the second highest showing for any California ballot measure dealing with election law in the history of the state. It shows that two-thirds of the people are not hostile to political parties.
Pingback: x factor 2009 categories | Google Sniper - What is it?
Studies I’ve seen (sorry it’s been so long I can’t cite them) showed that up to 1 million voters voted for both prop 60 and 62 (even though they conflicted).
Independent Voice supported Prop 62 and signed the ballot rebuttal argument for Prop 62. Yet my own brother called me up on election day from the polls to ask “now which one do I vote for? 60 or 62? Or both?”. When that happened I knew it was in real trouble.
Jason Olson
IndependentVoice.Org
The more dollars the better to pass Prop 14.
It DOES take $$$ to advance Democracy and to DOOM the party hacks.
P.R. and A.V. — NO primaries are needed.
#2 Does California statute provide that the candidate who receives the most votes in a party primary appear on the general election ballot? No. I suppose you could read to say that if the statute said the last place finisher would advance to the general election, the parties would have a constitutional right not to have that happen.
Does California have a direct primary for President as is promised in the amendment, No.
The sole purpose was to try to get more Yes votes than Proposition 62, so that because of the conflict, Proposition 62 would not take effect.
Look at Loni Hancock’s IRV proposal. It violates Proposition 60, and yet she is opposed to Proposition 14.
BTW, the Louisiana legislature confirmed its new Lieutenant Governor two days after the former Lieutenant Governor resigned. Didn’t Garamendi resign last November? It took almost 6 months in California. And then the duplicitous Democrats tried to deny the People of Senate District 15 representation for another 3 months.
“In 2004, when another “top-two†measure was on the California ballot, opponents raised $600,000; proponents raised several million dollars; and the measure was defeated.”
In 2004, the “top two” was supported by Schwarzenegger, Leon Panetta, ex-L. A. mayor Richard Riordan, and ex-Gov. Pete Wilson, among other big wigs.
And yet it still lost in 51 of the state’s 58 counties.
In 1915, California voters also defeated a “top two” measure. 58.2% voted “NO.”
I wonder how much George Soros has spent promoting a pseudo-reform called “instant runoff voting.” Whatever the amount is, it results in IRV getting a respectful hearing in the MSM while other, better alternatives to
FPTP are treated as if they didn’t exist.
#8: I sort of like IRV, at least for electing local officials.
But if George Sorry-os is promoting IRV, I may have to re-evaluate my position.
The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board in their usual fit of getting things wrong has endorsed Prop 14. I offered an op-ed as a counterpoint to their arguments, but naturally it was rejected.
It can be read here: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=372640718328&v=app_2373072738#!/topic.php?uid=372640718328&topic=14195
#10: Excellent piece, Mike.
Washington state first used the “top two” in 2008. For the first time since Washington attained statehood in 1889, there were no independent or small party candidates in the final election for any congressional or statewide state office.
And, of course, Washington’s “top two” is still facing federal litigation. There will be a trial in US district court in October 2010.
#11 In the last Washington election using Pick-A-Party in 2006, there was exactly ONE 3rd party candidate or independent on any legislative ballot, primary or general, in over 123 races.
In 2008, 5 such candidates qualified for the general election under the Top 2 Open Primary.