The Los Angeles Times has this op-ed, criticizing California’s Proposition 14, written by Mike Feinstein, Green Party leader and former Mayor of Santa Monica.
This is not in the print version of the Los Angeles Times, but is on the web. This is the first content in that newspaper that is critical of Proposition 14, since February 2009. Back in February 2009, virtually no one was aware of the measure. Meanwhile, virtually every news article in the Times has been heavily slanted in favor of Proposition 14; the newspaper has editorialized several times in favor of Proposition 14; and the newspaper has run op-eds in favor of Proposition 14.
Where are those eds and op-eds for P.R. and App.V. saying that NO primaries are needed ???
Its a travesty that that organization claiming to represent the interests of independents is supporting this garbage. Narrowing the field who can make it to the general election will make it even harder (as if it wasn’t like climbing everest) for independent candidates to ever get elected. They should be ashamed.
Solomon (#2), even according to its backers, the point of Prop 14 isn’t to help independent candidates get elected. The point is to make corporate money more effective in determining which representatives of the two major parties get elected. When the backers say “independent” and “moderate” they really mean “pro-business”.
Weinstein doesn’t appear to have understood his high school civics lesson. If the purpose of elections is to decide who represents the people in government; then shouldn’t the people simply vote for which candidate they prefer and the candidate with the most votes be elected?
That is what Proposition 14 would provide. The names of all candidates would appear on the primary ballot, and each voter would vote for whom he would prefer to represent them. The two candidates with the most support would then face off in the general election. Supporters of the two candidates could reconsider their initial choice. Supporters of other candidates in the primary, could still participate in the final decision. The electorate as whole would make a collective decision.
#2 Louisiana, the state with the longest experience with an open primary, has a larger share of independents in its legislature, elected as independents than any other state with a partisan legislature but one, Virginia.
Under the current law in California, an independent candidate for statewide office, such as governor, senator, or insurance commissioner needs over 173,000 signatures to get on the ballot. If we exclude the 2003 recall election, which had special rules; and presidential elections, where the candidate may be able to marshal support from other States, there has not been a statewide independent candidate on the ballot in California since 1978 when Ed Clark ran for governor.
Of the 1043 general election US representative races going back to 1964, only 9 have featured an independent candidate. To run for US representative requires on average 9000 signatures.
Proposition 14 would reduce the number of signatures for all candidates regardless of party to 65 for statewide office, and 40 for distriot offices such as the legislature or US representative.
Jim (#5), how long do you expect the new petition requirements (40-65) to last?
#4, who says the only purpose of elections is to determine office-holders? Elections have multiple purposes. Furthermore, Prop. 14 doesn’t just cover representatives; it covers executive posts.
Probably every single person who reads this blog realizes that the California independent candidate petition requirements are way too hard. That is why it is encouraging that some of the proponents of Prop. 14 say that if it uses, they will go on a big campaign to lower those petition requirements, both lobbying and with a lawsuit.
You live in Texas, a state with ghastly independent candidate petition requirements for statewide office. Texas had never had an independent candidate on a government-printed ballot for Governor, until 2006. Texas has never had an independent candidate on a government-printed ballot for U.S. Senate (except in special elections, when no petition is needed). I know that Texas independent candidate requirements for U.S. House, oddly, are reasonable, only 500 signatures. If you live in Texas and you have never complained to any state legislator about the horrible Texas statewide independent petition, if you have never written a letter to the editor about those horrible requirements, if you have never called in to a talk show to complain about them, then why are you so upset about those California independent requirements? If you can’t come up with any example of your own activism in your own state against requirements (measured by how many times they have been used) that are worse than California’s, then how can we take you seriously?
#4: “[In the “top two open primary”] The electorate as a whole would make a collective decision.”
That’s what general elections are for.
In the “top two,” the voter gets to choose among all the candidates in the preliminary round, the purpose of which is simply to winnow the field to two candidates. But the price that the voter pays is that he only has two choices in the final round, both of whom may be from the same party. Why should the voter be limited to just two choices in the deciding election?
Your state of Texas has true open primaries, in which each voter picks a party on primary day, and you have called this system a “gulag.” And yet you have never contacted the first state legislator about rescuing you and your fellow Texans from this “gulag.” You have never told the first legislator about the glories of your cherished “top two open primary” (Arnold’s and Abel’s Monstrosity).
Richard Winger asks: “Who says the only purpose of elections is to determine office-holders? Elections have multiple purposes. Furthermore, Prop. 14 doesn’t just cover representatives; it covers executive posts.”
In his op-ed Michael Feinstein (my apologies for misspelling his last name) wrote: “When most Americans took high school civics, we were taught that the purpose of elections was to represent the people in government.”
Clearly Feinstein was using “represent” in a broader sense than simply to mean a representative in a legislature. And the primary purpose of an election is indeed for the people to make a collective determination as to who represents them.
You may be confusing secondary effects of elections which some politicians may exploit, with the purpose.
Did you mean “loses” instead of “uses”?
#6 The qualification standard (65) is the same as is used for the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Richard Winger might know how long that threshold has been in effect. California has relatively low thresholds for county and city offices as well.
#8 In most elections only one candidate is elected. Since the purpose of the election is to determine which one it is a pragmatic and rational process to winnow the field to a final two two.
“Since the purpose of the election is to determine which one it is a pragmatic and rational process to winnow the field to a final two two.”
Says who? You? Who are you?
A final two is completely arbitrary, unimaginative, boring, lazy, and ignorant and is hardly rational and even less pragmatic. Why not a final 3? Or 4? Or 5? Why not a final 10 in a 5 member district? That’s a lot less arbitrary and a lot more representative than a top two corporate owned, bought and paid for in the June free for all with only a 25% turnout final two.
Jim (#10), I was confusing nomination signatures with signatures in lieu of filing fees. SB 6 doesn’t appear to alter the existing filing fees (1% of salary for most offices) or the existing signature in lieu requirements. I haven’t looked this up, but I don’t think that 40 and 65 are all that different from the existing requirements for partisan offices, provided you can pay the filing fee.
#11: “Since the purpose of the election is to determine which one [is elected,] it is a pragmatic and rational process to winnow the field to a final two…”
As Jeff says in #12, and as I have suggested several times previously: If you’re going to promote nonpartisan elections, you could at least advocate a “top three” or a “top four,” in order to give the voters more choices in the final, deciding election.
But, of course, you’re stuck with Proposition 14, which would only leave two candidates standing in the final election– both of whom may be from the same party.
As to your statement about the purpose of an election: There are a number of such purposes, one of which is to “send a message.” Since 1988, I, for example, have been voting for third-party presidential candidates, knowing full well that they had no chance of being elected.
Click here and see especially “History” and “Louisiana System.”
This was written during the 2004 “top two open primary” initiative campaigns in California and Washington state.
FLUSH 14!!
#12,14 I don’t know of any instances in which two-stage election process is used to determine a single officeholder or a single nominee, where more than two candidates qualify for the second stage.
There are of course elections where multiple persons are elected, in which the first stage winnows the field to a Top 2 N candidates (eg if there are 3 seats, the Top 6 qualify in the primary for the general election).
California does not have multi-seat elections for statewide office, congress, the board of equalization or the legislature.
#13. For candidates seeking the nomination of qualified parties, the signature limits are the same as for candidates in a non-partisan elections. The political parties have recognized that if they set high limits, it results in a lot of wasted effort for their candidates.
I believe the number of in lieu signatures varies between parties. I’m not sure what the case is for California requiring more in lieu signatures from a poor Republican than a wealthy Peace and Freedom candidate.
For statewide office, the number of in lieu signatures is 10,000 (or 10% of registered party voters for smaller parties). In lieu signatures are not restricted to party members, while those to actually qualify for the ballot are. This really doesn’t seem that significant. If you can gather 10,000 signatures from the general electorate, it shouldn’t be that difficult to get 65 from your own party.
They say in the commercials FOR Prop 14 that it opens up the process when it fact this is nothing but a power grab for the wealthiest that would rule out smaller parties. Vote NO on Prop. 14.
Jim (#16), in a closed or semi-closed primary, defining a petition requirement as a percentage of voters implies different numbers of signatures based on party registration. Both poor and wealthy Republicans have many potential signers they can try to contact. Both poor and wealth Peace and Freedom candidates have fewer people eligible to sign for them.
#18 In lieu signatures may be gathered from any eligible voter, regardless of party affiliation.
Nonetheless, the number of signatures is based on the number of voters registered with the party.
Jim (#19), not under current law. For partisan offices, in lieu signatures have to be from voters registered with the party. I know this because I have helped get my party’s candidates on the ballot by collecting in lieu signatures for them.
If what you say is correct about Prop 14/SB 6, then that might (or might not) be considered a glitch.
#20 The law is written in a curious manner, and I had misread the instructions on the SOS website.
Republicans or Democrats need 10,000 in lieu signatures for statewide office; but they need not be from party members. Lesser numbers are needed for district offices, but proportionately much larger (1,500 for Assembly)
Minor party candidates need 10% of the registered voters of the party or 150, whichever is smaller. These must be from party members. Because of the 150 threshold, statewide candidates only need 150 in lieu signatures. For the American Independent Party, the 150 also applies to all legislative districts because of its larger districts. For the smaller parties, the 150 minimum applies in most senate districts, but in most assembly districts the 10% applies.
I think when I read it the first time I didn’t realize the 150 minimum applied to all elections, even statewide elections, so I was thinking a party with 70,000 registrants would need 7000 signatures rather than 10,000.
It appears that minor party candidates may choose which threshold they want to use (the law says “may”) so they could get 1500 signatures from any voter in an assembly district OR 50 to 150 from party members in their district (where the number would be 10% or close to it of party members in the district).
If there are only 1000 party registrants in an assembly district that has 200,000 voters, it might be easier to get 1500 from 200,000 than 100 from 1000. Of course it would probably be easiest to collect empty pop cans to pay the $950 filing fee.
Having different qualification methods simply makes the in lieu standards more complicated than they need be, and may result in some pretty arbitrary standards. It is not too dissimilar to Proposition 15 which has really complicated rules for qualifying and when qualification would occur.