The Arizona Republic (Phoenix), and the Arizona Daily Star (Tucson), the state’s largest two newspapers, have together run three opinion pieces in favor of the top-two open primary initiative, but so far none on the other side.
The Star ran an op-ed in favor of the idea on November 24, 2011. It is by Paul Johnson, former Mayor of Phoenix, and Si Schorr. The title is “Open Elections would Improve Representation, Reduce Hyperpartisanship.”
The Arizona Republic ran a piece on December 4, 2011. It is by Linda Valdez, and is titled “Arizona 2012: Making Government Work.”
The Republic ran a second boost on June 13, 2012. It is by columnist Laurie Roberts. The title is “An open primary is best hope.”
Both newspapers have been asked to carry an opinion piece on the other side, but so far they have not done so. The only media in Arizona so far that has attacked the top-two initiative is the BlogforArizona, which generally seems to support Democrats and oppose Republicans. That blog has an anonymous blogger named “Arizona Blue Meanie”, who has run five blog posts making the case against the top-two idea. Thanks to Thane Eichenauer for the link to BlogforArizona.
ANY body in AZ see the top 2 results in the Egypt Prez election ???
—-
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
NO super-dangerous primaries.
One of the law’s authors, Ted Downing (w/ support from CUIP), told me the law is written to redress the imbalance of ballot access advantage the two majors have, so that Independents will have more opportunity. What’s not to like about that?
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Author: Internet Voting Now
Twitter: wjkno1
The advancing phenomenon known as the top-two primary system is about nothing more or less the practical annihlation and forced migration of political minorities into the major political parties or
organizations even less electorally comparable than ballot accessible parties.
This awful truth is: Many do not really mind such a political move against barely visible political minorities but would not help an intrinsically ugly effort because of the moral shame attached to such
means and ends. Incumbent power always enjoins the affiliated to assimilate the rest but in accordance the stated values of the polity such as fairness, tolerance, or compassion, complexity steps in and
the campaign must be one of misinformation to effect victory. So here we are.
The major political parties must appear to be uninvolved and/or agnostic about the asserted virtues of the top-two system, when in fact the top-two system enhances their monopoly position leveraging
their sophistication in campaign finance, their internal candidate annointing process, self-regulating position in society, which is also what it has in common with other key industries in this political
economy.
As soon as it’s (mis)understood by the low information set that top-two is a new bulwark against hardcore partisanship, a grassroots idea, well there’s not much more to think about. Digging just a little
deeper though and giving some consideration to the longstanding bipartisan gatekeeping uniformity on matters having to do with creation and/or demolition of just and/or inferior electoral arrangements marks one as having escaped that set of voters the pitch will be made to.
Many will be susceptible to pure white sounding message of “open” elections or “open” primaries. In reality the average voter turned candidate will find the path to victory determined by their cooperation and discreet service to what used to be called bosses but now better labeled as an order. Some politicians are better than
this and do practice for some amount of time a more independent course. Partisan primaries can allow for the dismissal of left versus right wedge issue dominance and let authentic narrative to prevail
more often than a “jungle” or top-two would normally permit, and there is now much top-two history to illustrate the migration away from policy message and towards personality exploitation. Top-two primaries are closed to policy articulation relative to other factors.
Oh, and the lie that’s for the real casual thinker: The top-two will bring more moderates to the fore. Moderates don’t actually exist but on occasions only. The perception as a partisan outlier is as cultivated by individuals as it policed by the major parties that need to continue the rivalry to maintain their exclusive franchise of opposition. Top-two is an important step in that maintenance effort.
For the voter it’s always a matter how much of voting is ratification and how much is actual choosing. Without sounding too unpatriotic it has always been so much ratifying in the USA, with choosing aspects and episodes here and there. Top-two is less choosing. It’s harder to get people to turnout for such things.
The first Americans Elect official candidate in World History likes the top two proposal for AZ (where he is a candidate for congress). http://www.facebook.com/groups/313452758731277/328640777212475/
#2 Under Top Two, ballot access is much more difficult for the general election. In 2010, California had 29 out of 53 House of Representatives races with non-duopoly candidates on the ballot. There was a total of 43 independent and third party candidates, and the average number of candidates per race was 2.8.
In 2012, there are 4 or 5 races with non-duopoly candidates on the ballot. The number of candidates per race is 2 by definition.
The election for Barbara Boxer’s Senate seat had 6 candidates on the ballot in 2010. The election for Dianne Feinstein’s seat will have, well I think we all know the answer to that!
Furthermore, even major party supporters are disenfranchised in the general election in some districts. In strongly Democratic districts, Top Two becomes Top Two Democrats. In strongly Republican districts, Top Two becomes Top Two Republicans. In CD 31, we saw that there can be two candidates of the same party even in swing districts. Top Two extends lesser evilism from the general election to the primary.
How many top 2 primary elections will be nominating Stalin and Hitler clones — i.e. 1 or 2 plurality lunatic extremists ???
1 S + 1 H
2 S
2 H
???
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
#5. Entry into the primary contest is made easier for outsiders with the open primary system that comes w/ top two. That is one democratic reform. I have other comments here on BAN re other reforms, plus Richard’s results oriented jurisprudence (search my name on BAN). To look at the results is to see the problem in the wrong way. 1st the open primary offers new opportunities within districts. Second CA’s top two should NOT be seen as the end of the line for reform. Third, third parties should take some responsibility for their addiction to practices that are sure to fail. Their repeated failures are the direct result of their own choices, not the election system; that is, they choose the self-glorifying path of “fighting the good fight,” according to their own ideological niceties, rather than forming coalitions centered on reforms that the public can relate to – like Internet voting.
See my comments here, http://goo.gl/9dglz, and this article plus my comment there,http://www.newsleader.com/article/20120530/OPINION02/205300312/Can-Internet-help-counter-Big-Money-
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Author: Internet Voting Now
Twitter: wjkno1
#7, this newsletter has always vigorously supported efforts to ease ballot access restrictions on independent candidates and minor parties to the general election ballot. Just because a state doesn’t have top-two, doesn’t mean that that state will necessarily have difficult ballot access procedures. It is true that the old California system did make independent candidate ballot access too difficult. But the solution is to ease ballot access for independents, not to restrict voter choices in November to just two.
The proponents of top-two in both Arizona and California are linked to special interests that have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars. If they really wanted to help independent candidates, they could have used their big bucks to get initiatives on the ballot to ease ballot access for independent candidates. The fact that they didn’t shows that they really don’t care about independent candidates. They are trying to change who gets nominated in major party primaries.
#8. BAN is a priceless resource for lovers of democracy. I would know much less about American politics if I didn’t have BAN to turn to as a trusted resource. Likewise, nobody feels more entrapped, constrained, and exploited by the two-party system than I do. But the third party efforts of the past 100 years have done zilch to crack open that system. How does that popular definition of “insanity” go …?
CA now has easy access for Independents, yet STILL third partiers fail. For me, the glass ceiling on democratic progress in CA and the USA is the dominant duopoly. How to shatter the glass is the central problem for democratic reform. CA now has 1) an open primary system with 2) easy ballot access for individuals no matter of what party, plus 3) a top two final vote, which guarantees a winner by a majority vote. These are three significant improvements in the degree of democracy in our state’s political system. That the duopoly continues to dominate is not the fault of the rules of the game. More reforms are needed, to be sure, but NOT reforms that give some kind of Affirmative Action to third parties. They continue to fail because they choose to. The rules don’t “restrict voter choices in November to just two,” it’s the self-defeating practices of the third party activists that cause this result.
Finally, I have looked, and I see not a scintilla of evidence that CUIP and their legal team are really secret agents for the two-party system.
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Author: Internet Voting Now
Twitter: wjkno1
Correction: The rules don’t “restrict voter choices in November to just two” [members of the major parties], it’s the self-defeating practices of the third party activists that cause this result.
#10, there is such a thing as political science. There are observable rules that occur in the social sciences, just as in the physical sciences.
We have now had 73 elections in which a minor party member ran in a top-two election in which there were at least major party members running. In all 73 instances, the minor party member didn’t even come close to placing first or second.
It’s like the old days, when the church taught that the sun revolves around the sun, even after Galileo looked at Jupiter with his telescope and saw four moons around Jupiter, contradicting the dogma that all heavenly bodies revolve around the earth. Anyone can say that minor parties aren’t injured by top-two, but objective observation shows they are injured.
# 9 — Insanity (modified a bit) = Keep on doing the same old rotted thing and getting the same old EVIL rotted results.
Do the same old rotted thing again and again — and somehow expect GOOD results.
i.e. New Age LOSING ballot access cases — due to the 9 SCOTUS appointed robot party hacks — i.e. monks living in their delusional worlds.
—
Political SCIENCE —
Democracy = Majority Rule
monarchy/oligarchy = Minority Rule
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. = more political science
— regardless of ALL of the Stone Age prior stuff in world history.
#11. Having a Ph.D. in the subject, I certainly agree that there is such a thing as political science. One of the main aims in the field, as I understand it, is to try to explain the antecedent causes of particular events.
So, lets say it is a fact that in 73 top two elections “the minor party member didn’t even come close to placing first or second.” What are some of the most likely causes of this event?
Starting at the top, it is simply not possible that the final vote, in which two contestants vie for the majority vote, is the cause of third party losses. Thus, the cause must lie elsewhere. Assuming that the candidate registration process for all candidates was the same, then that could not have caused any disadvantage to the third party candidates. I assume that the primary vote to select the top two consisted of one field of candidates, and was open to all voters; so that in itself puts no candidate to disadvantage.
If the election system, or procedural rules, are neutral, and advantage or disadvantage no party or candidate, then the cause of these 73 flops must lie somewhere outside of the procedural rules, or process.
Maybe, in all 73 instances, the losers lost because they didn’t offer policies or personalities that appealed to a majority of voters. That’s a possible cause for their losses. Maybe the losers lacked funds needed to get out their message. That could also be a factor in all 73 losses.
In political science, as a science, one cannot simply declare that the top two system is the cause of these 73 losses. One must be able to show how specific parts of the system caused the losses. Just because the system is there and the losses are there doesn’t mean that one caused the other. Increases in the occurences of rape and sales of ice cream happen at the same time. Does eating ice cream cause rape?
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Author: Internet Voting Now
Twitter: wjkno1
Gee – how many variables in election stuff ???
ANY connection between even 2 of them ???
Name, age, appearance, party hack connection, gerrymanders, special interest looter gang endorsements, cash to spend for attack ads, etc. etc. ???
Pingback: Big Arizona Newspapers Carry Three Pro-Top-Two Items, but so far None on the Other Side | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
Prop 14 First Time Out Works Well
http://ivn.us/2012/06/09/prop-14-pushes-independent-candidates-into-general-elections/
Hurray! CA’s Top Two works in its first time out! Third parties just need to get off the pity pot, and work the grocery stores and American Legion Halls. They might also consider more consolidation, and less nit picking between each other!
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Twitter: wjkno1
Author of Internet Voting Now!
#16 As I stated above:
In 2010, California had 29 out of 53 House of Representatives races with non-duopoly candidates on the ballot. There was a total of 43 independent and third party candidates, and the average number of candidates per race was 2.8.
In 2012, there are 4 or 5 races with non-duopoly candidates on the ballot. The number of candidates per race is 2 by definition.
Therefore, Top Two has greatly reduced the number of non-duopoly candidates on the general election ballot. This has been predicted all along by opponents of Proposition 14.