The California Independent Voter Network has kindly carried my article that advocates that California’s Proposition 14 (top-two open primary) system be converted into a blanket primary. Here is the link.
The California Independent Voter Network has kindly carried my article that advocates that California’s Proposition 14 (top-two open primary) system be converted into a blanket primary. Here is the link.
If someone first voted in the 1964 election, in California, they would have seen one dozen independent congressional candidates statewide in the period from 1964-2010. It is grossly negligent to claim that the Open Primary is suppressing independent candidates in California.
As a practical matter, independent candidates will have a tough time under any system, given the size of California legislative districts. Door-to-door campaigning is impossible, and media buys are not targeted to individual districts.
Maine and Vermont, where independent senators were elected, have substantially less population than California. And the partisan electoral system used in those States practically forced Democratic candidates off the ballot.
There were no Democratic senatorial nominee in Vermont, even though its Democratic US representative was elected with 70% of the vote.
In Maine, the Democratic national senatorial campaign gave NO money to the Democratic candidate in a state where the Republican incumbent was not seeking re-election. They did however run “uncoordinated” ads attacking the Republican candidate. The Democratic senatorial candidate ended up with 12.8% of the vote, while the two Democratic representatives were elected with 60% of the vote.
If Maine and Vermont were to adopt the Top 2 Open Primary, they would have likely elected the same senators. In addition, it would be easier for a Green candidate to qualify in Maine, where petitions must be signed by enrolled party members.
Independents also lack permanence. Once Quentin Kopp and Lucy Killea did not seek re-election, their districts reverted to partisan contests.
Louisiana has had a relatively large presence of independent candidates in its legislature, so it is not as if the Open Primary is the problem in the election of independents.
There is no necessary logical connection between restrictive ballot access laws and a normal partisan election system. But there is an intrinsic connection between a top-two system and an absence of indp. and minor party candidates on the November ballot. There has never been a minor party candidate for any federal or state office in a top-two state who came in first or second, if there were two major party candidates in the same race.
And, as usual, Steve Peace wrote an article for CIVN challenging Richard’s. He is a nice guy but certainly has a thing against minor parties and independents!
A state like California should be a pioneer by adopting a parliamentary-style government based upon strict proportional representation. No more gerrymandered districts. No more primaries funded by the taxpayers. And perhaps less pork barrel politics of “representative” democracy.
NO primaries.
——-
P.R. (via candidate vote transfers) and nonpartisan App.V.
Alaska’s blanket primary was kept after its Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution protected the right of a political party to permit voters of select other parties to participate in their primaries on a per candidate and per party basis.
In the first voluntary blanket primary, the minor parties permitted Democrats and Republicans to vote in their nominating contests, but the Democrats kept Republicans out of their races. And even now, if a Republican takes the blanket primary ballot for the minor and Democratic party, he forfeits the right to vote for Republican nominees.
The Alaska voluntary primary produced the absurdity of the 2010 senate election where the two Republican candidates received three times as many votes as the Democratic nominee Scott McAdams, but Lisa Murkowski was blocked from appearing on the general election ballot.
The Alaska system simply fails to permit any voter to vote for any candidate in all election stages.
The only blanket primary system that might pass muster would be one in which the primary determines which candidates advance to the general election, and in addition may confer party endorsement on candidates.
Under such a system, all candidates would file to appear on the primary ballot. All candidates might also file as seeking the endorsement of a political party. There might be a separate signature requirement for endorsement. For example, a statewide candidate would qualify for the primary ballot with 65 signatures, and could qualify for additional endorsements based on collecting 65 signatures from members of the parties he seeks the nomination of.
Each party could decide whether members of other parties (and which ones) could participate in their nominating contests. There would be a separate ballot for the voters of each party, as well as one for voters affiliated with nonqualified parties and non-partisans.
So let’s say (for illustration purposes) that the Democrats and Peace&Freedom parties said Republicans could vote in their nomination contest. Republican voters of course would have a right to vote in their own nominating contest.
The ballot given to Republican voters would group the candidates for each office in 4-sections:
Republican: candidates seeking the nomination of the Republican party; Democratic: candidates seeking the Democratic nomination (except those also seeking the Republican nomination); Peace&Freedom: candidates seeking the Peace&Freedom nomination (except those also seeking Republican nomination); and a final section with all candidates not seeking the nomination of the Republican Party.
Our Republican voter could vote for any candidate to advance to the general election. In addition a vote in any of the partisan sections would count as a vote to (1) make that candidate the nominee of the party, and (2) to establish a quorum for that party to have a nominee.
Candidates that would appear on the general election ballot:
Any candidate who received some threshold of support, perhaps 5%. At least two candidates would always qualify, regardless of support level. In addition, other candidates could combine their support to help other candidates qualify.
In addition, the nominee of any party that reached the 5% of the same threshold would advance to the general election ballot. Candidates could have multiple endorsements, but would only appear once on the general election ballot.
Parties that received 5% of the vote in their nomination contest would have the party affiliation appear next to their nominee.
For example, in 2012, 174 candidates would have qualified for the congressional general election, or 3.3 per race, including 80 Democrats, 80 Republicans, 10 independents, 2 Greens, 1 Libertarian, and 1 Peace and Freedom candidate; 50 senate candidates (2.5 per race); and assembly 255 candidates (3.2 per race), including 134 Democrats, 111 Republicans, 3 Greens, 1 Libertarian, 1 P&F candidate, and 5 independents.
This system would have the potential of non-majority election, so there would be provision for a runoff. If no candidate received a majority, then all candidates with more than 10% of the vote would advance to a runoff, with a minimum of two advancing. Trailing candidates would be permitted to withdraw from the runoff.
If additional runoffs were needed, at least one candidate would be eliminated each round.
Proportional representation goes in the wrong direction — toward greater emphasis on parties. What is needed is to go in the *opposite* direction: non-partisan elections (the Nebraska legislature is elected on a non-partisan basis, as are many city and county governments across America).
Jeff Daiell
#2 The correlation between having partisan primaries and restrictive ballot access is so high that there is clearly a political connection, even if they are not of logical necessity. And even if there were not the barriers for candidates, there would remain the absolute barriers to voting.
When the Louisiana legislature was debating the restoration of the Open Primary for congressional elections, the debate was quite interesting.
The legislators had lived their entire political life with the Open Primary. They thought it absurd that they would have to go up to a potential voter and ask them what party they belonged to, and then if they were of the “wrong” party, tell them, “I’m sorry, you can’t vote for me, but I’d appreciate your vote November.”
A senator told the story of how his wife had gone to vote in a partisan congressional primary, and after she started voting realized she did not know the candidates. She called an election judge over, and he explained it was the Republican ballot. Though she was a lady, she used quite unladylike language to suggest where he might go, if she were indeed a Republican.
As it turned out, though the senator was a Republican, his wife was a Democrat.
And then there was the infamous lockout switch, which almost prevented minor parties from having congressional primaries, and there was the absurd complexity of providing provisional ballots for the congressional 2nd primary, and congressional general elections for overseas voters; as well as the cost of the 2nd congressional primary.
#2 “There has never been a minor party candidate for any federal or state office in a top-two state who came in first or second, if there were two major party candidates in the same race.”
What specifically do you mean by “state office”? If you include legislators, your statement is wrong. But why would you use federal to mean “US representative” and state to not mean “state senators”, “state representatives”, or “state assemblymen”? Cherry picking the data?
The Louisiana election results going back to 1983 are now online at the Secretary of State website. If you look at the early results, the statement that no Republican (minor party candidate) finished first or second when there were two Democrats (major party candidates) on the ballot would be almost true, and would be true if you said that it was “quite uncommon”.
For example, in 1983, among 39 senate races, 12 were uncontested (and thus did not appear on the ballot) and 19 had no Republican candidates.
6 had a Republican and 2 or more Democrats. In none of these did the Republican finish higher than 3rd, and they averaged a mere 9% of the vote. In two races, there was only one Republican and one Democrat, and the Republican finished 2nd.
In the House, there were actually Republicans elected, but in most districts there were not even any Republican candidates.
But now, the majority of legislators are Republicans, and Republicans hold most statewide offices.
#9, my statement is accurate. By “state office” I mean legislative office and statewide executive and judicial posts. When I say “major party” I mean “Republican” and “Democratic.”
All that verbiage by Riley is intended of obfuscate the truth:
“Top-two” is evil … an evil plan, evil intended, evil outcome.
“Top-two” establishes a One-party state, where the only party allowed to hold a primary, the only party allowed to nominated candidates, the only party allowed to place candidates on the ballot in the real election – the General Election in November is the “Top-two” party.
Under “top-two” all other parties and all independents are excluded from the possibility of being candidates and all individuals must either join the “Top-two” party or be excluded from the process – just as in the old USSR.
“Top-two” is evil.
“Top-two” must be stopped.
“Top-two” must be repealed wherever it has been foisted on the people.
#7: I strongly agree with the problems associated with proportional representation. It is too party and collectivist-oriented. Why not try nonpartisan elections that puts the emphisis (sp?) on the individual candidate?
# 7 # 12 Parties have been around for at least 6,000 years.
MORE govt or LESS govt agendas.
Majority rule (Democracy) or Minority rule (monarchs / oligarchs
— the REAL state of affairs in most regimes calling themselves democracies
— i.e. the minority rule gerrymanders in the U.S.A. regime, ALL 50 State regimes, etc.
— i.e THE E-V-I-L B-I-G L-I-E for the last 700 plus years in the Anglo-American regimes.
—-
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Other things that California can do to improve the Top 2 Open Primary:
Move the primary to September or October. This would eliminate the contamination of the presidential preference primary. Party offices could be made to last for 4 years and coincide with the presidential election year.
Comply with the US Constitution and California Constitution and read what Proposition 14 and SB 6 actually say.
Before Proposition 14, voters either registered as being affiliated with a party, or Decline To State. See Elections Code 2187. While some of the voters might be affiliated with a nonqualified party, it did not mean that they weren’t affiliated with a party, it meant that their party was not qualified to make nominations via primary, the only way partisan nominations could be made in California.
When David Bergland ran for state senator in 1978, there was no question that he was a registered Libertarian. What the decision in ‘Libertarian Party v Eu’ said was that his nomination was not made by the Libertarian Party, but rather by an independent body of electors nominating by petition. Ballot labels said who nominated a candidate, not what party the candidate belonged to. It was not even a legal requirement that the Democratic nominee be a Democrat (though there were additional hurdles).
Just prior to the June 2010 primary at which Proposition 14 was approved, the Secretary of State sent an advisory to county clerks and registrars reminding them of the fact that even though voters affiliated with nonqualified parties were quite distinct from DTS voters, that they were to be treated the same for one purpose – the ability to select the Republican or Democratic primary ballot.
Proposition 14 says that existing voter registrations would convert party affiliations to party preferences, and that SB 6 would implement Proposition 14. SB 6 (Elections Code 2151(d)) says that existing DTS registrations would be converted to No Party Preference registrations, and that party affiliations would be converted to party preferences. That is to say, party affiliations would be converted party preferences, regardless whether or not the party had been qualified to make partisan nominations (and would continue to be able to make presidential nominations).
The whole party qualification scheme is unworkable and incomprehensible without voters being able to register with nonqualified parties. And the party qualification system does remain in effect for the presidential preference primary and party committee elections.
No one is claiming that Proposition 14 gave the Coffee Party the right to have a presidential preference party in 2012 nor government financed and regulated party committee elections. But it certainly did not eliminate the right of a voter to publicly register their preference for the Coffee Party.
The intended purpose of Propostion 14 was to extirpate party nomination rights for voter-nominated offices. Justice Scalia had identified that as the key disqualifying feature of California’s blanket primary in ‘California Democratic Party v Jones’.
Some, including Gautam Dutta and the Secretary of State have claimed that Elections Code 338 grants qualified parties “participation rights” in primaries for voter-nominated offices.
But no one claims that Section 338 confers any participatory rights for qualified parties in primaries for nonpartisan offices (all county and local offices are nonpartisan in California).
Rather Section 338 is simply a definition of the term “party” and to guide the interpretation of the Elections Code, particularly when the term “party” appears in the Elections Code without modification or qualification.
But Elections Code 4 says that the general definitions do not apply if a (specific) provision or context requires otherwise.
The entire party qualification scheme does not make sense unless a voter may express a party preference for a nonqualified party on their affidavit of voter registration (which they must sign to certify that it is truthful and correct).
SB 6 added Elections Code 300.5 that says that the party preference of a candidate for a voter-nominated office is that which the candidate disclosed on their affidavit of voter registration.
Since a voter may have a party preference for a nonqualified party, when he becomes a candidate for a voter-nominated office, he retains (and must retain) that same party preference.
SB 6 (Elections Code 8002.5) said that on the declaration of candidacy for a voter-nominated office that a candidate may have his party preference (as it was disclosed on his affidavit of voter registration). The only alternative was to have a blank space.
This is quite similar to the provision in the Elections Code for designation of occupation/office/preference. A candidate may have a blank space. The State of California may not compel speech. But if a candidate does choose to have an occupation appear on the ballot, he must have been actively engaged in that occupation in the recent past.
If a candidate claims to be a Non-Profit Organization Consultant, they have to show that they were actively engaged in that occupation. If a candidate claims to have a preference for the Coffee Party, they have to show that is what their most recent affidavit of voter registration says.
The California Constitution says that for voter-nominated offices the State of California may not make distinctions on the basis of the party preferences of voter or candidates. By applying a classification based on a party being qualified to have a presidential preference primary, the Secretary of State is making a distinction.
Whether an individual voter takes into account that a candidate prefers the Coffee Party or Democratic Party is their personal prerogative. They are not a state actor. But the Secretary of State may not make that distinction for them.
And even if the Secretary of State were not misinterpreting the California Constitution and Elections Code it would be violating the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, and equivalent provisions of the California Constitution.
A political party preference of a candidate is protected speech. The modicum of support decisions simply do not apply. The 1st Amendment was in particular intended to protect unpopular speech that might be subject to government persecution.
The modicum of support decisions meant that a candidate must demonstrate a modicum of support before being placed on the ballot. In California before Proposition 14, it was the groups making the nominations, whether parties qualifying by nomination, or independent bodies of voters nominating by petition that had to demonstrate the support of thousands of voters.
When a candidate ran as an individual seeking a partisan nomination, or for a nonpartisan office, the level of support they had to demonstrate was quite modest, 40 signatures for a district office, and 65 statewide. In fact, California showed that it understand what a modicum is. These support levels became the standards for voter-nominated offices after Proposition 14.
Under Proposition 14, a candidate who qualifies for the ballot for a voter-nominated office may have their party preference appear on the ballot.
What Secretary of State Debra Bowen is trying to inflict is the concept of preference for a qualified party. A preference is a personal opinion, a belief. Debra Bowen apparently beliefs that when an individual becomes a candidate for office, they forfeit the right to express their opinions and beliefs, unless the State has qualified that opinion.
But voter Michael Chamness said that he preferred the Coffee Party. He signed his affidavit of voter registration to certify that the information contained was correct.
There must be a presumption that the information is truthful and correct, and that he was as truthful in disclosing his party preference as he was in stating his age and address and citizenship status. If he truly had No Party Preference, then he would have stated that, or left that section of the form blank. But he did not.
But the Secretary of State forced him to state on the ballot that he had No Party Preference (incidentally in an election in which she was a candidate, and was permitted to express her party preference, which happens to be more popular).
NO PARTY is qualified to make nominations by primary for voter-nominated offices. No group of independent voters may make nominations by petition for voter-nominated offices. The concept of a qualified preference (or belief or opinion) is absurd.
#10
Louisiana House District 55, October 20, 2007.
Louisiana House District 22, October 22, 2011
Louisiana House District 57, October 22, 2011.
Louisiana House District 96, October 22, 2011.
Doing away with parties is a pipe dream. End them legally and you will have behind-the-scenes de facto parties. And note that every country in the world with democratic elections has parties. Chicago has had non-partisan city council elections since forever-that didn’t prevent the Democratic machine from controlling everything.