On October 15, this blog reported that two billionaires, John Arnold of Texas and Michael Bloomberg of New York, had contributed, together, $2,750,000 toward the campaign to pass Measure 90 in Oregon. Measure 90 would impose a top-two primary in Oregon.
On October 17, Arnold donated another $250,000 to the “yes” campaign, and Bloomberg donated another $400,000, so the total for the two individuals is now $3,400,000. Much of the money was transferred to Canal Partners Media, which is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and Marietta, Georgia. An additional $50,000 was given to IndependentVoting, also known as CUIP (Commmittee for a Unified Independent Party), formerly known as the New Alliance Party.
Why is the CUIP supporting Top Two which will effectively destroy 3rd party and Independent participation in the electoral process?
What or who is the CUIP? I plead ignorance to not knowing more about them.
Someone, please enlighten me.
The New Alliance Party dissolved itself and went into the Patriot Party, and then dissolved the Patriot Party and went into the Reform Party. When that virtually disappeared, the New York city group continued to be active in the Independence Party of New York, until the leader of the New York Independence Party, Frank McKay, turned on them and drove them out of power in the state party. But they still cling to power inside the New York city Independence Party. But they had so many setbacks in their attempt to build their own third party, or to be influential inside a bigger third party, that they turned against the very idea of building a party, and now desire to destroy all political parties. Also their leaders make a good living, supporting top-two systems; it provides revenue.
Richard: I just searched the Internet and found out more about the CUIP. Your explanation of their history appears to be correct. I find also that they are a very liberal group, who are, as you write, “…turned against the very idea of building a party, and now desire to destroy all political parties.” Thank you for enlightening me.
I am a Alabama Independent. I can assure you and all B.A.N. subscribers and readers, I will have no part of the CUIP. I would like to think a rather large number of other Alabama Independents agree with me.
there’s got to be more to this story, folks dont throw money like this around without a long-term plan for how it impacts outcomes. Wonder if there’s a paper out there that would do an investigative story on this.
Top 2 – one more EVIL so-called reform to distract attention from the TOTAL EVIL ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander systems that control ALL of the politics in the USA.
Simple gerrymander system –
Dist- A–B—Total
1–0–3–3 PACK district
2–2–1–3 CRACK district
3–2–1–3 CRACK district
————-
All-4—5—9
The 4 CONTROL = 44.4 percent
In larger elections there is about 25 percent CONTROL —
1/2 votes x 1/2 pack/crack districts = 1/4
Much, much, much worse primary math – i.e. when no incumbent running.
Too many math MORONS to count in the USA – lawyers, judges, media, profs, etc. etc. — since 4 July 1776
——
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Back in 1994 after I had run for Governor of California on a platform of state voting reform through pure proportional representation, Ralph Nader accepted his nomination to the USA Parliament and was elected MP, before he was ever a candidate for office.
That was before the Green Party offered him ballot access in California in 1996 and at the time we had a good chance to unite people under pure proportional representation.
Now we have new players, a new world-wide political unity and an International Parliament.
Voluntary Law Minister Jonathan Jaech [Libertarian] is one person we have in line to be elected.
Perhaps we could somehow, rather than fighting top two, create a team which can challenge others by being better team players on a global scale. Roseanne actually helped start Occupy Wall Street and the Arab Spring has been popular too.
The International Parliament is on the verge of electing a Cabinet and we’d welcome others who are interested in pure proportional representation on a global and national scale:
http://www.international-parliament.org/cabinet1.html
We have sixty open seats and we welcome team players worldwide.
With such good people who have accepted nominations in the past, we simply start all over and then the group of us would be able to coordinate by voting and thinking like a team as a global parliament. Not like the United Nations where the Security Council has veto power.
About ten years ago, Mayor Bloomberg backed a New York city initiative to convert New York city elections from partisan to non-partisan elections. It got on the ballot but the voters rejected it. I think Mr. Bloomberg is just letting the emotions of that long-ago incident control his behavior today. Just because people are smart and rich doesn’t mean they always think everything through.
The Vote Yes side for Top Two Primary has a lot of funding behind it in Oregon. It is looking to me like they are going to overwhelm the Vote No side with funding, and that Oregon will be the next state to fall under Top Two Tyranny. I hope I’m wrong, but money usually wins in politics.
This couldn’t have been the New Alliance Party that ran Lenora Fulani as its’ presidential candidate back in the day?
Yes, the same.
Canal Media Partners is a media buyer, so they would be purchasing ad time in Oregon. Most of the money will be spent in Oregon.
Richard you are so correct. People with wealth sometimes forget they put their pants on just like anyone else – one leg at a time.
Don’t know how Bloomberg thought non-partisan elections were going to change New York politics. Whether non-partisan or partisan, most New Yorkers are Democrats to the core. They can spot a Democrat whether he or she is camouflaged with a party label or not.
In team psychology we don’t want to single people out and use the blame game. It’s very difficult to be diplomatic, I know, I myself struggle and often forget the keys to successful team psychology myself.
Nobody is trying to destroy third parties. Instead we need to look at our own team. We look in the mirror and ask ourselves why we’re not doing a good enough job.
I think the Top Two people have a good idea and a good cause, because working with political parties doesn’t seem to be a good way to go. Independents do have an edge because they’re not already organized and biased like political parties.
We just need to make our own team better in such a way so that both independents and partisans are treated with equality where everyone wins.
The Top Two system is a dry mathematical system which works better than the way things in California worked before. So to pick fights with the Top Two system is the real party killer, and not Top Two itself.
It’s clear from your work in 2014 that by supporting anti-Top Two candidates while ignoring an inclusive United Coalition, you can’t get more votes and attract more supporters from the 100%.
Uniting people is actually a lot easier than you think when you understand the science of team psychology.
Unite the 100%, and that’s the most successful route.
My preacher Dr. Johnson used to tell me in church … “perfect practice makes perfect”. And that’s why the Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution has been so helpful for the USA Parliament. It’s truly the only way to include everyone on the biggest team possible, as long as the work is perfect.
On January 1st, 2016 we’re launching a 10,000-member national committee and every single name up to 10,000 will be consecutively ranked 1 through 10,000 (or as close to 10,000 that we can get).
So we need to keep to the schedule and make every day count starting tomorrow. Every minute is like a year, every day is like 1,440 years on Normandy Beach and our chance aren’t good, I know.
Still…the 100%.
Practice, practice, practice … repetition, repetition, repetition … the team, the team, the TEAM!
What is John Arnold’s benefit in this?
Bloomberg must be bi-polar.
One problem is within the third parties themselves and it’s not just the voting system but equal time and for competing candidates.
In team psychology, we need to look at our own team first.
It’s that there are some who continually make so much noise about state elections. But look in the mirror first and try to lead by example.
That’s what the 9th USA Parliament has been trying to do for 19 consecutive years and it seems to be working fine on a microscopic level:
http://www.usparliament.org
Who is this John Arnold? Never heard of him. And as Brad M asks, “what is his benefit in this?”