Only three minor party members were on the California November 2014 ballot for partisan office. In each case, only one person had filed in the primary, and the three minor party members had then each filed to be a write-in candidate in the June primary. As the only candidates running in June against the single ballot-listed candidate, the three declared write-in candidates obviously placed second, and qualified for November.
In U.S. House district 44, in western Los Angeles County, Peace & Freedom candidate Adam Shbeita polled 13.0% against incumbent Democrat Janice Hahn.
In Assembly district 5, in the Sierra Nevada mountains east of the San Joaquin Valley, Libertarian Patrick Hogan polled 25.2% against incumbent Republican Frank Bigelow.
In Assembly district 79, in San Diego County, American Independent Party member George R. Williams polled 38.7% against incumbent Democrat Shirley Weber. This is the largest percentage of the vote any AIP member has ever received for a partisan office in a California general election.
Now if people were working together instead of crying about Top Two then a lot more could have been done to help the candidates unite with all the voters in those districts.
But instead we saw the communication, cooperation and synchronization break down and become null and void because there was no support system in place.
Those vote totals were completely random and there wasn’t any cooperation from the candidates for a coordinated effort. I know, because I repeatedly phoned and emailed all three candidates myself.
Two of the three never answered the email, picked up the phone or returned a call or email.
The political leaders of the Libertarian, P&F and AIP were all completely exhausted of any good will because of their lack of interested in unity.
But when it comes to making a lot of noise about Top Two, they’ve got the volume turned up to the maximum.
And people are wondering why turn-out is low with so little unity and a lot of conflict.
Maybe the voters are turned off by conflict happening in plurality elections?
Since there’s only one winner everyone is still continually boasting about how they’re better than anyone but no one is bothering to work together.
Look at the anti-Top Two people and ask how they react to the suggestion of a unifying all-party, inclusive effort and they often respond with vile and division.
Remember Richard Winger [Libertarian] endorsed David Curtis [Green] for Secretary of State and it appears the continual pushing to overturn Top Two wasn’t received well by the rude behavior and team-splitting of Curtis.
Where is the law suit by the by Curtis supporters against the Sacramento Press Club now?
Why have the Top Two supporters been continually trying to sue in court?
Can’t they see that these are incremental reforms that should be supported and used to our benefit?
It’s the anti-Top Two voices that are destroying unity for the whole and it appears they don’t like anything short of minority rule. đ
It’s the current leadership of the Libertarian, Green, Peace & Freedom and American Independent parties, who should be held accountable for their actions.
Their continual roadblocks to unity and exclusion of new membership through their own single-winner voting systems which exclude cross pollination of new ideas and unity with outsiders from their ranks is what has caused them to self-destruct.
These party chairs who have driven the third parties rank and file to the lowest levels in two decades need to be held accountable.
I’ve checked these political parties out thoroughly over the years, I know the names of the self-destructive bosses and affiliates, they along with the Ds and Rs all treat voters with the same contempt.
There is no spirit of unity and no tool to work together among their general ranks. If you’re looking for teamwork don’t bother going to any political party.
But there is a good way to identify team players and the 9th USA Parliament has been using it for 19 consecutive years and it works fine.
Check out the team players, the bridge-builders and the perfect way to vote, think and act as one unit:
http://www.usparliament.org
“In Assembly district 79, in San Diego County, American Independent Party member George R. Williams polled 38.7% against incumbent Democrat Shirley Weber. This is the largest percentage of the vote any AIP member has ever received for a partisan office in a California general election.”
If there is any “positive” attributes of the Top Two in California, this is one. I attempted to contact George R. Williams by phone before the election but to no avail. Don’t think he is an active member of the current AIP “leadership” but rather someone who was enrolled as a American Independent Party member, and saw an opportunity to participate in this election.
It is my understanding he persuaded a handful – and I mean something like less than a dozen people – to write-in his name during the primary, and as a result was of the “Top Two” who got votes in the Primary, therefore advancing to the General Election.
Richard may know more about him. The ballot listed him as a retired Master Sergeant. If you find out more about him, Richard, let us know if the official AIP “leadership” was even aware of his candidacy and if they did anything to promote him.
It is a disgrace a political party with some 480,000 registered voters appears to do nothing.
The California Green, Libertarian, and Peace & Freedom Parties have been working together on joint election law projects for years now. The three parties had a great deal of success in the legislature in the last session. We defeated bills to make it illegal to pay registration drive workers on a per-registration-card basis, and bills to outlaw paying petition gathers on a per-signature basis. We defeated bills to make it more difficult for write-ins in the primary (for partisan office) to advance to the general election. We passed bills lowering the number of registrations needed for party qualification, and easing the deadline for a group to qualify as a party in presidential election years.
The Green, Constitution, and Libertarian Parties have worked together in many other states on joint election law projects, including Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
The American Independent chair Mark Seidenberg, didn’t work with their candidate, because their candidate wouldn’t answer the phone or return phone calls. There isn’t any information out there on how candidates can work together as a united team and the AIP generally sues their own candidates like Chelene Nightengale in 2010.
I worked with both sides on the lawsuit, the Nightengale camp and the seidenberg camp, and some of their candidates were very cool and fun to work with.
OUR UNITY COALITION CANDIDATES ARE WINNING ELECTIONS
Our November 4th, 2014 Winners!
California:
AD7 Kevin McCarty [Democratic] 58.6% WIN!
AD26 Devon Mathis [Republican] 55.6% WIN!
AD15 Tony Thurmond [Democratic] 54.4% WIN!
AD=assembly district
Our March 6th, 2012 Winner!
Missouri:
Libertarian POTUS Primary James Ogle [Free Parliamentary] 52.7% WIN!
POTUS=president of the united states
* * *
Richard, when writing that they’re not working together, I’m writing about working as a team like a united parliamentary entity elected by ballots cast as proof, a team who elects members, elects planks on a platform, elects decision items and holds their leaders accountable with a “vote of confidence”.
An entity that’s open to all people, not just lawyers who fight ballot access laws. A team which includes all parties, that treats all people equally, Democratics and Republican elected officials too.
When I say unity of 100%, I’m writing about the 100%, any team player that’s interested in an election system which uses pure proportional representation, not just united one side against the other, us against them, united in a debate, etc.
The “working together” and “unity” thing can be claimed by anyone as long as you’re working together and united on some project; “United Progressives”, “Woman united against men”, “Third Parties united against the establishment”, “United With Jack”, etc., but that’s not what I mean by truly working together as a team of all US citizens.
I’m writing about an actual parliamentary committee which invites all people as a coordinated team. Not just working together on one specific law.
Unity of the all. The 9th USA Parliament has been doing it for 19 consecutive years and it works fine.
People who just want to dictate an agenda aren’t attracted to this concept of the virtual parliament. But those who use this as a way to elect guidelines, executives, agenda and platform items and who have sign in seem to like it fine.
And when there are improvements to be made, which there are always improvements, then the team votes and continually self-improves just like in a real government like the one that approved Top Two.
It’s the 9th USA Parliament, est. 1995:
http://www.usparliament.org
The current “leadership” of the California American Independent Party is a highly vile and caustic set of people bent on grabbing the reins of the party and smashing or suing any outsiders who want to join in because they have differeing ideas from their own.
Much like all political party chairs but in a much more unreasonable and biased manner.
Single-winner chair election systems attract those types. That’s why the USA Parliament uses a five-member executive. No one person is elected to any particular governing role because that’s how team psychology gets smashed.
One person isn’t a team, we view any single-winner elected person like a road block to other people participating on the executive.
In an executive of five, one person can’t block progress, because a 3/5ths vote can vote to allow ideas/agenda items to go around the roadblock of a single person.
People who think an executive should be one single person are simply out of touch with reality.
Unfortunately, none of the political parties in California use the team psychology like the USA Parliament does, and they also don’t allow “outsiders” (people not registered with their party) on the team. The concept that you must be on that party is one that divides people working together.
So you have these “ballot access law experts”, running around enforcing these laws to keep their parties “pure”, and that’s one way division and conflict is continually imposed on regular folks, through party membership.
So just being an expert might make you the perfect person for designing laws that divide and destroy. And that’s exactly what political parties do to themselves when they fight over who is “Green enough”, or “Libertarian enough”, or “Republican enough”, you see what I mean…they kick everyone else out and try to best up everyone instead of being inclusive and appreciating new ideas and positive change.
Then it gets really ugly because their voting systems are so corrupt that they simply self-destruct at election time because the only ones left standing are the meanest psychopathic party bosses who chased everyone else away during the four years leading up to the election cycle and the convention.
That’s how you get these elections where the candidates don’t work with anyone and the party machinery doesn’t work with anyone either. Everyone was just too pissed off at each other over all the fighting that happened between the election season!
“I attempted to contact George R. Williams by phone before the election but to no avail. Donât think he is an active member of the current AIP âleadershipâ but rather someone who was enrolled as a American Independent Party member, and saw an opportunity to participate in this election.”
What I had written earlier (the above) may be closer to the truth. George R. Williams may simply be a political “loner” who did his “thing” and didn’t want any help from anyone.
So this could have been either a “positive” or a “negative” for Top Two but also for the AIP. Does any one have his telephone number or email address? I’ve lost or misplaced what I thought was his telephone number. Maybe with the sizeable number of votes cast for him, he might now be willing to engage in conversation about it. Don’t have any information that his candidacy was “harmful” to the AIP. Does anyone know if he ran any political ads, appeared on any talk shows, or interviewed by any news media?
One could look at this particular election and come to the conclusion that the overwhelming number of the 27,097 voters were not pleased with Assemblywoman Weber, and used the election as a way of sending her a message of “no confidence.” Of course, some of these 27,097 voters could have been friends, family, or co-workers of Mr. Williams and decided to vote for him because he asked them to, or they wanted to support him solely because they personally knew him. There are all sorts of reasons why people FOR someone as there are why people vote AGAINST someone.
Still, disappointed that the AIP – the 3rd party with the largest membership in California – will not use the Top Two system when opportunities arise for them.
There’s nothing keeping the unity that the third parties appear to be using accountable.
There is no opposition to this ill-advised fight against Top Two.
You’ve made the fight against Top Two like an emotional fight with no brains. A losing battle.
If anyone on your team of “experts” understood the math of Top Two then the last four years of huge resources being wasted fighting Top Two wouldn’t have been wasted.
Top Two is a slight improvement over first-past-the-post.
Look at the percentages for the disorganized third party candidates in YOUR own article! I keep writing that you need to unite behind candidacies and form coalitions. Not unite to fight Top Two, but to unite to get people elected UNDER Top Two.
The parliamentary system resolves those problems.
Both systems of what we had before and after Top Two in California are primitive first-past-the-post (FPTP) systems no matter what you want to name them.
But the Top Two system now in place has an open primary which is better and it also guarantees a simple majority for the final runoff winner.
Those two changes in my opinion seem to have improved the election system.
I would vote against repealing Top Two and I would vote against fighting Top Two for these reasons.
I am FOR building unity to work together on good projects. Not for uniting against small improvements like Top Two.
“The current âleadershipâ of the California American Independent Party is a highly vile and caustic set of people bent on grabbing the reins of the party and smashing or suing any outsiders who want to join in because they have differeing ideas from their own.”
Your assessment (above) of the current leadership of the California AIP may be correct or close to it. I too have had problems with connecting with them, although Pastor Wiley Drake, who serves on their State Central Committee as Chaplain, will speak with most anyone if you are lucky enough to catch him by phone when he is not busy. He is always pleasant to speak with, but does not appear to have much power or influence within the leadership. Perhaps you should try calling him. I will out of respect for his privacy, not list his phone number here, but it is listed on the official website of the AIP.
The only speculation I can have of the leadership – and I don’t mean this to be interpreted as hostile – is that perhaps they are willing to wait for the party to continue gaining membership (they’ll tip 500,000 by 2016)and the day will come when that membership may reach 1,000,000 and perhaps by then someone among that membership will have the name recognition and the financial means to mount a serious candidacy for a major office and become one of the Top Two.
Just my speculation and nothing else.
According to the Cal. Sec. of State list of candidates, the phone number for George R. Williams, when he filed for office, was 909-264-5331 (same number for residence and work). Hie e-mail was williams5623@sbcglobal.net.
Sometimes candidates change those phone numbers after the election is over, so that information may not be current.
James Ogle, most people who read politics blogs desire policy changes of one kind or another. You could persuade more people to get interested in your Parliament if you could show how the Parliament gets policy changed. How many years has the Parliament been in existence? What public policy or law has been changed as a result of the Parliament’s existence?
Richard:
Have all of the votes been counted in California? What about the overseas and military ballots?
California probably has over 1,200,000 uncounted ballots.
We are building a team.
We aren’t squashing unity and working with the Libertarian, Green and Peace and Freedom Parties to modify the Top Two system which was voted for by a majority of the voters.
Richard Winger did that and consequently, our supporters could not vote across party lines in 2012, in a very important election.
We aren’t spending hundreds of hours campaigning against better reforms like Top Two.
We aren’t endorsing candidates before all the nominees get a chance to speak and access equal time.
What we do is build a team. We identify and attract team players and we elect a “Unity Platform”.
We aren’t claiming to change laws and we’re not dashing unity.
We’re just winning a few elections as a United Coalition despite all odds.
I’d love to see the duopoly burn to the ground. My question is how do we do it?
I support having third party and independent candidates running in the Democratic and Republican primaries as write-in candidates. I’d also support fusion voting if it’s temporary.
Fusion voting is bad because it allows one candidate’s name to appear on the ballot more than once.
If you want fairness, inclusion, unity and equality in elections, the most mathematically perfect system is pure American proportional representation (PR).
The best PR system is Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution system, Hagenbach-Bischoff method, ranked choice voting (RCV) in multi-winner districts of two or more ONLY.
Don’t settle for anything less!
The 9th USA Parliament has been using it for 19 consecutive years and it works fine:
http://www.usparliament.org
Derek:
I think both major parties should welcome 3rd party and Independent candidates to run for office within their Primary. They should have their label (in at least an abbreviated form;i.e. Lib. or Ind.) next to their name. And if they win, the label (at least in an abbreviated form) of the 3rd party or Independent candidate should still appear next to his or her name on the General Election Ballot.
This way, the so-called “Two Party” system which some think this republic must have to survive is preserved, but 3rd partisans and Independents get an opportunity to participate in the electoral process. To put it bluntly, I favor trying most any novel way to not only provide opportunities for a 3rd party or Independent candidate, but novel ways to allow voters to have more choice.
But the political bosses will not allow even this novelty, as they are afraid something might “catch on” with the voters, then they couldn’t control them any longer.