The Orange County (California) Weekly has this article about how the top-two system affects minor parties in California.
Comments
Orange County Weekly Story on How California’s Top-Two System Hurts Minor Parties — 14 Comments
How about the ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymanders in both houses of the CA legislature —
and in ALL other States ???
NO primaries.
PR and AppV
Each party is free to endorse in whatever manner it chooses.
California should eliminate filing fees and base qualification on demonstated support. If the threshold were 0.1% of gubernatorial ballots, statewide candidates 12,463 persons, roughly 235 for Congress, 312 for senate, and 156 for assembly.
Presidential electors should be chosen by Top 2 by congressional district.
The primary should be moved to September, and election by majority in the primary made possible (for Congress, this will wait until legislation passes).
Some folks love to ignore basic gerrymander math 00001-
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged gerrymander areas = 1/4 OR LESS CONTROL = OLIGARCHY
— ALWAYS TENDING TO MONARCHY.
THINK KILLER ROMAN EMPERORS,
ALL THE DARK AGE MONARCHS,
*MODERN* MONSTERS LIKE NAPOLEON, KAISER BILL, STALIN, HITLER, MAO, ETC.
HOW MANY KILLER USA PREZS — KILLING OFF AMERICAN INDIANS AND/OR FOREIGN FOLKS — ESP. IN UN-DECLARED WARS ???
Since top two primary went into effect in California the Americans Elect Party lost ballot access.
American Elect would have lost ballot access in California anyway, because they did not have anywhere close to enough people registered under their party label necessary to retain ballot status under California law (I think the number is currently around 66,000 or so), plus, they never ran any candidates, and they went defunct as a party.
What determines whether a party retains ballot access in California? Is it still Cal Election Code § 5100?
California parties remain ballot-qualified if (1) they have registration of at least .33% of the state total, or (2) if a candidate who is a member of that party receives at least 2% of the vote in a midterm year for any statewide office, in either the primary or general election.
Americans Elect did have a candidate in California in 2014, for Lieutenant Governor. However, he polled less than 2%. If he had got 2% or more, Americans Elect would have been on in 2016 and 2018. If it had been on in 2016, it probably would have nominated Evan McMullin for president.
How much longer are third parties going to be able to maintain ballot access in California under top two primary? The number of people registered in California is going up substantially, but the number of registered third party voters is going up nominally. Can someoneone make some projections?
How soon before even Elephants are extinct in CA ???
— leaving the communist Donkey FACTIONS to eat each other.
Same fate for the CA soviet socialist republic [CASSOR] ???
Americans Elect did not become qualified until after Top 2 went into effect. It was an effort to run a presidential candidate, for which Top 2 does not apply. After the people funding the effort saw that candidates who were interested in the party nomination, were not who they wanted, they pulled the plug. In some states, the SOS accepted a letter from the D.C.-based bosses to close down the party.
California’s system of requiring a party to be “qualified” in order for a candidate to express a preference for that party violates the US and California constitutions, and is contrary to the measure approved by the voters.
JR wrote —
California’s system of requiring a party to be “qualified” in order for a candidate to express a preference for that party violates the US and California constitutions, and is contrary to the measure approved by the voters.
—-
Any Riley vs CA SOS case very soon ???
Mechelle, the requirement for a party to maintain .33% of the registration has a provision, excluding votes who were registered by the government and who never answered the question about which party they want to be registered in. So the requirement is .33% of the registered voters who did tell the government which party (or independent status) they want. So it’s really slightly easier than .33% of the total registration.
The real solution is to reduce the number of registered members to some small number (50 or 100) registered voters, which is enough along with a visible structure to determine that it is a political party. This would be enough to protect against voter confusion, and ensure some reality as to party preference, similar to that requjred for occupation, profession, office, designation on the ballot.
I doubt that California could win a case arguing that requiring some candidates to bear an offensive or false label helps reduce ballot crowding.
INDIVIDUAL candidates have party labels on nominating petitions – perhaps ONE word adjective/noun – max 16 letters
eg Riley Party.
ZERO party hack stuff needed or wanted – ZERO caucuses, primaries, conventions
with ALL the HACK machinations involved.
See 2016 USA Prez vomit HACKS at work – Trump, H. Clinton, Sanders, etc etc etc.
—
PR and AppV
How about the ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymanders in both houses of the CA legislature —
and in ALL other States ???
NO primaries.
PR and AppV
Each party is free to endorse in whatever manner it chooses.
California should eliminate filing fees and base qualification on demonstated support. If the threshold were 0.1% of gubernatorial ballots, statewide candidates 12,463 persons, roughly 235 for Congress, 312 for senate, and 156 for assembly.
Presidential electors should be chosen by Top 2 by congressional district.
The primary should be moved to September, and election by majority in the primary made possible (for Congress, this will wait until legislation passes).
Some folks love to ignore basic gerrymander math 00001-
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged gerrymander areas = 1/4 OR LESS CONTROL = OLIGARCHY
— ALWAYS TENDING TO MONARCHY.
THINK KILLER ROMAN EMPERORS,
ALL THE DARK AGE MONARCHS,
*MODERN* MONSTERS LIKE NAPOLEON, KAISER BILL, STALIN, HITLER, MAO, ETC.
HOW MANY KILLER USA PREZS — KILLING OFF AMERICAN INDIANS AND/OR FOREIGN FOLKS — ESP. IN UN-DECLARED WARS ???
Since top two primary went into effect in California the Americans Elect Party lost ballot access.
American Elect would have lost ballot access in California anyway, because they did not have anywhere close to enough people registered under their party label necessary to retain ballot status under California law (I think the number is currently around 66,000 or so), plus, they never ran any candidates, and they went defunct as a party.
What determines whether a party retains ballot access in California? Is it still Cal Election Code § 5100?
California parties remain ballot-qualified if (1) they have registration of at least .33% of the state total, or (2) if a candidate who is a member of that party receives at least 2% of the vote in a midterm year for any statewide office, in either the primary or general election.
Americans Elect did have a candidate in California in 2014, for Lieutenant Governor. However, he polled less than 2%. If he had got 2% or more, Americans Elect would have been on in 2016 and 2018. If it had been on in 2016, it probably would have nominated Evan McMullin for president.
How much longer are third parties going to be able to maintain ballot access in California under top two primary? The number of people registered in California is going up substantially, but the number of registered third party voters is going up nominally. Can someoneone make some projections?
How soon before even Elephants are extinct in CA ???
— leaving the communist Donkey FACTIONS to eat each other.
See Russia 1917-1922 Civil WAR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War
How many DEAD Russia-USSR folks in 1914-1953 ???
— causing later USSR collapse in 1989-1991
— NOT enough older folks to operate the regime.
Same fate for the CA soviet socialist republic [CASSOR] ???
Americans Elect did not become qualified until after Top 2 went into effect. It was an effort to run a presidential candidate, for which Top 2 does not apply. After the people funding the effort saw that candidates who were interested in the party nomination, were not who they wanted, they pulled the plug. In some states, the SOS accepted a letter from the D.C.-based bosses to close down the party.
California’s system of requiring a party to be “qualified” in order for a candidate to express a preference for that party violates the US and California constitutions, and is contrary to the measure approved by the voters.
JR wrote —
California’s system of requiring a party to be “qualified” in order for a candidate to express a preference for that party violates the US and California constitutions, and is contrary to the measure approved by the voters.
—-
Any Riley vs CA SOS case very soon ???
Mechelle, the requirement for a party to maintain .33% of the registration has a provision, excluding votes who were registered by the government and who never answered the question about which party they want to be registered in. So the requirement is .33% of the registered voters who did tell the government which party (or independent status) they want. So it’s really slightly easier than .33% of the total registration.
The real solution is to reduce the number of registered members to some small number (50 or 100) registered voters, which is enough along with a visible structure to determine that it is a political party. This would be enough to protect against voter confusion, and ensure some reality as to party preference, similar to that requjred for occupation, profession, office, designation on the ballot.
I doubt that California could win a case arguing that requiring some candidates to bear an offensive or false label helps reduce ballot crowding.
INDIVIDUAL candidates have party labels on nominating petitions – perhaps ONE word adjective/noun – max 16 letters
eg Riley Party.
ZERO party hack stuff needed or wanted – ZERO caucuses, primaries, conventions
with ALL the HACK machinations involved.
See 2016 USA Prez vomit HACKS at work – Trump, H. Clinton, Sanders, etc etc etc.
—
PR and AppV