1. HUMAN CANDIDATES ARE ELECTED- NOT *PARTIES*.

   NOOOO EXTREMIST PRIMARIES

   —
   PR
   APPV
   TOTSOP

2. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/epstein-files-release-mentions-wild-182649588.html

   STONE AGE KILLER TRUMP AT SEX WORK ???

   HOW MANY *INVESTIGATIONS* OF TRUMP IN 2027 IF DONKEYS GET CONTROL OF USA H REPS OR SENATE OR BOTH IN NOV 2026 ELECTION ???

3. California should modify the definition of a political party to be similar to that in Florida, with a minimum registration of 50 or 100, and eliminate the ability to write-in a political party preference. A prospective new political party would gather affidavits from prospective members and present them as part of its application for recognition. A recognized party would need a formal organization, perhaps including a biennial state convention with some quorum requirements. The state would mail out party ballots in odd-numbered years. A party such as the Libertarian that does not want party elections could simply have invitations to party meetings mailed out. If a party wanted to use an unconventional vote counting method, simply turn the ballots over to them.

4. I don’t think Jim Riley’s suggestion is feasible, unless the use of printed voter registration forms is eliminated. If it is that easy for new parties to qualify, then new parties would frequently qualify (and existing parties that had previously been qualified on a whim go out of existence as their founders lose interest), and the existing registration forms would frequently become obsolete. If there is no space to write in a party preference, then the obsolete registration forms would be unusable because they wouldn’t allow for registration in all qualified parties.

   How does Florida do it? Do they have registration by party? Do they have printed voter registration forms without a space to write in a party affiliation?

5. @DK,

   I’ll explain my rationale.

   Prior to Top 2 a “qualified” party would choose its nominees in a state-administered primaries. The reason for the high barrier to qualification was to justify the expense of putting on the primary. A voter’s party affiliation was literally an expression of intent to affiliate with the party at the next primary. It was aspirational. Gavin Newsom might have intended to vote in the Democratic primary, but the party might have lost its qualification if voters changed their registration. Tom Campbell has expressed an intent to vote in a Common Sense primary, but that is only possible if sufficient numbers register with the party.

   The fundamental purpose of the Top 2 primary was to expirtipate the privelege of nomination. Instead candidates can have their party preference, as expressed on their affidavit of voter registration, appear on the ballot. There is no reason to presume that Tom Campbell preference for the Common Sense party is less sincere than Gavin Newsom’s preference for the Democratic party (a preference is subjective, so is not provable as a fact.)

   Debra Bowen as SOS sabotaged the Top 2 by restricting candidates to having their ballot preference limited to larger parties. Expression of a party preference is First Amendment protected. California can not limit First Amendment expression to more popular beliefs, in effect establishing a state orthodoxy.

   It can limit party preferences to actual parties. Tom Campbell may or may not have “common sense”, but there can be an objective determination whether a party exists (or existed). It can have a body of registered members. It can have a formal governing structure (state central committee), bylaws, and some form of political activity. 50 or 100 voters is sufficient membership and a biennial convention can be used to ensure member control of the party.

   A political party may have sufficient members, but no longer has any formal organization. There is no harm in a candidate expressing their preference for the Natural Law Party (a registrant of the NLP made a preliminary round of screening for the redistricting commission). There could be a dormant status. A dormant party could not make endorsements, but re-activation could be possible since the state maintains a list of registrants.

   California does most new registrations by Automatic Voter Registration, generally through driver’s license applications and changes. New registrations are given an affiliation of “unknown”. The voter is provisionally registered and are sent a notice. If they don’t want to be registered they can decline. They can either indicate an affiliation or ignore the notice. If a voter does write in something like “Who Cares” and there is no Who Cares Party, election officials simply inform the voter.

   Florida printed registration forms only have the names of two parties printed on the form. I’m not sure what happens for on-line registration which I think is by fillable PDF (you have to make certain assertions that could put someone in Texas filling out the form in legal jeopardy).

6. @Jim Riley, you didn’t need to explain why you support “top two” and the difference between its “party preference” and previous “party affiliation”. I disagree with you about “top two”, but that wasn’t my point in my previous comment.

   If registration forms don’t have a write-in space for the name of the party and it is easy for parties to come and go, then printed registration forms would frequently become obsolete (and arguably, legally invalid, because they don’t allow voters to register as affiliated with or preferring any qualified party). This makes it infeasible to combine those two features, unless registration is only online so that the forms people see when registering to vote are always up to date (though even that is assuming the Secretary of State’s office always promptly and accurately updates the online forms).

   Not having the possibility of writing in a party name on a registration form would also imply not having the possibility of writing in a party name on the notification sent to people who are automatically registered as “unknown”, but your example about “Who Cares” assumes they do have that option. (I think it could be feasible for such notification forms to be kept up to date with changing lists of qualified parties, or at least much closer to being feasible than printed registration forms.)

7. Parties should be elected, not candidates. And the spambot screaming libel about Liberator, Savior, and Peacemaker Trump is designed to encourage more assassination attempts against the President. Please remove the slanderous libel and the AZ666 SPAMBOT.

8. The party should be composed of those who show up on election night and stand with that party in the election hall.

9. @DK,

   If a voter wrote in words for a non-recognized party, that would not be recorded. The voter would be informed.

   If you write in “Trump” in the write-in space on a ballot, it is the same as if you x’ed the box next to Trump.

   In Texas if you write in a non qualified write-in candidate, it is not a valid vote.

   Perhaps, I could have used different terminology.

10. There should be no unrecognized parties.

11. @Jim Riley,

    From your second 2/2 comment, I think I now understand what you meant. By “eliminate the ability to write-in a political party preference” in your original suggestion, you did not mean to eliminate the space in which a voter could write in (or type in, in the on-line version) a party preference, but that the party preference written in would not be followed if it were not for an official political party (like a write-in vote for a non-qualified candidate is in Texas, California and many but not all other states). If that is what you meant, while I wouldn’t endorse it, I no longer think that it is incompatible with having printed registration forms.

12. There should be no printed registration forms. Nothing involving elections should be printed or require literacy.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.