A California Superior Court in Alameda County will hear arguments in Rubin v Bowen on March 6, Tuesday, at 9 a.m. This is the case filed by the Peace & Freedom Party, Libertarian Party of California, and the Alameda County Green Party, against California’s “top-two” system. It concerns the essential characteristic of all top-two systems, that the system inevitably excludes all parties from the general election season and the general election ballot except for the Democratic and Republican Parties. The hearing is at the Alameda County Courthouse, 1221 Oak Street, department 16.
This case should not be confused with the older California lawsuits Field v Bowen, and Chamness v Bowen, which only attacked two particular aspects of California’s top-two system (the ban on counting write-ins, and the discriminatory policy on ballot labels).
Can ANY body see ANY mention of political parties in the U.S.A. Constitution, as amended ???
Gee – did the Elephants ONLY become a top 2 party in 1854-1860 ???
i.e. even the MORON SCOTUS robot party hacks may note such history fact
— i.e. it IS *possible* for a third party to become a top 2 party.
—-
ALL of the top 2 stuff is one more distraction.
P.R. and App.V.
NO moron primaries are needed or wanted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)
Elephants – once upon a time pro-freedom and Union 1854-1877.
Now something EVIL different ???
Parties do not appear on the general election ballot, candidates do.
Under the blanket primary in California, minor party candidates did better in the primary than in the general election. It is a myth that supporters of 3rd party candidates are too lazy or stupid to be aware of primaries.
It is not an attribute of California’s Top 2 system that discriminates against use of the party preference that appears upon the affidavit of voter registration, it is an attribute of Debra Bowen’s misinterpretation of the straightforward text that is contrary to the California Constitution and Proposition 14.
#4, the evidence contradicts you. Out of 775 instances in which a minor party member ran for federal or state office in a blanket primary or a top-two primary, and there were at least two major party members running, there are only 2 instances when the minor party person came in first or second. That evidence is before the judge in the Rubin lawsuit.
What is the magic percentage size of the support for a third party or independent to have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to get on general election ballots ???
Can ANY body find such magic percentage in the U.S.A. Constitution ???
What about those Texas White Primary cases in 1928-1932 ???
In the 2000 Congressional elections, there were 23 races with one Democrat, one Republican, and one candidate from one or more minor parties. That is, the primary was non-consequential and voters were free to vote their conscience.
In 17 of 21 cases (81%) where there was a Libertarian, he did better in the primary. In 14 of 22 cases (64%) where there was a Natural Law Party candidate, she did better in in the primary. In 2 of 2 cases, the AIP candidate did better. In 0 of 2 cases, the Green Party candidate did better in the primary (but Ralph Nader may have had long coattails).
Overall that is 33 of 47 (70%) where the minor party candidate did better in the primary.
#6, your statistics are selective. You have omitted all the races that weren’t limited to one Democrat and one Republican in the primary. And you have limited yourself to 2000, and have ignored 1998, the other California blanket primary year.
Also, you have nothing to say about all the general election campaigning that minor party candidates would not have been permitted to do if California had had a top-two primary in 2000. That’s the real harm done by top-two systems, the muffling of points of view in the general election campaign season. For once I wish you would talk about that.
#7 I deliberately selected those races. In those races where there were contested races for the Democratic or Republican nomination, it appears that some minor party supporters voted based on that. They would realize that their favored candidate would advance, and chose to vote in a way that meant their vote have some effect.
That is, in those races they weren’t voting sincerely in the primary; while in the general election they voted their sincere choice.
You make an artificial distinction between the primary and general election. The purpose of the election is to determine an individual candidate who will serve as the elected official.
Pingback: Minor Party Lawsuit Against Essense of California Top-Two Hearing Date Set | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
#8, elections have many purposes. One of the chief purposes of elections is to circulate ideas. Every political science textbook recognizes that.
The only idea since 1929 has been MORE or a bit LESS in STATISM — esp. taxes/borrowing for more statist spending — esp. more bureaucrats, govt contractors, interest outgo and super-esp. WELFARE (aka govt *transfer payments*.
Gerrymanders control ALL — since 1776 — regardless of the brain dead math morons in SCOTUS since the 1964 gerrymander cases.
The top 2 primary is WORTHLESS – a gerrymander MONSTER will still be produced in each gerrymander district — U.S.A. Reps and both houses of the CA legislature.
#10 The sole purpose of an election from the standpoint of the government is to choose officers.
That some groups attach other purposes is at best a side effect.
#12, even from the government’s point of view, the election has other functions than to determine who gets elected. The government depends on the election returns for president to determine which party can receive general election public funding. State governments depend on the election returns in most states to determine which parties are automatically on the ballot in the next election. In a few states, the state government depends on the election returns to know which parties and candidates can qualify for public funding for state office. In a few states, the state government depends on the election returns to determine which parties are eligible to be listed on voter registration cards.
#13 The federal government does not conduct elections. That they use election returns to determine how to distribute money borrowed from the Chinese can not be regarded as a purpose of an election.
What is the purpose of this election?
Why it is to determine who will appear on the ballot for the next election.
But what is the purpose of that next election?
To determine who will appear on the ballot in the next election after that.
And the next?
The next.
Next?
Next.
Wasn’t that part of Alice in Wonderland?