Courthouse News Service has this article about the January 29 decision of the California Court of Appeals, upholding the top-two system. The case is Rubin v Padilla.
Courthouse News Service has this article about the January 29 decision of the California Court of Appeals, upholding the top-two system. The case is Rubin v Padilla.
Thanks to Top Two, we’ve seen very much more cooperation and teamwork across party lines in 2014. We learned about a unifying voting system for voters and candidates registered with all parties (and independents) who wanted to see citizens unite for the good of the whole. We could have had more unity in 2012 had the modified primary not been implemented by the Green, Libertarian and P&F Party bosses who serve to spread conflict, division and agony.
Top Two in fact, creates a scenario where three candidates can tie with 33.33% of the votes, and the two candidates receiving 33.33% (plus one vote) are guaranteed to get all the attention of the voters by breaking the three-way tie, but should one voter switch their vote over to the losing third name with 33.33%, then then that third name (third party or independent?) would be the one to get the spotlight of Top Two (with 33.33% plus one vote), a pair-test, and they too would have the greatest potential to win with a majority.
Too often we saw third parties complain about Top Two being unfair as they wrecked havoc to unity with emotional pleas to stop top two over and over and year after year, on, and on and on.
But from the team players, we saw in 2014 how Ron Gold [Republican] won the primary for California Attorney General with 12.5% under Top Two, and several other third party candidates were on the ballot and could have won had they been able to unite with the all, as a coordinated effort, by using unifying rhetoric instead of emotional division-causing, repulsive rhetoric against Top Two.
The unifying system of pure proportional representation (PR) has been the correct alternative to fighting all along but many have failed to head the math and come on aboard.
That has caused horrendous loss of time, energy and resources and those responsible must be held accountable.
Believe it or not, the USA Parliament has been unifying voters like this for 20 consecutive years and we’ve used the new phenomena of accountability with torque.
The USA Parliament started by connecting 125 POTUS candidates (POTUS = President of the United States) in 1996 and now we already have 48 POTUS candidates nominated in 2016 under more strict guidelines which we’re always eagerly improving. We’re always inviting and welcoming everyone with open arms, forgiving the bad and we’ve nevr turned any voter away in once since we first began on August 6th, 1995 when given recognition by the FEC as a Super-PAC.
This democratic unity requires communication and cooperation under a single parliamentary ballot to work. We simply vote on names and decisions in order to think as a single team under the guidance of the team’s own elected rules.
The Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution system seems to work very well to create a perfect synchronization, and to identify and attract good team players in politics.
Some people only want to fuss and fight, but only pure proportional representation (PR) gives us the inter-party unity to get things done collaboratively.
Won’t you join us?
http://www.usparliament.org/
The California Attorney General’s race would almost certainly have turned out the same way, whether a top-two system or the old semi-closed primary was used. Only one Democrat filed, the incumbent. Four Republicans filed. There was so little publicity about the four Republicans running for Attorney General, voters almost certainly gave Ron Gold more votes than any other Republican because he had the most prestigious occupation (California is the only state that prints the occupation of candidates on the ballot). Ron Gold’s ballot occupation label was “retired state prosecutor.” The other three Republicans had “no ballot designation”; “attorney/small businessman”; and “attorney/rancher.” For an Attorney General race, Gold’s occupation was clearly more impressive than any of the other three Republicans. So the fact that Ron Gold’s name was on the November ballot under the top-two system doesn’t show that his name wouldn’t also have been on the ballot under the semi-closed system in effect 2001-2010.
However, under the old system, there would also have been an independent candidate on the November ballot (Orly Taitz, if she could have got the signatures) and a Libertarian, Jonathan Jaech. Under the old system, November voters would have had 4 choices, whereas in reality they only had two choices. Voters don’t like restricted choices. When voters saw their general election sample ballot and saw that they had only Democrats and Repubicans to vote for in all the statewide office, a large number of them decided not to bother to vote. That is why the November 2014 turnout, at 44%, was the first regularly-scheduled general election in California history in which fewer than 50% of the registered voters voted.
With the top 2 stuff —
IF there is NOT both a D and a R, then there are even more NON-votes than usual.
Result – legislative bodies —
Quite possible to have even less than 25 percent minority rule.
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 pack/crack gerrymander districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL.
—
NO primaries.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
“That is why the November 2014 turnout, at 44%, was the first regularly-scheduled general election in California history in which fewer than 50% of the registered voters voted.”
You are mixing up causality and correlation.