I have this opinion piece in Fox & Hounds blog, about the relationship between California’s new March primary (starting after 2018) and the viability of the top-two system.
I have this opinion piece in Fox & Hounds blog, about the relationship between California’s new March primary (starting after 2018) and the viability of the top-two system.
If someone first voted in 1964, and they counted every independent candidate for Congress in California, over a total of 1000 contests, they would not have had to remove their shoes until 2010 to count all the candidates who qualified for the general election ballot, by petition.
Remarkably, you do not recognize that there would also be no post-primary qualification for non-partisan offices. Does that make nonpartisan elections also unconstitutional?
If there were a legal challenge to the date of the primary, a court would not undo the California Constitution but simply order the primary be held later in the year (see ‘Love v Foster’).
California should move the primary to September or even October. This would free California to move its presidential preference straw-poll primary to even earlier, perhaps 2019.
The only way Top-2 could work fairly would be if the “primary” was the general election date with a runoff to be held later if needed. Of course this makes it NOT Top-2 and rather the system Louisiana uses.
The SCOTUS morons invented the slight/severe nonsense stuff
— part of the nonstop perversions using vague adjectives and adverbs in more and more JUNK opinions.
ps Republicans did not have a plurality in 1854/5 (see Dubin).
Because there were no government-printed ballots, anyone could run for Congress. Most of the “Republicans” elected in Illinois were incumbent “Whigs”. A voter in filling out their ballot, would not write “Whig” or “Republican” but the name of the candidate.
The election system used in the 19th Century was much closer to Top 2, than the segregated partisan primary system that you seem to favor.
@BL,
You seem to be saying that Top 2 is unfair because it is unfair. Could you present a less circular argument.
Pure proportional representation is the only voting system that we need to discuss because promoting any other voting system is a distraction and harmful to the team.
We need to build the team around the only voting system which all parties and independents agree.
I understand the strategy of putting Republicans against Democratics with Top Two but voters are sick and tired the failed strategy of division politics being perpetuated by the author.
Only pure proportional representation will set the correct unifying policy needed to unite the 100%.
The United Coalition has been using pure proportional representation for more than twenty-two consecutive years and it works fine.
The House of Representatives web page, for history of the US House, says the breakdown of the House elected in 1854 was “Opposition 100; Democrats 83; American 51.” Ken Martis’ excellent reference book, History of U.S. Congressional Elections 1788-1997″ agrees with those figures. Martis and his researchers did extensive work tracking down the true party affiliation of every member of the US House.
When did *Republican* candidates put *Republican* on party tickets/ballots ???
1856 ? 1858 ?? 1860 ??? — esp in the slave States — soon to be in rebel mode in 1860-1861.
How many *Republican* tickets/ballots in the ex-rebel / ex-slave States in 1866 – 1868 – 1870 – 1872 – 1874 – 1876 ???
One party ticket/ballot or multiple — 1 for each office (esp district offices) ???
This entire thread is just so odd. Everyone commenting here appears to be talking only to themselves. Not very productive.
Dubin on Page 174 explains how Martis arrived at his totals, and notes that 55 of the “Opposition” 100 were elected as Whigs. Roughly 1/3 of Representatives for the 34th Congress were elected in 1855 (no Republicans or Whigs). This suggests that the few months after the Kansas-Nebraska Act were not sufficient for formation of the party
Three Republicans were elected in Illinois, two were incumbents previously elected as Whigs. They would likely have been re-elected as Whigs. Another Whig-Republican incumbent was defeated.
You will recall the oral arguments in ‘Foster v Love’, where AG Ieyoub argued that the Louisiana system of election was so novel, that the 1872 law did not apply. The lawyer for Love explained that the system then used by Louisiana was practically the same as everybody used in 1872, except for the requirement of a majority for election.
Early primaries are an attempt to evade the principle between the 1872 law.
The Congress should repeal the 1872 law, and simply require all phases of an election occur within 6 months of the beginning of the term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)
Good luck in editing any wiki.
@DR,
This does not address anything I wrote.
Sorry – my postings are NOT always for J.R.