A Los Angeles Times-USC poll recently asked Californians if they prefer a closed primary, a semi-closed primary, or the current top-two system. 50% support the top-two system; 40% support a semi-closed primary; 10% support a closed primary. See this story. The poll was conducted on-line between April 18 and May 18, before much of the publicity about how Democratic candidates for Governor and for U.S. House in certain districts are using insincere campaign messages to influence Republican voters to choose one Republican over another Republican.
Unfortunately the poll did not ask voters about a blanket primary. In a blanket primary, all party candidates appear on a single primary ballot, and all voters use that ballot. But the top vote-getter from each party then goes to the November ballot. Independent candidates do not participate in the primary, but petition directly onto the November ballot. California used that system in 1998 and 2000. The U.S. Supreme Court said it violated freedom of association for political parties to be forced to let outsiders help choose their nominees. But the system could be made constitutional if it were voluntary, and parties that didn’t want to use a blanket primary could instead nominate by convention.
Failure to ask about —
NO primary.
PR and AppV
The blanket primary with the possibility for convention nomination seems like the perfect system. It allows minor party candidates to make it onto the general election ballot as well as independents and if a party does want to use it then they have to nominate by convention and lose out on all the free publicity a primary offers.
No question about it. The only acceptable voting system is pure proportional representation (PPR).
The United Coalition has been using advanced parliamentary procedures under PPR for more than twenty-three years despite the slanderers, bullies and censorious actions by the pluralist party bosses and the psychological momentum of the pluralists rhetoric in the free press.
Google Inc. and the SF Chronicle are also protecting the one-party system power-base in SF California, failed math supported by CoFOE, BAN and FairVote and others for the past twenty-three years, but the United Coalition has been correct all along.
The United Coalition has been building on the teamwork and team psychology while helping new people learn the mathematical unity of PPR, while launching from California to the international level with great success, all while the pluralists use the unity message to lie, to destroy the teamwork and promote conceited egomaniacs’ single-winner power grabs by self-promoting their own name.
The United Coalition has elected the “Unity Platform California”, which is like advanced team plays, of which pluralists cannot employ and enjoy:
http://usparliament.org/ss11-unity-platform.php
ALL or SOME PUBLIC Electors nominate candidates for PUBLIC offices – via PUBLIC LAWS.
Some really EVIL/MORON hacks in SCOTUS since Williams v Rhodes 1968.
Perhaps because the polling period ended May 18, the same day an LA Times writer proposed a “top-four” primary with ranked-choice voting in the general election, that option was also not included in the poll. “Top-four” would seem to match well with a blanket primary in which the top vote-getter in each participating party earns a spot on the general election ballot.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gumbel-open-primary-20180518-story.html
General election RESULTS —
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged gerrymander districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL = OLIGARCHY
— since 1200s — gerrymander formation of English House of Commons.
Much worse before 1964 SCOTUS gerrymander cases.
Much, much worse primary math – esp. if no incumbent
— about 5-15 percent REAL OLIGARCHY – special interest gangsters
— aka communist/fascist *leaders*.
Copy and paste on wall near computer.
Just going from my own informal survey from talking to lots of random Californians about Top Two Primary, pretty much nobody supports Top Two Primary if they understand what it is and what it does.
A blanket primary could be held in which all candidates, including independents are on the ballot. Each party could determine which votes count for purposes of nomination.
A 5% threshold could be used to determine whether a party’s nominee would appear on the general election ballot. Thus if there are three candidates seeking the Libertarian nomination, and the collective share of votes cast for the three by (*qualified Libertarian nominators) is 5% of the total votes cast for the office, then the Libertarian with the most votes would be the Libertarian nominee.
*Each party would determine whose votes would be counted for nomination purposes. A party could open this up to “outsiders” which would increase the chance of qualifying at the risk of dilution of the process.
In addition to the party nominees, any candidate who received 5% of the votes cast regardless of party would advance to the general election as an Independent candidate. Such a candidate who received less than 20% of the vote could voluntarily withdraw.
In the general election, a candidate could be elected with a majority. Otherwise, the Top 2 would face off in a runoff. The general election could be held in August, with a runoff in November.
Write-ins would be possible at all stages, with a runoff requiring the winner to receive 40% of the vote. Otherwise, there would be a second runoff.
The General would have to be held in November for federal offices and the runoff (if needed) would probably then be December
The blanket primary seems like a good option, with one addition: independents could be given a separate, marked ballot, with all candidates, including independents, and each party could decide whether or not to accept votes for their candidates from independents, and votes for independent candidates would be by approval voting, with some minimum threshold of approval votes to go on to the general election.
@BL,
The legislature in California takes office in December, so the runoff would have to be in November.
The legislation could have a provision that pending a change in federal law that a congressional runoff would have one on-ballot candidate if they had received a majority in the general election.
What is the fixation for having primaries — when they are NOT math needed ???