On June 11, five candidates who were excluded from the South Carolina major party primaries filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, asking for an injunction to stop the major party primaries. The primary date is June 12. See this story. The lawsuit is based on the Voting Rights Act. The plaintiffs include three Republicans and two Democrats. The case is Smith v State of South Carolina Election Commission, 3:12-1543.
Filing for the Florida primary closed on June 8. The ballot-qualified Tea Party, which had eighteen candidates on the ballot in 2010 for federal and state office, has no candidates for partisan office this year.
In this year’s U.S. House races, there are 27 races. Republicans have a candidate in 24 races; Democrats also have a candidate in 24 races. The only minor party candidate for a U.S. House seat is Calen Fretts, a Libertarian, running in the First district. There will be independent candidates on the November ballot in 13 of the 27 races.
This patten is similar to 2010, when there were 25 districts. In 2010, Republicans ran in 24 districts, Democrats ran in 21 districts, and independents ran in nine districts. The only minor party candidates for U.S. House in 2010 were three Tea Party candidates and one Florida Whig Party candidate.
This year, for legislature, there are three Libertarians, one Green, and two members of the Independent Party. One of the Independent Party nominees is Nancy Argenziano, who is a former Democratic member of the legislature. She is running for State Representative, 34th district, and she will have a Democratic opponent and a Republican opponent.
In the U.S. Senate race this year, there are three independent candidates, but no minor party candidates.
Daily Kos has this interesting and fair article about California’s election system. Equally interesting are the comments.
Sometimes supporters of top-two open primary systems say that their system eliminates “spoiling”, i.e., the so-called tendency of minor party candidates in a race to alter the identity of the winner. But, that argument is faulty. This is clearly illustrated in the First Assembly District results in California’s June 5 primary.
Two Republicans ran: Brian Dahle received 31,687 votes, and Rick Bosetti received 25,820 votes. They will be the only candidates in November. They are both firm opponents of any tax increases. In addition, one Democrat, Robert Meacher, ran. He received 24,081 votes, not enough to qualify for the November ballot. Also, Green Party member David Edwards ran, and received 5,225 votes; and Libertarian Charley Hooper ran and received 4,839 votes. Here is a newspaper story, in which the Democrat, Robert Meacher, says that if the two minor party candidates had not been in the race, he would have received enough votes to qualify for the November ballot. See the fifth paragraph in the story. Meacher is probably correct.
Assembly District One consists of the northeast corner of California. If California still used a normal system in which party members nominate candidates for the November election, voters in this district in November would be able to vote for any one of four parties, for Assembly. But, in reality, voters will be restricted to choosing between two Republicans, both of whom are very similar on the issues.
If top-two supporters are sincere that they wish to eliminate “spoiling”, it would be more rational for them to support Instant Runoff Voting or Approval Voting.
The Michigan Libertarian Party has issued this press release, condemning Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, a Republican, for her decision that she will not allow the Libertarian Party (which is ballot-qualified) to list its presidential nominee on the 2012 ballot. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for the link.
