Newsweek’s latest issue carries this column by its columnist Jonathan Alter, in favor of “top-two” election systems. Here is his column, which is titled, “The Jackass-Reduction Plan.”

Here is the text of a letter Ballot Access News has just sent to Jonathan Alter, outlining six reasons why he should change his mind:

1. “Top-two” helps incumbents and does not “reduce jackasses.” When it was used for the first time in Washington state in 2008, out of 123 state legislative races, only one incumbent was defeated in the primary, and his reputation at the time of the primary was such that he probably would have been defeated under any election system.

2. Corrupt special interests were the top financial backers when the “top-two” initiative (Prop. 62) qualified for the California ballot in 2004. The leading financial backer was Countrywide Home Loans, which at the time was the nation’s biggest home mortgage lender, but which no longer exists, having been bought out by Bank of America in 2008. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countrywide_financial_political_loan_scandal (here is a link) for an account of one aspect of Countrywide’s behavior, giving cheap loans to important politicians. Separate from that, Countrywide was sued by 10 states for tricking people into taking out mortgages with disguised adjustable rates, something highlighted in Michael Moore’s new film opening October 2, “Capitalism: a Love Story.” Big business executives favored “top-two” because it screens out from the general election candidates who didn’t have the financial advantages to place first or second in the first round.

3. “Top-two” wipes minor party and independent candidates out of the general election campaign season. This was shown when Washington state used the system for the first time in 2008. For the first time since Washington became a state, no minor party or independent candidates appeared on the November ballot in any congressional election or any statewide state office election.

4. The system may well be unconstitutional. On August 20, 2009, a U.S. District Court in Washington state said the system may be unconstitutional and set the stage for new briefings and a probable trial.

5. “Top-two” greatly increases the cost of campaigning, because it forces candidates to run, in effect, two campaigns in front of the entire electorate (assuming they qualify for the second round).

6. “Top-two” is not favored by people who have studied election systems. Political Science Professor Paul Gronke, of Reed College, posed a question to all 600 political scientists on the Political Methodology listserve, asking how many support “top-two”. Only one political scientist replied in the affirmative. Professor Gronke participated in debates last year when Oregon voters were deciding whether to vote for “top-two”. Gronke opposed the ballot measure, which was defeated 2-1.

Another paragraph in BAN’s letter to Jonathan Alter, not reproduced here, explains why he should not refer to “top-two” as the “open primary.”

Repair California, a group that hopes to get two initiatives on the California ballot to obtain a new state constitution, will submit its proposed initiative language to the Attorney General on September 25. One initiative would authorize voters to call a constitutional convention; the other would actually ask the voters to take that step. Currently, only a two-thirds vote of the legislature can begin the process of considering a new constitution. The existing Constitution dates from 1879, although it was substantially revised in the period 1966-1974.

Also, another group, California Action Network, also plans to circulate an initiative to enable the voters to call for a Constitutional Convention. It has already received its language from the Attorney General, and its petitions are being printed now. See http://CaliforniaActionNetwork.com.

A recent neutral poll show that 70% of the voters would vote for calling a Constitutional Convention. If the initiatives get on the ballot, they would be on the November 2010 ballot. See this story. The proposals envision that the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention would be ordinary citizens, not state legislators.

The Peace Party became a ballot-qualified party in 2008 in Oregon. It was formed for the purpose of placing Ralph Nader on the ballot in Oregon. At the time, it was significantly easier to qualify a new party in Oregon than to get an independent candidate on the ballot (thanks to good legislative action in 2009, the independent procedures are now easier than they had been in 2008).

Because the Peace Party polled over 1% of the vote for president, it retained its ballot status, and is ballot qualified for 2010. On September 17, it filed paperwork with the Secretary of State to change its name to the Progressive Party. Oregon permits qualified parties to change their names. However, voters who had been registered in the Peace Party will need to change their registration, if they wish to continue being a member of the party under its new name.

Oregon and Vermont are now the two states that have a ballot-qualified party named the Progressive Party.