CA Prop 14: Making Choice Illegal???

[dean.engelhardt]

"Californians, please vote NO on Proposition 14. This is not the change we need. This Top Two system will shut out all but two voices in our November elections, which are the elections that count."

I just learned about CA Prop 14. If this passes, it looks like it CA will not have a legal choice beyond democrat/republican. Does anyone any more insight on the proposition?

[dannno]

What?? I thought this was for open primaries?!

[dannno]

Wow, that is SNEAKY!!

Changes the primary election process for congressional, statewide, and legislative races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate's or voter's political party preference. Ensures that the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference. Fiscal Impact: No significant net change in state and local government costs to administer elections.

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/14/

[dean.engelhardt]

Opponents say the measure reduces choice for voters. “Prop. 14 is backed by coporate special interests because it makes it easier to elect corporate Republican candidates like Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner,” as the flyer says.

In all, proponents have spent more than $4.6 million on the measure. It’s being bankrolled by Gov. Schwarzenegger’s political committee ($2 million)

I support libertarians, so effort to keep them off ballots peeve me off.

The article linked above says the current govner is helping bankroll this effort. I have a hard time with a currently elected offical promoting laws rigging elections to ensure he stays in office. I'm sure Arnold would love to get votes since it will be illegal to vote for a librertarian.

[american.swan]

So instead of a dem primary and gop primary, they are combined into one super primary with all parties. The top two voter getters go to the general election. What would happen in some cases would be the top two vote getters would both be from the same party.

The net result of this is you better "get out the vote in the primary" and this makes the primary as important as the general election. You can imagine voters who voted for a primary loser won't vote in the general. The thought processes of the voters could change quite a bit in this system.

[cjm]

If I read this correctly, and only one candidate may be selected from the open primary ballot, then this will actually help third parties. I cannot see a major party submitting five candidates to an open primary while the other major party only submits two candidates -- there would be too much risk that the two opposition candidates would be the two appearing on the general election ballot ("the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes"). To prevent that, some kind of caucus system will be employed so that (R) and (D) parties only submit one candidate each to the open primary. Voters who historically avoided third party candidates in general elections for fear that the greater of two evils might win, can safely vote for any third party candidates that they like in this open primary knowing that the general election will give them a chance to vote for the lesser of two evils if the third party candidate doesn't make the cut.

Now if the process lets you choose one (D) *and* one (R) *and* one (L), etc, or if it lets a voter choose two candidates, then this will not help third parties.

[cjm]

So instead of a dem primary and gop primary, they are combined into one super primary with all parties. The top two voter getters go to the general election.

That's my take on it too. This would make the primary election essentially the general election and make the general election essentially a runoff election.

This doesn't necessarily hurt choice since it mitigates some of the perceived risks in voting for third parties. I'd expect to see some people stray from the major parties in the primary knowing that they get a second shot down the road.

[dannno]

bump

[dannno]

bump

[phazespace]

If I read this correctly, and only one candidate may be selected from the open primary ballot, then this will actually help third parties. I cannot see a major party submitting five candidates to an open primary while the other major party only submits two candidates -- there would be too much risk that the two opposition candidates would be the two appearing on the general election ballot ("the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes"). To prevent that, some kind of caucus system will be employed so that (R) and (D) parties only submit one candidate each to the open primary. Voters who historically avoided third party candidates in general elections for fear that the greater of two evils might win, can safely vote for any third party candidates that they like in this open primary knowing that the general election will give them a chance to vote for the lesser of two evils if the third party candidate doesn't make the cut.

Now if the process lets you choose one (D) *and* one (R) *and* one (L), etc, or if it lets a voter choose two candidates, then this will not help third parties.

you get one vote. persons on the primary ballot don't have party affiliation associated with them.

I find it odd that not one party, major or otherwise, seems to be FOR prop 14:

• Dems - http://www.cadem.org/site/c.jrLZK2Py....CC3A/Home.htm
• GOP - http://www.cagop.org/
• Libertarian - http://ca.lp.org/article_399.shtml
• Green - http://www.cagreens.org/
• Peace and Freedom - http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/

These groups rarely agree on anything...

Voter guide says:
“Currently, only two states use “top-two” elections. In 2008, Washington State had 139 races and only ONE incumbent lost a primary. Proposition 14 will protect incumbents.”

I can see this increasing voter turnout for primary elections in CA, but then diminishing the already crappy turnout for the general election. Major parties can already allow independent voters into their primary as the GOP has done this year, so I'm not buying the 'openness' argument. There's probably a better way to reform voting if we really want it.

I'm voting No.