TPMDC

Could California Scrap Party Primaries Today?

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

On the ballot in today's California primary is a measure that would affect the state's elections for many years to come: a referendum on scrapping the traditional primary system itself, and changing over to "top two" blanket primaries and runoffs.

The referendum, Proposition 14, would replace the conventional separate Democratic and Republican primaries with a system in which all candidates run on the same ballot. The top two finishers in the primary, regardless of party, would then advance to a runoff general election. The same system has been used in Louisiana, and was adopted in the last few years in Washington state. A SurveyUSA poll from the last few days suggests that Prop. 14 is on its way to passage: Yes 50%, No 28%.

As such, many districts would see races of one Democrat versus one Republican -- but many other places, such as heavily Democratic San Francisco or heavily Republican Bakersfield, would see two candidates of the same party. It is widely believed that such a system would benefit moderates in such races, as Dem voters would gravitate towards a less conservative Republican and GOP voters would pick the less liberal Democrat. As Nate Silver dubbed the idea a year ago: "Land of a thousand Liebermans."

Interestingly, Prop. 14 was placed on the ballot last year as the result of a deal made in the legislature. Moderate Republican state Sen. Abel Maldonado gave his vote to pass the state budget, and in exchange he got the referendum, which he favors, to be put before the voters. (Since then, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has appointed Maldonado to be the state's lieutenant governor, for which Maldonado is running for a full term in today's GOP primary).

California may be polarized between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats, but the two parties do agree on something -- both of them are officially opposed to Prop. 14. California GOP communications director Mark Standriff told TPMDC that the party believes the system actually closes off the ballot for Republican voter in Dem areas and for Democratic voters in GOP areas, and would eliminate independent and and third-party candidates all around.

Standriff also differed with the case put forward by proponents who say that it would promote the election of moderates and an end to partisan gridlock. "There's no evidence out there that shows a top-two open primary shows any of the bipartisanship or breaks any gridlock, like in Louisiana or Washington state where it's been implemented. These are not models of smooth and well-functioning government," said Standriff. "It does nothing the proponents say it would do. It was put together by a secret back-room deal to pass a budget last year."

"Baseball doesn't work if you don't have teams, and democracy doesn't work if you don't have political parties. Otherwise you have chaos." said Standriff. "And the only bipartisanship Prop. 14 has achieved is getting all six ballot-qualified parties to say we hate it."

When asked how the GOP would respond to the potential passage of Prop. 14, Standriff said the decision has already been made to switch over to a convention-endorsement system, in which the state GOP would avoid a waste of party resources and divisive campaigns by having party conventions endorse a candidate, making it clear that this person is the only candidate the party would support. "Any claim out there that this is going to reduce our power, these are people who are intentionally ignoring the facts or are just naive," said Standriff.

Tenoch Flores, communications director for the California Dems, also strongly opposed the measure. "Proposition 14 will allow Republicans to choose Democratic nominees in a primary election. Democrats living in Republican controlled areas would be left with a stark choice in the general election: vote for a Republican, or don't vote at all. That's unacceptable," Flores told TPMDC in an e-mail. "What's more Prop 14 will actually increase the costs of political campaigns in California, already the most expensive in the nation, which will give more power to the very same special interests and big contributors who are pushing for this misguided measure to pass."

We asked Flores whether the Dems would react against Prop. 14 in a similar manner as the GOP, by setting up a convention-endorsement system to weed out primary fields. "We're gonna wait and see for the results, and see what happens," Flores responded.

Comments (86) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

June 8, 2010 5:28 PM   

If he wanted to change things, why not go all the way to an Instant Runoff Vote? That would actually do something, this is just window dressing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 5:37 PM    in reply to matts2

That would actually have the effect that proponents of 14 say they want to see, so of course it's not even being considered.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 9, 2010 10:15 AM    in reply to commie atheist

it would kill corporate centrism. either it would elect good government type moderate republicans or principled democrats.

its much easier to, for example, give Obama a 2 while giving kucinich a 1, than it is to pull a full primary vote for kucinich in a contested state against clinton.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 5:30 PM   

Proud to say I voted against this horrible idea.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 5:36 PM    in reply to joejustice

Hopefully there were more of you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 5:44 PM    in reply to joejustice

I did too last week.

However California use to be an open primary state, now it is a partially closed primary state. I learned that while researching when I was deciding weather or not to register as an Independent.

I guess from my understanding of the law is if I were to register independent I could vote in the republican or democratic primary only because they elected to offer me the opportunity. Hence being a partially closed primary.

But since im not independent I don't know how that would work exactly maybe someone who is registered independent can elaborate how it worked out.


Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 5:54 PM    in reply to rbeats

I am a registered independent and I was given a choice of either a non-partisan ballot, the Democratic partisan ballot or the Republican Partisan ballot at my polling place today.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 6:06 PM    in reply to commie atheist

OK that makes sense now. I was slightly confused when researching this a few months back and was afraid to not have a choice to vote in the dem primary so I registered dem instead of independent.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_decline.htm

The following qualified political parties have notified the Secretary of State that they adopted a party rule permitting decline-to-state (or unaffiliated) voters to request their party ballot in the June 8, 2010, Statewide Direct Primary Election to participate in the primary election for partisan offices (except for county central committee candidates):

* Democratic Party, letter dated January 7, 2010
* Republican Party, letter dated January 25, 2010

So the only unknown here in California is if for some reason in the next primary, if you are in fact registered independent and one of the two major parties decided not to opt in, you will not get the chance to vote for either dems or repubs if you wanted to.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 6:19 PM    in reply to rbeats

Good point. I didn't realize that the parties had to opt-in.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 9, 2010 2:12 PM    in reply to rbeats

The limited history of the "modified closed primary" in California shows that Dems always allow independents to vote in their primary, but Republicans only do when there's not a Presidential primary. So in 2012, you will probably not have the GOP as an option.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 7:06 PM    in reply to joejustice

Well I am going to vote as soon as I leave work and I am voting against it too. It scares me beyond words. I presume you voted no on 16 and 17 and yes on 15????

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 5:38 PM   

Proud to say I voted for it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 9, 2010 1:41 AM    in reply to forensic economist

Me too!

Here's why:

1. It moves power away from political parties and encourages more people to participate.

2. It gives 3rd parties a chance to organize and become one of the finalists in the general.

3. In some districts, it increases the likelihood that a 3rd party candidate would win. In highly liberal SF, for example, the Green party might be able to win in a runoff against the Dem or in Bakersfield a Tea Party candidate might b able to defeat a Republican. Sure, some minority-party voters might vote for the more extreme candidate on the other end of the political spectrum just to be a pain in the butt, but, so what?

4. People who want to "vote for their candidate" can do so in the primary. Therefore in the general, they can actually influence the final outcome rather than just making a principle pick. (but there may be an option for write-in still.)

5. It is a step in the direction of instant-run-off primaries. I find it difficult to imagine California could leap from the status quo to IRO primaries because they are just too complex to understand right now. (See the book "Predictably Irrational" for an explanation of why.) With this new system in place, IRO elections could follow in a few years.

6. I actually like the example of Bush v. Gore. Had we had a run-off primary then, the general election would have only had Bush and Gore on the general election ballot. Gore would have won; we would all have been better off.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 9, 2010 10:29 AM    in reply to PeninsulaMatt

WTF?!?!

It moves power away from political parties and STRAIGHT into the hands of corporate interest groups.

Didn't California learn anything by the debacle of the Prop 8 fight? The Mormon Church outspent everybody, yet how many Mormons are in California? They bought that result - just like corporations will buy candidates.

Wake up!

This will limit your choices and restrict fair elections.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

June 8, 2010 5:38 PM   

Good Lord, why in the world would anyone choose to emulate Louisiana politics???

I agree that this is a terrible idea.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 5:39 PM   

Yes.. voting for the best man/woman would have tremendous negative impact.
For instance, LBJ bay not have been president and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution may not have come to pass... or
George Bush II may not have been elected and we may have looked into the facts before attacking Iraq...
Yep... serious consequences might occur if we just voted for the best man/woman rather than one of the mob members,,, IMHO

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 5:45 PM    in reply to johnnydoughey

If you think that this scheme will actually result in electing "the best man/woman," you're delusional.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 10:09 PM    in reply to commie atheist

I voted for it just to see the shake-up. It's all about GOTV. I do think that there are powerful numbers in LA and SF that will lead us in an interesting direction.

...doubt it will pass though.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 9, 2010 12:52 AM    in reply to ohyeathatsright

I stand corrected. Here we go!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 5:41 PM   

I hadn't actually paid much attention to this proposition until recently, when I started looking at how I was going to vote, but it sounds like a terrible idea:

To recapitulate, Top Two won’t work – at least not like proponents claim it will. Top Two is unpopular – voters recently rejected it in California and Oregon. Top Two is undemocratic – it restricts voter choice and suppresses independent voices outside the two-party political establishment. Top Two is unconstitutional – it violates our civil rights by giving two parties an effective monopoly on power. Finally, Top Two is unnecessary, when instant runoff voting is better on all counts.

One last reason to vote against Proposition 14: Top Two is a top-down proposal. Ballot measures like Proposition 14 always seem to come from political insiders, usually with the backing of wealthy special interests to help advertise the alleged benefits of Top Two to a skeptical public. Indeed, Proposition 14 was placed on the ballot as part of a vote-trading deal by State Senator Abel Maldonado, who felt Top Two could help his ambitions for higher office. Governor Schwarzenegger has funneled $500,000 from his personal PAC into the campaign for Top Two, including money from corporations like Chevron, PG&E, and Wal-Mart. Corporations that have donated directly to the Proposition 14 effort include Hewlett Packard, Blue Shield of California, and Pacific Life Insurance Company. In the words of election reformer Christina Tobin, who is running as the Libertarian candidate for California Secretary of State, "It is safe to assume that large corporations regulated by the state want to have government in their pockets. They want to maintain the two-party status quo."

Instant runoff voting, on the other hand, always comes from the grassroots. Campaigns for IRV are led by active citizens, community organizers and voters’ rights groups like FairVote, Californians for Electoral Reform, and the Coalition for Free and Open Elections (all of which are opposing Proposition 14). Referendum victories show that voters like the idea of IRV, and exit polls show that voters like how it works in practice. If the goal is to fix California’s election system so that it will produce winners with majority support, why are Proposition 14’s backers pushing the flawed, unpopular Top Two system instead of instant runoff voting?

All Californians who value democratic freedoms and sincerely want better elections should vote no on Proposition 14. Even members of the Republican and Democratic parties, if they heed the founders’ warnings about political factions, should recognize the danger of cementing the Democratic-Republican monopoly on power and vote no. You don’t have to be a libertarian to value the civil and political liberties of your fellow Americans. For supporters of electoral reform, Top Two is just a distraction from the real goals of instant runoff voting and other worthy reforms like proportional representation. We have better options than Top Two – options that we might not know about today, if Top Two had been in place earlier to stifle independent voices in the public arena.

http://www.calitics.com/diary/11821/the-top-five-reasons-for-californians-to-vote-no-on-top-two-primaries

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 6:04 PM    in reply to commie atheist

Voters get confused over the methods and systems we have in place today vis a vis voting.

And we've dumbed it all down about as much as possible.

I can see joe shit the ragman hobbling into his local voting precinct and having a page or two of instructions about how IRV works to sift through before he actually tries to vote.

IRV underestimates just how stupid most people are. Or simply disinterested and disconnected from the entire process.

On its face, it seems untenable; at least to me.

Dem vs. Rep. Or top two? That's probably about as much as most can handle.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 6:15 PM    in reply to willia451

Well, if we just go on assuming that most voters are idiots, I guess we'll end up with the kind of shitty government we deserve.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

cgd

user-pic

June 8, 2010 7:23 PM    in reply to commie atheist

"if we just go on assuming that most voters are idiots, I guess we'll end up with the kind of shitty government we deserve."

We already get that kind of gov't... in spades... and "we" do richly deserve it as long as "we" don't even honestly assess the problem.

It may be too strong to say "idiots", but "uninformed", "uninterested" and (perhaps) "ignorant" is pretty accurate.

However, it's not the structure of the political system or the election rules that are to blame. To be honest, one has to place the blame in the right place: bad gov't and bad political structure are just symptoms of deeper problems - which go back into the misty past.

If anyone thinks that's too harsh a judgment of the U. S., take most any other country. Is Iraq or Afghanistan or Burma or Ireland or whatever messed up now because of their most recent inhabitants? No. The problems go back centuries into the past.

Apologies for getting philosophical here. I definitely voted against this Prop. It will most likely make Calif. even more of a mess than it now is if passed. But a lot of the state's current problems are a result of past bad decisions by the electorate. Unfortunately, no amount of fooling around with the voting rules is going to help as long as such bad decisions keep being made.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 7:21 PM    in reply to commie atheist

Dear commie atheist: I agree with just about everything you've written above -- except "other worthy reforms like proportional representation."
Before people endorse this idea, they should look closely at how it's worked out in practice. In its most extreme form -- the closed party list -- voters vote only for a party, not individual candidates. The party insiders decide the order candidates are placed on the list, concentrating power in the back rooms.
Such a system does encourage smaller parties, but they tend to be single-issue, even extremist. Weakening the more moderate parties makes for a succession of unstable coalitions, with policy held hostage by their fringe partners.
I'd prefer runoff voting (instant or delayed) or some other form of preferential or transferable ballot to the current first-past-the-post system. But prop-rep in its purest form is a nightmare.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 7:37 PM    in reply to commie atheist

The problem with Prop 14 is not the "top-two" provision. The problem is that it allows the ballot candidate to CHOOSE whether to list their PARTY AFFILIATION on the actual ballot! In other words, Prop 14 allows a candidate to be listed on the ballot as "John Smith - party affiliation not disclosed". Needless to say, this allows for all sorts of shenennigans - e.g. in Dem areas, Repubs can list themselves without their party affiliation to dilute the Dem vote by appearing "independent", and vice versa.

I am surprised that Kleefeld did not pick up this major problem with Prop 14.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 5:42 PM   

If only there were some way to keep out all the stupid voters (you know, the ones who disagree with me), then democracy might actually work.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 5:50 PM   

Extremely bad idea:

Instead of the current party primary system, this initiative lumps everybody from all parties, plus "independent" candidates who choose not to put their party affiliation on the ballot, into one big pool, and then sends the two top vote-getters in that crowded field into the general election, which will only have two choices. By doing so, this strips rank-and-file party voters of their right to choose their own party's candidates, and allows candidates to drop their party affiliation and feign "independence" when their party is unpopular in a given district, which is what Republicans have done in Washington State where they adopted this system.

Enjoy poring through every "nonpartisan" county race to figure out who is who? You're going to love sorting through the massive block of names on your ballot under this bill. Expect a lot more rich, self-funded independent candidates staying silent about their policy agendas and mouthing platitudes. Minor parties like the Greens and Libertarians will be effectively shut out of future general elections. Party insiders and behind-the-scenes arm-twisting will have more, not less influence on the process, because the party that manages to clear the field for its chosen candidate will not dilute its vote as much as one which allows lots and lots of candidates to run, and thus have a better shot at getting to the general. In a nutshell, this is in my opinion a false reform, designed to aid the same corporate interests that have already bought the system and driven the state into a ditch.

http://www.calitics.com/diary/11829/surf-putah-democratic-primary-endorsements

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 6:07 PM    in reply to commie atheist

Abel Maldonado is the slimiest, worst kind of kiss-my-ass politician. The only reason he's even a name in CA politics is becaus he was able to use the ridiculous 2/3rds majority rule to bottleneck state politics.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 5:53 PM   

No (D)? No (R)? NO WAY!

While voters should certainly know a thing or two about who they're voting for, not having a candidate's party affiliation on the ballot is reason enough for me to vote against this scam.

That and the fact that the Governator is for it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 6:30 PM    in reply to draftedin68

Love your avatar - Don Martin rules.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 6:41 PM    in reply to Powkat

Well, it was a tough choice between Karbunkle and Chester.

While Karbunkle's a tad on the slow side, I had to go with him for his devil-may-care attitude.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 5:56 PM   

We have open primaries in Minnesota, and the Democrats have a contested gubernatorial primary while the Republicans don't. In fact hey have no contests for statewide or congressional races, so Democrats are trying to figure out what to do about Republicans who decide to screw up our primary. We presume they'll turn out for whoever they think is the weakest candidate. They may well get to pick the Democrat.

So count me an opponent of open primaries.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 5:58 PM   

These ballot initiatives are awful. Voters are too ignorant to micromanage democracy in this fashion. These intiatives use tricks and gimmicks (like negative questions where you have to vote "yes" to oppose it). Just cut it out. It's stupid and doesn't work, as evidenced by bankrupt, bankrupt California.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

user-pic

June 8, 2010 6:00 PM    in reply to AnswerFrog

This year in California we have the "Right to Vote" initiative. What it does is give the electric company a monopoly.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 6:18 PM    in reply to mcc

Whenever I see a TV ad for a prop that says "major funding for this advertisement provided by PG&E" I automatically know to vote the other way.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 10:32 PM    in reply to commie atheist

That was my clue too.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 9, 2010 10:25 AM    in reply to rufus

Erin Brokovich for Governor?

You heard it here first!

Think I'm snarkin'?

I'm not... She's proven herself a worthy adversary to the CEO and PGE types. And she still looks good in high def.

Which is more than Whitman and Fiorina can say.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 7:09 PM    in reply to AnswerFrog

Exactly correct

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

user-pic

June 8, 2010 5:59 PM   

I don't think this works in California. I'm just thinking of all the weird contortions of strategic voting this will force people into. The nice thing about primaries is that you don't have to strategic vote. You don't just have to vote for your party's frontrunner, you can vote for who you really want to win. With the jungle primary it seems like you have to vote strategically even in the primary because what if your party's frontrunner doesn't make the ballot at all?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 6:02 PM   

Louisiana's law was made for the old days when it was a one party Democratic state and now they are using regular primaries. I know that California used to allow cross filing so that one year Richard Nixon was both the Republican and Democratic candidate for Congress. This referendum is another example of corporate astroturf pretending to be grass roots polticis.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 6:03 PM   

"These are not models of smooth and well-functioning government," said Standriff.

I don't think California state politicians, and especially Republicans, would know what a smooth and well-functioning government would look like even if it was lit up in neon.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 6:18 PM   

Hmm, I was thinking of voting yes, but now I'm not so sure.

I could imagine a situation where a NorCal native son (or daughter) and a SoCal native son/daughter winning the top two, regardless of tribal loyalty. I could imagine Jerry Brown (North) and Antonio Villaraigosa (South) running against each other. That would be ugly.

Worse, imagine Meg Whitman (Silicon Valley) running


I would think Republicans would be against this even more because they outnumbered 2-1 in registered voters and 2-1 in independent leans.

Fact is in any system, the political powers that be will find ways to game the system.

Should be crazy

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 6:44 PM    in reply to mezcalero

I think the Rethugs would love to have their names on the ballot without a written confession as to the party they're in.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 6:30 PM   

Bad for the Green and Peace and Freedom parties of California. Bad. More corporate-controlled politics, not less.

It scares me that it's likely to pass today.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 6:54 PM    in reply to twirling fartknocker

Bad for those God-fearing patriots, the Constitution Party too

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dan

Facebook

June 8, 2010 6:41 PM   

If you want to help fight this, make a social ballot on Democracy Dashboard (a new tool that just went live last week) and share:

http://demdash.us/DanAncona/slate/645/

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 7:02 PM   

With the impasse in CA governance it's understandable people will vote for it. The GOP keeps out new taxes, and the Dems prevent service cuts. So there is inadequate funding for a lot of services. It's what the American people want. "Give me services, but don't make me pay for them."

We had a ballot measure like this last fall in Oregon. It failed, but it was close.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 7:07 PM   

Glad to have voted for it. Seems to be working just fine in Washington state, so I don't understand the "panic" about this. Vote for the best person, not the party. Is that so difficult?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 7:26 PM   

The CA legislature is pretty completely broken, as described above. The Repubs have been children who stick their fingers in their ears and scream no new taxes. The Dems try to make things work, but they can't do it alone. According to an insider I trust, the best legislators from both parties came the Sacramento in the class of 1996 when there were open primaries. This can't hurt.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 7:32 PM   

THIS IS A STUPID-ASS IDEA. Forgive me for shouting, but mein Gott. Anyone who has studied elections even a little knows how much havoc this can wreak, in different ways.

I like IRV. I'm no defender of the two-party system. But this is nonsense. It will reward pap and stifle real leadership. It will encourage strategic cross-over voting. (If you're pretty sure your candidate will be in the top two, then you campaign and vote for some idiot in the other party, to challenge their stronger candidate. Likewise, if you're sure your candidate won't win either of the top two slots, then you abandon him and go for the opposing idiot.)

Candidates have twice the incentive to reach for the 'median voter' -- who is often the least-informed about politics and the most likely to swallow banal pablum.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 7:33 PM   

God, my fellow Californians are stupider than a box of rocks.

Prop 14 is the right to lie about being Republican scum and pretend that you are too stupid to admit you are being dishonest.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 7:51 PM   

This might be the best political improvement of all time - I don't know if it is or not - but it wouldn't matter anyway. The dominant force in politics in inertia. Despite what you may hear about "change", most people want stability and the status quo.

That's why implementing Health Care reform (or health insurance reform really) was so hard. And it's also why *repealing* HCR if/when the republicans get back in will be hard as well.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 7:58 PM   

This is a republican ploy so they don't have to admit they are republicans on the ballot. If the voters in this state approve it, they are even dumber than our governor, which sets a pretty low bar.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 7:59 PM   

This is a republican ploy so they don't have to admit they are republicans on the ballot. If the voters in this state approve it, they are even dumber than our governor, which sets a pretty low bar.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 8:08 PM   

R.I.P., Third Parties.

After a couple of cycles of not being on the General election ballot, they won't even bother running in the primaries. Why waste what little money they have? Then all you'll have is Dems and Reps.
This is NOT an open party primary (like '96), this is the elimination of party primaries.

PS: Boy, wouldn't this cycle have been better if, in addition to Meg's $71 million and Poisoner's (sp;^)) millions, you'd have had Jerry Brown spending ton's just to make sure, even thouigh unopposed in his own party's primary, he would make it onto the ballot in November.
This is the Media Revenue Increase Bill.
Upside: If it was in place in Kentucky, we wouldn't have Rand Paul to kick around anymore.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 8:30 PM   

Yet another frickin' stupid idea from California.

Undermine the institutions, undermine the participants (thru term limits). Soon the only people running for office and getting elected with be media stars like Arnold Schwartzenegar or whoever's popular on rightwing Radio.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 8:35 PM   

Apparently my views on this are very different than everyone else.

Point 1 -- Everyone is complaining that republicans will hide the fact that they are republicans. What?!? Why is this a bad thing? If the only reason you vote for a democrat is because of the party affiliation, then I would prefer you not participate in our democracy. Our two party system is absolutely destroying our system. We need to vote for people based off of ideas and performance, not based on the labels they attach to themselves.

How do you villainize the opposition if you don't have a label to slap on them? You attack their ideas and use logic and argument against them. That would be a GOOD THING.


Point 2 -- Everyone keeps complaining that this would disenfranchise 3rd party voters. I'm sorry, but I think that's complete bull. The only way you can say that this disenfranchises 3rd parties is if you come to the conclusion that having a candidate running on the general election ballot somehow gives these voters power. How does that work exactly when there is no chance for the candidates to get elected?

The way it is right now anyone who votes for a third party throws away their vote. Do democratic candidates go after green party voters? No -- because these voters are going to waste their vote on a candidate that has no chance of winning. So there is no reason for any candidate to try to win their votes.

In the top two system there is an advantage for democratic candidates to go after green party voters, and there is an advantage for republic candidates to go after libertarian voters. If anything this gives power to 3rd party voters to influence public policy.

I look forward to the day when we choose our representatives based on their ideas and positions, not on the labels they choose to describe themselves.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 9:49 PM    in reply to physicsrob

Well, unlike you, I do not think that allowing ballot candidates to hide their party affiliation is a good thing - because there is absolutely no reason or logic that justifies providing voters with LESS information in the booth (and party affiliation is the MOST relevant info).

Further, no matter what else Prop 14 does, I think that hiding party affiliation on the ballot is bad to the bone because (like it or not) the large majority of voters are not well-informed and tend to vote party lines when they get in the booth. So while per your Point 1 it is admirable and very much desirable to vote for candidates based on their ideas, in practice this goal cannot be achieved. This is evidenced by the fact that presently nothing prevents voters to vote based on the ideas of the candidates, and yet only a small minority of well-informed voters do so.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 10:22 PM    in reply to physicsrob

Perhaps if the GOP and Democratic Party had not colluded in our last apportionment to carve California into ridiculously-gerrymandered single-party districts, we wouldn't be voting on this initiative. Most Californians live in districts in which, if they are not a member of the majority party, they have absolutely zero chance of being represented by someone who represents their interests.
I voted yes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 10:46 PM    in reply to physicsrob

There is always the chance that the candidates that don't show a party affliation will be assumed to be Republicans and there will be no advantage to that. I recall in the sixties something like that was going on in California and we always assumed that because the Democrats had the higher registration in the state and there was such a thing as a liberal Republican. Peace & Freedom was just starting out and were on the ballot in the general election.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 9, 2010 1:12 PM    in reply to physicsrob

And I look forward to the day when fantasy replaces reality and we can move to the Big Rock Candy Mountain. You really think you can take politics out of politics?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 8:57 PM   

Apparently "secret back-room deal" is the new Republican catchphrase. Did they forget about Cheney's energy task force, or this another case of IOKIYAR?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 9:18 PM   

Prop 14 is an abomination. It would cement corporate corruption in California elections and freeze out any participation by third-party and independent candidates.

http://www.facebook.com/campaigncorner

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 10:27 PM   

I live in Orange County, and I voted against the Prop. As someone from the Green Party said, in a newstory on the proposition, "what happens if two Republicans (or Democrats) are the top winners?" What choice am I left with, other than not voting or voting for the least offensive?

To me this is meant to ensure that the two major parties keep control.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 10:29 PM   

Special interests write ballot propositions.It's one area where it is still possible to fool nearly all the people all the time.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 9, 2010 1:22 AM   

"There's no evidence out there that shows a top-two open primary shows any of the bipartisanship or breaks any gridlock, like in Louisiana or Washington state where it's been implemented. These are not models of smooth and well-functioning government," said Standriff.

The new system hasn't been in place long enough in Washington state to get a really good sense of how it will change political dynamics. However, it seems rather cheeky for a Californian, of all people, to criticize Washington's political process. I grew up in California but have lived in Washington for more than 20 years. The politics here are MUCH less dysfunctional than California's. I hope Standriff doesn't move up here and bring his neanderthal ideas about how "real politics" is supposed to work.

For example, this year we managed to balance the state budget with a whole lot less angst than California, in no small part because partisanship hasn't become nearly so toxic. In general, state government is much cleaner and more efficient here than in California, present or past. California may very well be too big to be governable.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 9, 2010 1:29 AM   

Wow I can't believe this passed. This will change everything here in California. Wow.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 9, 2010 1:31 AM    in reply to rbeats

This prop and its implications should be showcased on the 24 hour news networks as the big story this week. I can't believe this, did CA voters even realize WTF they voted for?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 9, 2010 1:52 AM   

Sh1t! Sh1t! Sh1t!
Fu@k! Fu@k! Fu@k!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 9, 2010 1:54 AM   

Like what the San Francisco Chronicle just said:

Proposition 14 will place all candidates from all parties in the same primary, with the two candidates who get the most votes advancing to the general election even if they're both from the same party.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 9, 2010 2:12 AM   

So, public financing failed (Prop 15). Open primaries passed. PG&E's power grab on municipal utilities passed (Prop 16). And that's not even bringing up the whole Prop 8 catastrophe. (Oops, just did it.)

Somebody should probably take the toys away. At this point, they've done much more bad than good in California.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 9, 2010 2:14 AM    in reply to Dylan

What prop 16 passed?!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 9, 2010 2:22 AM    in reply to rbeats

With 37% of the vote counted it's No 51% Yes 49%

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 9, 2010 2:36 AM    in reply to rufus

With any luck, it'll stay that way. The numbers haven't changed very much; been flip-flopping around the 51-49 mark. It's close, but all I've been hearing is that it'll likely pass.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 9, 2010 2:24 AM    in reply to rbeats

Prop 14 passed 58% to 42% in case you're interested.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 9, 2010 2:45 AM    in reply to rufus

This thread is about prop 14. I am well aware of it and the consequences because of the fact it passed.

Now Prop 16 is a different story. I live in one of the few places in Californian where I don't receive power from PG&E. And I save a little less than a 100 a year compared to my last place when I was living in a a city that PG&E had a monopoly on power supply.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 9, 2010 2:23 AM    in reply to Dylan

I have been searching and the latest report said it has not passed yet.

http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_c=ywgopwq3fnlw50&xid=ywgmzanohn5h3o&done=.ywgopwq3foaw50

Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Proposition 16, an attempt to require the approval of two-thirds of local voters to create new, publicly owned electricity districts, saw a narrow lead evaporate late Tuesday night.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 9, 2010 2:27 AM    in reply to rbeats

Hope you're right. I saw it called on another site but I can't remember where. They could have been wrong.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 9, 2010 2:40 AM    in reply to rufus

Props. 13, 14 and 17 have passed. Prop. 16 still lags as I showed above. L.A. Times as displayed on Huffington Post.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 9, 2010 2:54 AM   

Orly Taitz is road kill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 9, 2010 10:26 AM    in reply to rufus

I thought that was just a botched botox job?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 9, 2010 3:03 AM   

Well now I guess we will see primaries that are going to be as expensive as the general election. Californians took Prop.14 at face value and kicked themselves in the butt.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 9, 2010 6:15 AM   

Easy now folks.

Try taking a few slow, deep breaths, and maybe breathe in and out into a paper bag (no, not the one with the airplane glue!). That should help with the hyperventilation. The hyperbole is another matter. Perhaps a good night’s sleep will help you gain a little perspective on whether an Open Primary is really the Gateway to Political Hell or not.

With the entire punditocracy and party leaders on all sides all parroting the same conventional wisdom, perhaps at least ONE of them will actually provide some concrete example of a jurisdiction that has suffered grave political consequences as a result of adopting this kind of Open Primary / Two-Person Runoff system.

Maybe 61% of California voters just made a huge mistake, but it’s also quite possible that the conventional wisdom is wrong and that this change might either help things, or at least not make them any worse. From the point of view of third-party and independent candidates, though they may not want to admit it, they really don’t have a lot to lose, since they’re already effectively marginalized by the spoiler effect and all the current advantages that party primaries afford to the major parties.

The more I hear the massively hyped-up prognostications of doom an gloom over Prop 14 — and all in the absence of any hard evidence in the way of comparative politics — the more I am becoming convinced that this change, while clearly a threat to the power and influence of party leaders and insider-powerbrokers, may not be so bad for the rest of us.

One thing’s for certain, it passed with a massive landslide majority and can’t be repealed by the legislature, so we ARE going to find out what happens over the next few election cycles.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 9, 2010 9:10 AM    in reply to reasonableanonymous

Thank you. The hysteria doesn't seem to be backed by Actual Facts (TM). So far top-two hasn't made all that much of a difference in Washington. Sure, campaign strategies change, but for districts that swing heavily to one party I don't see all that much difference in electoral outcomes. Minor parties aren't helped, but generally they have only played a spoiler role anyway. Minor parties might consider fielding "fusion" candidates to become more viable.

Perhaps the biggest change is that primaries become more important even though they get lower participation; this gives more weight to the power of stakeholder groups in getting out the vote. In other words, shoe leather may trump media saturation (which isn't such a bad thing in a way).

I'm not advocating for two-way, but I also don't see it as the end of civilization as we know it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 10, 2010 1:07 PM    in reply to reasonableanonymous

feel free to check out the following upgrade to "top two", I call it a "top three IRV".

dlw

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 9, 2010 10:00 AM   

Prop 14 was funded extensively by corporate interests. It is only a matter of time before this abhorrent electoral system is instituted by similar corporate campaigns across the country.

http://www.facebook.com/campaigncorner

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on