In June 2010, California voters will decide on a ballot measure that would change California elections to a system referred to by newspapers as the “open primary.” The officials of the San Francisco Libertarian Party sent a letter to most California newspapers asking that they refer to it as the “top two” primary, rather than the “open primary.”
Read the full article here. Source: Ballot Access News.
Trotskyite, are you really that stupid?
Winger is exactly right on this.
Schwab forgets that the major parties are against top-two as well. The last time it came up in CA on the ballot every political party in the state was against it. It failed. That is the best thing going for us right now, not counting the LPWA suit.
There is one way to game that system, but it’s almost (if not completely) dirty pool, but if implemented, it could show just how bad the idea is.
But if the minor parties could get their voters out to the primary, it could actually help them. If they are not going to get Top Two in the primaries, they won’t get Top Two in the general either. But this gives them a better chance because it reduces the spoilr effect. I agree that IRV and PR are much better though.
Washington state used “top-two” for the first time in 2008. The 2008 election was the first time that no minor party or independent candidates had appeared on a Washington state general election ballot for congress or for statewide state office, ever, since Washington became a state in 1889. “Top-two” kills minor parties.
My advice: couple opposition to top-two with advocacy for instant runoff voting. Instant runoff accomplishes all the good things that top-two is supposed to, without all the anti-democratic side effects.
Right now, top-two proponents can claim that they are trying to reform a broken election system – sounds plausible to most folks. What they don’t know is that the cure is worse than the disease. But third parties don’t have the power of the forces that want to kill third parties, frankly speaking. That’s why we need to choose our frame carefully, to make the maximum use of limited resources.
We need to lose the frame ‘third parties are against this because it doesn’t serve their interest’ and turn that into ‘third parties are offering a better solution.’
California is in an advantageous position to accomplish this, both because top-two was soundly rejected in Oregon last year, and because instant-runoff voting is being successfully used in San Francisco and Oakland.
Third parties in CA need to make common cause to advance pro-democracy reforms, as they have in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and elsewhere. We are counting on you to stop the spread of the top-two primary. A victory against this anti-democratic measure could build momentum towards a constitutional convention and proportional representation, which would be a huge crack in the wall for the duopoly.
The LPCA is completely and vociferously opposed to top-two. We are currently watching the situation in WA regarding it, and we hope that the 9th Circuit recognizes our lawsuit as valid and throws out the top-two as unconstitutional.
While it isn’t perfect, I would like to see the “nonpartisan blanket primary” appear in more states, especially for statewide elections.
South Carolina has “open primaries”…in that there is no party registration, and a voter may vote in any primary (one per customer please).
I honestly see one potential for “games”…
If a party has a somewhat strong and well funded candidate, and the opposition has 2 or more strong-soso candidates… would it not be in the stronger candidates best interest to promote another option…which may get <35% but at the same time get enough to win the “second spot” on the general election ballot???
This is just an attempt to get rid of “third” parties…G*D@MN this pisses me off!!!!