California Libertarian Convention Is Warned Of Top-Two Primary” Initiative

From an article today on CalFreedom.net:

A dark shadow was cast on this weekend’s California Libertarian convention by Prop 14, the “top-two primary” initiative on the June ballot.  Keynote speaker and Ballot Access News editor Richard Winger called it the greatest threat to independent and third-party politics in America in the last 50 years.  He warned that it would make it effectively impossible for independents and third parties to challenge the incumbent parties in November elections.

Keynote co-speaker Christina Tobin said that opposing Prop 14 will be the core theme of her campaign for Secretary of State.  Tobin previewed her speech in a posting at FreeAndEqual.org, and her SoS campaign had already been endorsed by the LPCA Executive Committee.

The article continues here.

10 thoughts on “California Libertarian Convention Is Warned Of Top-Two Primary” Initiative

  1. Gary

    FASCISM pure and simple. Every democratic nation on earth has all political parties on a general election ballot.

    May Maldonado rot in Hell for all time.

  2. Deran

    WA state’s “top two” system has been dealy for third parties here. Really stymied party activity.

  3. what huh?

    @5,

    Independents don’t complain, just parties. This system eviscerates the evil party politics the founders warned about.

    That is why the RNC and DNC both hate the system.

    Real independent voters will cheer the blanket nonpartisan primary.

  4. You must be kidding!

    “what huh? // Feb 17, 2010 at 6:17 am

    @5,

    Independents don’t complain, just parties. This system eviscerates the evil party politics the founders warned about.

    That is why the RNC and DNC both hate the system.

    Real independent voters will cheer the blanket nonpartisan primary.”

    ******

    What huh? Are you clueless!

    The top-two system is pure evil. It totally disenfranchises independent and third party voters. It guarantees that only the two biggest parties, and in many cases, only two candidates from the ONE biggest party actually can appear in the general election.

    Even communist USSR had more ballot choices than the US will under the top-two system.

    Top-tw0 is evil fascist-socialism. It must be stopped at all costs and by ANY means.

  5. Michael H. Wilson

    May I suggests that the argument against the Top Two be packaged as a form of Censorship. The State can’t keep us from saying what we want buy they are restricting the time for us to say it, or some words such as that.

    Anyone else care to wordsmith this? Please do so.

  6. what huh?

    @7,

    You seem rather clueless here.

    All eligible candidates appear on the ballot in the general election. In California, millions are eligible to appear on the ballot. Millions is more than one (1), the number of candidates typically on the ballot in the USSR.

    Since parties don’t control ballot access, candidates are independent of the evil party central committees. (This could help candidates in California who don’t wish to be closely associated with party committees who actively invite child molesters into the party, for example.)

    If no one candidate gets a majority, a runoff election is held between the first- and second- place finishers.

    This protects the people against the tyranny of the minority inherent in plurality-win elections.

    Hope this helps.

  7. Lee Mortimer

    “Every democratic nation on earth has all political parties on a general election ballot.”–Gary

    That’s not necessarily so, and the top-two system wouldn’t necessarily be bad for third parties if it could evolve to something like France’s two-round election system. In France, all parties are on the ballot in the first round of voting, and the top two finishers face off in the second round. In their 2007 presidential election, 12 parties ran in the first round. Voters from virtually every political persuasion imaginable had a meaningful role, were able to influence the top two parties, and could use their influence to make endorsements and alliances for the second round. There was no reduction in turnout from the first to the second round, meaning all French voters were satisfied to choose between the top two in the second round. All in all, not a bad system that we could do well to emulate. Many former French colonies also use the two-round system. Viva la France!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *