Independent and third party activists find themselves on opposite sides of the debate over California’s Top Two Primaries Act. Ballotpedia describes the proposition thusly:
The California Top Two Primaries Act ballot proposition is on the June 8, 2010 ballot in California as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. If approved by voters, the proposal will require that candidates run in a single primary open to all registered voters, with the top two vote-getters meeting in a runoff. The new system would take effect in the 2012 elections. Specifically, it would provide for a “voter-nominated primary election” for each state elective office and congressional office in California. Voters could vote in the primary election for any candidate for a congressional or state elective office without regard to the political party affiliations of either the candidate or the voter. Candidates could choose whether or not to have their political party affiliation displayed on the ballot.
Independents have come out strongly in support of the measure, as it allows unaffiliated voters to participate in the primary selection process. Third party activists, on the other hand, argue against it because it ensures that there will only be two candidates on the ballot in the general election and thus restricts choice. In the third party and independent blogosphere, this split is most clear in the positions of Nancy Hanks, who supports the measure, and Richard Winger, who is against it. This week, The Hankster published guest pieces by authors representing both sides in the debate. In the first, Richard Winger argued that “independents are better off with more choices on the November ballot”:
The United States desperately needs political leaders who are committed to new ideas for solving our problems, and who are more interested in advancing those new ideas than they are to just advancing their own personal political career. . . . In democratic countries all over the world, when a leader, or a group, is determined to persuade society that it’s time for a particular change in social policy, the traditional way to do that is to form a political party committed to that idea. . . . Unfortunately, in the United States, the ability of people to organize into a new political party and take their case to the voters has been trampled upon. . . .
Proposition 14, the “top-two open primary”, has already been tried in two states, Washington (in 2008) and Louisiana (used for Congress 1978-2006, and state office ever since 1975). We know what happens in that system. In Washington, in 2008, for the first time since Washington became a state, there were no independent or minor party candidates on the November ballot for Congress and statewide state office. In Louisiana, no minor party member has ever qualified for the second round. That is why independents, or independent-minded people, who have been elected to important office, such as Ron Paul, Lowell Weicker, Jesse Ventura, and John Anderson, are opposed to a system that leaves just two candidates on the November ballot. New parties, representing movements, can’t get a foothold in a system that allows only two candidates on the November ballot.
I believe that it is very desirable that independents be allowed to vote in major party primaries. My opposition to Proposition 14 is not because I am opposed to letting independents vote in major party primaries.
In the second, Harry Kresky responded to Richard Winger’s piece in an article entitled “Why Independents Support Open Primaries”:
Most of us share Richard’s desire for a politics in which new ideas take priority over political careers. The issue is how to achieve this. He thinks the answer is to protect the status of minor parties on the grounds that they drive new ideas and social change into the mainstream. But the role of third parties as incubators of political change is limited. . . . Americans don’t look to the third parties as instruments for reform, in no small part because they don’t like parties, major or minor . . . “Top-two” is an important step towards non-partisan governance. It does away with party primaries altogether. If the Proposition 14 initiative passes, all voters vote in a first round in which all candidates are listed on the ballot with their party preference next to their name, and the top two go on to the general election which is also open to all voters. . . .
A key issue for independents is full participation in every phase of the electoral process. Top-two is a way to achieve that. Under the current system in California, each party holds its own primary election, and only members of that party have a right to participate. That means that 3,466,855 registered voters in California are not guaranteed the right to participate because they have elected not to register into a political party. They can only vote when a party allows them in its primary. They are not guaranteed a say in who appears on the general election ballot. Passage of Proposition 14 will give all voters the right to participate in every phase of the electoral process.
<>
Sure. In Washington’s Top Two, that’s true if . . .
Nothing but Libertarians run and vote.
In Seattle area, we have some districts that are ALL BLUE. In these districts, a “safe seat” often doesn’t have an opponent. In the past, Rs, Ls, Gs might all run candidates in these districts, to provide some choice, to provide information (educational campaigns), to run serious campaigns against entrenched incumbents.
Now, all the Ds have to do is run some unknown, as long as he has a D after his name candidate to totally lock up the BLUE ballot – the general election will now have 2 Ds. NOTHING else.
Even the voters who are disenchanted with the incumbent Ds in the district will vote for another D; so the ballot ends up being BIG BLUE, little blue.
Red, Green, LP, Independent = ALL LOCKED OUT.
We have similar but ALL RED districts in Eastern part of the state.
I’ve not read the entire CA Proposition – only experienced “Top Two” in practice.
Krist Novoselic (former Nirvana) has opposed “Top Two” for some time. http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2009/08/the_power_of_a_solitary_vote_t.php
The SIMPLE answer is to stop having the state participate in primaries – either have the parties pay for their own, or caucus. And send 1 from each party to the general.
Semantics. What you are calling the general election is actually the primary.
What you are calling the runoff is actually the November election which most people call the general election.
@5 & 12:
This is incorrect. An infinite number of Libertarians can run in the general election.
LP candidates might have trouble getting into the runoff election, if they continue performing as poorly as they have been, and never surpassing third place.
If LP candidates can do better, they could have one or even two LP candidates in the runoff election.
@13 — This system does not have plurality voting. The winner must get a majority in the runoff. No one can win with a mere plurality.
Hope this helps.
Score Voting (aka Range Voting) would be ideal for an open primary, where there are many candidates. But having an open primary while keeping plurality voting would be a disaster.
True.
And independents as well.
Very, very bad idea.
May Maldonado rot in Hell for all time with little devils sticking pitchforks in his ass.
@WAKE UP–
SO agreed.
Mike and I analyzed this one way back last year when it was known only as the Maldonado compromise. It’s his (Maldonado’s) little baby. Methinks he hasn’t changed its diaper. EWWW.
It’s pure Sacto Orwellian-double speak. Reducing our choices is “increasing our choices.” Unfortunately in this state, the illogic of the situation might stick.
We need to print fliers and spread the word statewide:
WakeUP! California.
“Top Two” is a one party communist electoral system.
“Top Two” as envisioned and planned for CA is a communist electoral system.
That’s right. “Top Two” imposes a one party system on the state. Everyone will be able to vote and is therefore a defacto member of this single party. There will be factions inside this party, but it will operate as a single party. Free elections will be over.
Instead of having elections with as many candidates as possible representing large parties, small parties and independents, CA will have one party with one big primary where everyone is forced to be a member of this single voting entity which will allow only 2 candidates to run in the general election. All other candidates, true independents and alternative parties with alternative ideas are excluded from the general election. Choice will be even less than it is in today’s so called “two party system.”
To really improve elections, we need to open up the system more. Make it easier for parties and independents to gain ballot access. Repeal all finance restrictions that make fundraising nearly impossible for independents and alternative parties.
“Top Two” is evil. It takes CA and America in the wrong direction, away from free elections and into the one-party communist camp.
Citizens of California need to wake up to this threat before it’s too late.
to Ralph Swanson
in CA many third party candidates would appeal
to people in the main parties as well as ‘decline to state’ voters. The appealing candidate would merely have to campaign in a way that allows the voters to know them. This can be done much easier now than in the past because of the internet and social media. That is how President Obama became so widely known.
to Robert Winger
sometimes ‘decline to state’ voters can vote in primaries and sometimes cannot. Every time it is different and at the whim of the parties. This June a ballot from a party must be requested so one must select which party primary to participate in. That is confusing and limiting. The US Constitution does not set forth a 2-party system that we have been stuck with and has now resulted in incredibly damaging gridlock.
Seems to me that this prevents Libertarians and other Third Parties from putting their own candidates up in the General Election.
Ever since 2001, California Republican and Democratic primaries for Congress and state office have been open to registered independents. It is phony for supporters of Prop. 14 to make independents that they are in danger of losing their right to vote in Dem & Rep primaries for Congress and state office.
Ironically, the way it is now, independent voters have more rights in California primaries than registered members of parties have. An independent voter can come into the polling place on primary day and make a snap decision as to which major party primary ballot to choose. But registered members of parties can only have the ballot of their own party (however, people can switch parties up to 15 days before the primary).
The idea that California abuses independent voters is utterly phony. The proponents of Prop. 14 are hoping that independents don’t know they can choose a Dem or a Rep. California already has an “open primary”, the way the supporters of Prop. 14 define “open primary”. They define it as any system in which independents can vote in major party primaries. So, by their definition, they already have what they want. They try to get support by fooling people.
The open primary does not work with plurality voting. A Democrat, for example, could win just because there are more Republican candidates. However, it would work perfectly with range voting, followed by a runoff that uses plurality voting.
P.S. I am neither independent nor third party. I am a Ron Paul Republican who has been Republican for decades but remains in, now, due to primaries.
The answer to this is to vote against this one, but get a new one on the next ballot, opening primaries, but still allowing all parties satisfying ballot access rules to vote. As they do in Texas, you can be required to select only one primary.