Jed Ziggler, who is one of our top writers and commenters here on IPR, has written this rebuttal to an article which appeared August 7, 2014 in IVN , which makes the assertion that the states of Washington and California have third parties which are “thriving” due to the Top-Two laws which have been passsed in those states.
On August 7th, Independent Voter Network (IVN) ran an article by Steve
Peace entitled
Primary” . Now that sounds wonderful! A third party (I prefer alternative party
or opposition party) thriving! It’s what I’ve dreamed of! Imagine an
America where Libertarian Party, Green Party, and Constitution Party
candidates are taken seriously, and actually win elections!
However, the article starts out by actually insulting alternative
parties. Peace writes: “Third parties and third-party candidates are
accustomed to losing in America. Many of their leaders, in fact, like
it that way.” Notice Mr. Peace doesn’t bother to say who, exactly,
and as best I can tell, he pulled that right out of his ass.
He goes on to claim that minor party candidates have a “strange
psychology” that makes them want to lose because they have low
self-worth. What? He also calls them “manipulators” who purposefully
siphon votes from one party in order to help the other party win.
This is based on a myth that has persisted in America, mostly
generated by the media, that has been repeatedly proven false.
In 2013 Robert Sarvis, the Libertarian Party’s then candidate for
governor of Virginia who is now running for the United States Senate,
was blamed for costing Republican Ken Cuccinelli the election.
However, the facts don’t back up that claim. Exit polls clearly
showed that most Sarvis voters wouldn’t have voted had he not been on
the ballot. Some showed that Democrat Terry McAuliffe actually would
have enjoyed an even larger margin of victory without the third
choice. The Republicans lost because they ran a bad candidate whose
radical social agenda turned off more tolerant voters.
However, the bulk of Mr. Peace’s claim is that a magical thing has
happened; top two has changed the Libertarian Party into a real
electoral party, and that they now have a chance to win under top two
in California and Washington! He even says, “they can actually win
rather than just whine.”
Peace of course ignores that the Libertarian Party and other
alternative parties regularly win local elections where they can
affect a lot of important change, but he at least has some facts on
his side for this argument. Peace correctly asserts that “of the 12
[Libertarian Party] candidates running in the primary, 8 advanced to
the November ballot.” Great!
Except, Peace is twisting the facts. All 8 of the Libertarian
candidates who advanced to the November ballot were only facing one
major party candidate in the top-two primary. The credit goes to the
Libertarians for adopting a smart electoral strategy, not a system
that overwhelmingly favors the entrenched parties & candidates. I
thank ballot access activist Richard Winger for pointing this out in
the comments section of the article.
Indeed, most strong alternative candidates are shut out of the
November elections under top-two. Marianne Williamson was a
well-funded independent candidate running for U.S. House in
California’s 33rd district, the same one vacated by a retiring Henry
Waxman. Williamson was a well-known candidate with a strong
progressive message that appealed to many Hollywood types, and even
some politicians like Dennis Kucinich and Keith Ellison, both of whom
endorsed her. Yet Ms. Williamson was not one of the top-two vote
getters in the primary and now voters in the 33rd won’t even have the
opportunity to write her in in November. If this same system had
been in place in Minnesota in 1998, Reform Party candidate Jesse
Ventura would’ve never won his gubernatorial race, it took a late
surge that Williamson and others have been deprived of.
Indeed, top-two injures minor parties & independent candidates, and
robs voters of choices they deserve. To say otherwise is nonsense.
Consider the source: Steve Peace, the author of the IVN article, is a
politician himself. He served in the California state legislature for
20 years, both the assembly and the Senate! And now he protects his
political buddies by supporting a system that eliminates competition
before it can even build any momentum. How shameful!
Election reforms are great, and are needed if we want to truly have
free and fair elections in this country. However, any true reform
must lead to more competition, voices, and choices, in November, not
less! It’s just common sense.
George Phillies is right. Abel Maldonado always carried his home-area counties of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara, in every semi-closed primary race he ever ran in. When he finally got a chance to run in a top-two primary, for Congress in 2012, for the first time ever in his political career he didn’t carry either of those counties.
Great coverage, Jed.
Thank you, Jill.
And since Mr Maldonado first poisoned California electoral politics with Top Two, he has had great difficulty getting elected to anything.