Ted Brown of CA Libertarian Party Writes Letter to Editor About Top-Two

Ted Brown, long-time Libertarian activist, had a letter posted in the Los Angeles Times today. Mr. Brown was chairman of the Libertarian Party of CA in the eighties, and has held several other leadership postions in California since then.

Re: “Too early to tell on top two?” Editorial, Feb. 10:

Your editorial fails to mention how top-two voting under Proposition 14 virtually eliminates alternative parties from the general election ballot. It’s almost impossible for a candidate from the Libertarian, Peace and Freedom or Green party to advance to the November election, and thus voters are denied the right to vote for candidates who challenge the status quo.

Until 2010, as many as 10% of November voters would select the alternative party candidates. Now, it’s very hard to show just how dissatisfied some of us are with politics-as-usual in Sacramento and Washington. Last November, I had to skip governor and lieutenant governor races since no Libertarian was running.

I want to be able to vote Libertarian again. We need to get rid of top two and allow a full choice of parties and candidates on the November ballot.

Ted Brown
Pasadena

Here is the article he was responding to:

Primary system: In the Feb. 8 California section, a California Politics column about the state’s top-two primary said that voters with no party preference were forbidden to cast ballots under the old system of choosing nominees. In June 2010, when the top-two measure was before voters, the rules allowed such voters to cast a ballot in the Democratic or Republican primary if they requested.

————

That extends not just to the body beautiful but the body politic.

After years of partisan squabbling, massive budget deficits and general haplessness in Sacramento, voters grew fed up and decided it was time for a government makeover. One result was Proposition 14, passed in June 2010 and intended to help bring a new breed of more accommodating, less ideological lawmaker to the state capital. (The proposition also covered congressional and U.S. Senate contests, for good measure.)

It was supposed to work like this: Candidates would run in a free-for-all primary with the two top vote-getters advancing to a November runoff, regardless of party affiliation. Absent the need to appease the most puritanical elements of the major parties, the thinking went, candidates would broaden their appeal to the many voters in the middle.

Voila! A more harmonious, pragmatic and productive Legislature. (Fixing Washington’s scabrous culture would, presumably, take longer.)

Has it worked? In short, no, not yet.

Finish the letter here.