Is CA Prop 14 the answer to partisan politics?

[her209]

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/26/opinion/la-ed-prop14-20100526

Proposition 14 would allow voters to select their favorite candidate in a primary, just as they do today. The top two finishers would then advance to a general election. The winner would get the office.

Seems to me that this is the best way of electing our officials and moves the electorate away from having to choose between a turd and a douche bag in the general election. In other words, candidates wouldn't have to pander to their party's base during the primary and then woo the independents/moderates in the general election, it would put all candidates on an equal level during the primaries and allow the independents some say in who gets on the November ballot. Seems like a winner to me.

As for third parties getting shut out of the November election, if the field of candidates is pretty large, would that give the third party candidates a better shot of getting elected if it were able to muster up enough votes to be one of the top two?

 

[ElFenix]

probably won't fix the real problem, which is that only partisan hacks tend to vote in primaries. (well, ok, i guess that depends on whether that problem is because the officials pander to them during primaries, or whether it's because most people don't give a rat's ass about politics until the "real" election. probably some of each as even real elections often draw very low turnout.)

if you eliminated primaries, held an election on election day, and then held runoffs if necessary would fix that problem. but i can think of other problems (gives rise to the problem primaries are supposed to fix by putting 1 D and 1 R on each ballot on election day, so a heavy D district might have 7 Ds running and 2 R and the R take 1-2)



houston has non-partisan elections and you very rarely hear which party the official is a part of. of course, that could be because houston is essentially single-party. last city mayoral election had a lesbian accountant, old white trust fund architect, and old black former civil rights leader lawyer. guess which was the republican! D) None of the above.

 

[flavio]

I'm voting no, I don't just want tow choices in the general.

SACRAMENTO, CA -- Elections, as we know them in California, will be a thing of the past if a measure on the ballot is approved on Tuesday. Proposition 14 would change the system by allowing only the two top vote getters in the primary to move onto the General Election ballot in November.

The proposition would allow voters to choose the candidate of their choice in the primary, regardless of party affiliation. Those behind the measure say we experienced a touch of it before.

"It'll be very similar to what we saw in the Gubernatorial recall where everyone came on that ballot and then the voters looked at those individuals and decided who they wanted to move forward," said Jeannine English, State Pres. AARP.

Opponents of Prop 14 vow to challenge it in court if it passes. They insist it will only lead to greater protection for the incumbents and more voter apathy.

"It's going to be the two candidates that have the most wealth --that are funded by the chambers, the health insurance companies, and so on - who will be the ones essentially choosing the candidates. It will squeeze the voters out of the electoral process," said Christina Tobin of Stop Top Two.

Tobin says she was able to get all six registered parties in California, including the two major parties to agree on an issue, which she says is almost impossible - and that issue was to oppose Proposition 14.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen says there will be an army of lawyers ready to look at the constitutionality of Prop 14 if it passes.

Bowen didn't take an official position on the ballot measure.

http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=83149&catid=2

 

[MotF Bane]

I wouldn't want that. I'd like to vote for who I want, and in that system, that would probably mean never voting in the main election. No thanks.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Elections are rigged from the start. In order to campaign in this country you need an incredible amount of money which is either financed by a) your own personal vast fortune or b) lots of fun corporate lobbyists who say "hey, you stand the best chance of getting elected-- do our bidding and we'll give you money."

There will never be a good candidate so long as B exists.

 

[Danube]

I would rather see the two parties get fixed from within that have third party parties come in and skew everything off to no real advantage. The people who want change are better off working to change their party from within than joining some boutique party with no chance of doing squat from without. More parties = more deterioration.

 

[2Xtreme21]

I would rather see the two parties get fixed from within that have third party parties come in and skew everything off to no real advantage. The people who want change are better off working to change their party from within than joining some boutique party with no chance of doing squat from without. More parties = more deterioration.

Why does everyone have to belong to one of two parties, both with billions upon billions of dollars of corporate financing to make sure they do the highest payers' wishes? You think your vote matters now?

 

[Danube]

Why does everyone have to belong to one of two parties, both with billions upon billions of dollars of corporate financing to make sure they do the highest payers' wishes? You think your vote matters now?

It matters more now than with a bunch of Joe and Jane blows siphoning off votes that potentially make the edge of difference.

I'm not a Dem but I would not like to see party go over a cliff. However I think its being driven over one ever since McCain Feingold blocked Dems from their traditional donors and left them dependent on the Soros/Moveon crowd and 527 money. There are dozens of small groups that are essentially the same people creating echo chambers. It wasn't a corporation that dumped 2 mil to oppose Blanche Lincoln in a couple days - that was the Moveon crowd.

Right now the tea parties are having some effect getting GOP to move away from inside-the-party interests to being more responsive to the people. Last winter House Republicans announced their entire 178-member conference would not seek any congressional earmarks this year, denouncing all of the line-item expenditures as wasteful and corrupting.I actually think that's overkill but I like seeing change from within a party coming from the people. Running off with the Ron Paul's and the Ross Perots just dilutes any chance of getting at least some of their wishes.

 

[QuantumPion]

The problem is not our election system. The problem is congress not abiding by the constitution.

If congress were limited by the constitution then they wouldn't have the power to grant hidden tax breaks and pork barrel spending. If they lose that power, then there is little reason to donate such huge sums of money to them in the first place.

 

[Danube]

The problem is not our election system. The problem is congress not abiding by the constitution.

If congress were limited by the constitution then they wouldn't have the power to grant hidden tax breaks and pork barrel spending. If they lose that power, then there is little reason to donate such huge sums of money to them in the first place.

That's true - but it gets back to the people. Pols want the pork because that's what gets them favor with the people. Many want to blame pols but in the end they don't want to forgo their particular check or project.

 

[joebloggs10]

Didn't CA already try something similar, whereby a registered voter could only vote in one party's primary election but they got to choose which one ("open primary")? Seems like I remember someone trying that and it ended up with voters of the incumbent party choosing to vote in the opposition's primary (since incumbents were, at the time, considered safe) and then voting for the least-qualified candidate to try to get them in the general election against their incumbent candidate.

Not saying this is the exact same thing, but it sounds similar enough to be the same type of failure. In many overtly partisan localities you could see the minority party never have a legitimate shot, since there are many places in CA where one party could easily field 2 GE candidates.

 

[theeedude]

Voted no on that one (and all the props, actually)
It's up to Democrats to pick the Democrat nominee and Republicans to pick Republican nominee.

 

[flavio]

In the Kentucky primary for Senate, both Democrats each had more votes than Rand Paul got in the GOP primary. Rand would not be on the ballot in September. Just a choice between two Democrats.

Is that better?

Maybe, probably will be just a choice between two Dems in a lot of elections now.

 

[her209]

In the Kentucky primary for Senate, both Democrats each had more votes than Rand Paul got in the GOP primary. Rand would not be on the ballot in September. Just a choice between two Democrats.

Is that better?

Maybe, probably will be just a choice between two Dems in a lot of elections now.

How many people didn't participate because they figured RP was going to handily win his primary?

 

[flavio]

They didn't have any props to vote on? Paul was the only thing worth going to the polls for?

Do your civic duty fuckers.

 

[drebo]

Prop 14 is an aweful idea. It's one purpose is to keep the party-in-power in power.

If anything, it's going to make it MORE difficult for alternative minority parties to get their candidates elected. Prop 14 is going to make the worst state in the union even worse.

 

[flavio]

I don't know how prop 14 will work out, I think it work out well sometimes and other times some people will be thrilled with unfair election results.

With this rule Kentucky Rand Paul is out. That works kinda because obviously more people want a Dem and they can choose between the two.

Had percentages gone a little different it could be Party A: 35%, Party B1 33%, Party B2 25%.

Obviously more people wanted someone from Party B, but they split the vote here. Splitting the vote will be a disaster. So that means for the Primary every party has to put their best horse in the race and really discourage another viable option in the same party.

It's best of two in the general but what happens if you make the number higher? You still can get splits that screw things up but there might be benefits.

It's quite the change to get passed quietly in a primary.

 

[drebo]

I don't know how prop 14 will work out, I think it work out well sometimes and other times some people will be thrilled with unfair election results.

With this rule Kentucky Rand Paul is out. That works kinda because obviously more people want a Dem and they can choose between the two.

Had percentages gone a little different it could be Party A: 35%, Party B1 33%, Party B2 25%.

Obviously more people wanted someone from Party B, but they split the vote here. Splitting the vote will be a disaster. So that means for the Primary every party has to put their best horse in the race and really discourage another viable option in the same party.

It's best of two in the general but what happens if you make the number higher? You still can get splits that screw things up but there might be benefits.

It's quite the change to get passed quietly in a primary.

Your logic doesn't apply to a state where primaries are party-restricted. "More people want a person from Party B than from Party A" doesn't apply when people from Party B can only vote for Party B candidates. All it means is that there were people from Party B voting that particular day.

We surely cannot make assumptions based on the fallacy of the predetermined outcome, but maybe if Party B was allowed to vote for Party A, Candidate A1 may have gotten 90% of all the votes.

 

[RedChief]

Doesn't Washington state have this sort of system? And don't they have one of the most partisan legislatures in the country? All this does is screw 3rd parties.

 

[MJinZ]

My GTX 480 is "in production". At least they didn't cancel it.

 

[flavio]

Your logic doesn't apply to a state where primaries are party-restricted. "More people want a person from Party B than from Party A" doesn't apply when people from Party B can only vote for Party B candidates.

It's as if you didn't read the details of the law that just passed.

 

[MotF Bane]

My GTX 480 is "in production". At least they didn't cancel it.

Dell Small Business? :hmm:

 

[nonlnear]

It's as if you didn't read the details of the law that just passed.

Is this surprising?

 

[MJinZ]

Dell Small Business? :hmm:

Nope, posting in completely wrong thread lol.

 

[her209]

How many people didn't participate because they figured RP was going to handily win his primary?

Also, how many Dems didn't participate in primary because they couldn't vote for RP? And how many independents would have voted RP but couldn't because they weren't registered as Republicans?