What are people's thoughts abt Ca.'s Prop 14? Greatest thing in the world

[truedelphi]

Or the end of Democracy? A recent court case is going to allow Prop 14 to be on the ballot. This means, I suppose, that should it be passed, it will be held as Constitutional.

If passed on election day in June of this year, Prop 14 would see to it that only the top two
vote getters in any primary race are allowed to run for that office.

Now looking back at history, had this been in effect when Phil Angelides was the pick for the Democratic gubernatorial spot, even though the voters had chosen Steve Westly, party politics could not have trumped the will of the voters.

So then party politics would not have consigned Steve to the dustbin of history and Phil Angelides to a situation in which his lackluster campaign attempted to face down Ahnold.

Instead, Westly would have been able to run, and to heck with what Di Fi wanted (Possibly what she really wanted was to ensure that the spot of governorship be held for her.)

So maybe Prop 14 is a good thing?

On the other hand, letters to the editor insist that it is the end of democracy. For instance, in a recent San Jose Mercury story on this issue, Green Party members clearly oppose this reform effort:
FROM THE ARTICLE: "And the Green Party will continue opposing Proposition 14 being on the June ballot. The initiative would establish a single primary open to all registered voters. The party believes it would doom its statewide and congressional candidates.

Stumping for votes is hard enough, said Jane Rands, a former state Assembly candidate from Orange County.

"The No. 1 thing people say is, 'I agree with everything you stand for, but I'm not going to vote for you because you are not going to get elected." (END OF SAN JOSE MERCURY article quote.)

Some headlines on Google show that both Democratic and Republican party leaders are not fond of Prop 14.

Also, Ralph Nader, leading advocate for third-party candidate and full voter rights, stated, “Unless defeated, Proposition 14 would establish a two-party tyranny that prevents other candidate choices
for California voters from the November election ballot. In short, Proposition 14 wants to shut you up if you disagree with the arrogant, big two-party politicians.”

Nader continues, “I am pleased that Tobin is taking the lead on stopping this legislation with the Stop Top Two website.”

I am hoping to hear what others may think and know about this situation.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

1. I do not like the bill --

because it solidifies the two party system and leaves very little chance for other parties to break through. Though a registered Democrat (for now) I have chosen the Green candidate on a couple of occassions when I was not happy with my democratic choice. I like having the option of many candidates to choose from.

[Xithras]

4. Actually it does the opposite. It creates a more "parliamentary" style system. Better for 3P's

See my other post for more info, but this is why both major parties oppose it. It turns the primary election into a free-for-all, diluting the vote of each individual candidate. By lowering the overall percentage needed to qualify for the fall ballot, it could actually lead to MORE 3rd party election wins.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Democracy is SUPPOSED to be messy, and this nonsense would...

try to clean it up at the expense of any and every small party out there. I hardly ever think of voting for those little parties, and don't really advocate that anyone does, but seeing them disappear is a terrible thought.

They can be important at the local level, with school boards and town boards having Greens and Working Family members. The Right-to-Life Party has already exploited that angle, and other parties should, at the very least do the same in order to learn how to run a campaign, and how to govern if elected.

Can they decide an election? Sure. Forget about whether or not Nader or Perot affected Presidential elections-- in 1980 Jacob Javits was diagnosed with Lou Gherig's disease and Al D'Amato nailed him in a primary challenge. A liberal, but still loyal Republican, he accepted a deal to run on the Liberal party line and steal votes from the Liz Holzmann, the Democrat. The rest is history.

[Xithras]

3. It's a mixed bag

(reposted from the Election Reform forum)

Prop 14, in essence, makes all elections runoff elections. The first election, in June, would be open to everybody irregardless of their political party, just as elections are now. You'd have multiple Democrats, multiple Republicans, multiple Greens, etc. The difference is that, instead of running against their own party to determine party nominations, they'd run against EACH OTHER.

The top two vote getters in the initial election then get to go forward to the second and main election in the fall. In heavily Democratic areas, this might mean that the fall ballot could have two Democrats on it and no Republicans. In heavily conservative areas, voters may end up choosing between a "fiscal conservative" and a teabagger, with no Democrats allowed on the ballot. In competetive areas, there would be little change other than the exclusion of third party candidates.

That's not to say that it would kill off third parties. Far from it. Several election analysts have pointed out that a free-for-all primary election, with voters split among various candidates from the same party, would result in a lower overall vote percentage for each individual candidate. This would essentially "lower the bar", making it easier for a third party candidate to make it into the general. Example:

We have an election with 7 people running for Governor. At the end of the June primary, here are the results:

Smith-Democrat: 21%. Johnson-Democrat: 14%. Williams-Democrat: 17%. Jones-Green: 18%. Brown-Republican: 10%. Miller-Republican: 17%. Duke-Tea: 3%

In the fall election, the voters would be choosing between Smith (D) and Jones (G). There would be no Republicans on the ballot.

It's an interesting idea, but I'm really not sure whether it would survive the inevitable court challenge.

[truedelphi]

5. Thank you for clarifying the important aspects of this proposed

Legislation. And for putting it up in both places.

[Xithras]

6. I really don't think it has much chance of passing,

It will have both major political parties, the public employee unions, and virtually all of the political power-brokers in the state lined up against it. Heck, look at the fight that's already taking place over whether it should even be allowed on the ballot.

For the record, I actually don't think it should be on the ballot. I'm not completely opposed to the concept, but I don't understand how people can legitimately argue that it isn't a rewrite of the state constitution. Those CANNOT be originated within propositions. Even if it does somehow manage to pass the electorate, I'd bet real money that it would be struck by the courts on those grounds alone.

[truedelphi]

7. Thank you for the further insights. I think I would like it if it wasn't limited to

Simply two names on the ballot.

And I didn't know about the notion that the state constitution needs to be considered in light of the changes that this legislation proposes. That is food for thought.

[New Dawn]

8. Its being funded and promoted by the super-rich

Basically, they want to force left-wing candidates off the ballot, by "screening them out" in the primary. Only the "top two" (safely bought off) candidates in the primary will then advance to the general election.