Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Prop 14 "Fake Open Primary": The Destruction of California's Independent Political Parties
By now we all know that if they are calling it “Open Primary,” it's just double speak for "Closed Primary". Because only the primary’s top two candidates for each office, regardless of political party, would advance to a runoff election in November, if two Democratic candidates each receive more votes than any Republican candidate for the office, the November election would feature a run-off between the two Democrats, or vice versa. In other words, whoever has the most cash wins, twice over.
What do Ralph Nader, Meg Whitman and the ACLU agree on?
What do Democrat State Senator Loni Hancock and Democrat State Assembly Representative Sandre Swanson agree on?
Prop 14 should not be passed and is posing as yet another "fake" ballot measure, as so many of them are, claiming to doing one thing when it's really doing something else entirely.
On February 11, 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (ACLU-NC) Board of Directors voted overwhelmingly to oppose Prop. 14 "based upon the ACLU’s strong interest in the value and rights of political parties, including third parties, the potential infringement upon these parties’ First Amendment rights of association."
Not surprisingly, special interests are raising hundreds of thousands of dollars to pass Proposition 14, including money from health insurance corporations, developers and financial institutions because Proposition will make it easier for them to elect candidates they “choose.”
A General Description:
In June 2010, California voters will have the chance to fundamentally alter the state’s primary election system. Currently, California operates under a modified closed primary system.
Under this system, political parties nominate candidates for the November General Election through a June Primary Election. The primary is described as “closed” because voters may select only their own party’s candidates, and may not “cross over” to vote for candidates in other parties. It is a “modified” closed primary because each party has the option of allowing independent voters (also known as “decline-to-state” voters) to participate in its primary. Currently, both the Democrat and Republican parties allow unaffiliated voters to participate in the primary election for their parties.
If voters elect to pass Proposition 14, the state will switch to a “top two” candidate open primary system. This system differs from the current format in two ways.
First, all voters, regardless of party registration, would have the option of voting for any candidate.
Second, the primary’s top two candidates for each office, again regardless of political party, would advance to a runoff election in November. If two Democratic candidates each receive more votes than any Republican candidate for the office, the November election would feature a run-off between the two Democrats, or vice versa.
A few points about Prop 14:
* Prop 14 will be the end of 3rd parties in California
Third parties already have a difficult challenge to be heard under our present system. Lack of money makes it very hard for them to compete with the major parties. Even so, over time, third parties have made an enormous contribution to our system in their minority role. For instance, it was the Reform Party of the 1990’s that focused America on the perils of deficit spending while the two major parties failed to lead on the issue.
Because 3rd parties will be unable to bankroll a candidate to finish in the "Top 2", all of the 3rd parties, and their “unwanted” challenges to the establishment, will be silenced because they will not be able to participate in November election.
Richard Winger, of Ballot Access News, says, "It it becomes law, the only way a party will be able to remain on the ballot will be to have registration above 1% of the last gubernatorial vote. Currently that requirement is 88,991 registrants, but after 2010 it is likely to be close to 100,000 registrants." Naturally, in this catch-22, this will be virtually impossible when 3rd party candidates never appear on the November ballots so voters don't even know they exist.
* Under Prop 14, no voter can cast a write-in vote for Congress or state office in a November election
Prop 14 curtails the ability of voters to cast a write-in vote for anyone they wish in the general election by including as a provision -- "8606. A person whose name has been written on the ballot as a write-in candidate at the general election for a voter-nominated office shall not be counted."
According to Richard Winger, "If this passes, California would be one of only 7 states in which no voter could cast a write-in vote for Congress or state office in a November election, and have that write-in counted."
---------
An example of Prop 14 -- If Prop 14 had been passed last June, our current Governor candidates in an open primary could result in ONLY the top two Republican billionaires, spending their personal fortune, be the nominees in November election. The Dems are far outspent.
47 states have PARTISAN state legislative elections.
---------
Governor Candidate Stewart Alexander: Proposition 14 is a trick on voters
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/04/09/18644158.php
Vote No on Proposition 14
http://www.stoptoptwo.org/will-prop-14-kill-third-parties/
California Proposition 14, Top Two Primaries Act (June 2010)
http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_14,_Top_Two_Primaries_Act_%28June_2010%29
Proposition 14's title, ballot summary and analysis as they appear in the state's official voter guide
http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/14-title-summ-analysis.pdf
Proposition 14 arguments and rebuttals as they appear in the state's official voter guide
http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/14-arg-rebuttals.pdf
Campaign finance information about the "Yes on 14, Californians for an Open Primary" campaign
http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1322507&session=2009
'Open Primaries in California: The Future of Proposition 14'
http://rosereport.org/20100311/open-primaries-in-california-the-future-of-proposition-14/
Stop Top Two
http://www.stoptoptwo.org/
What do Democrat State Senator Loni Hancock and Democrat State Assembly Representative Sandre Swanson agree on?
Prop 14 should not be passed and is posing as yet another "fake" ballot measure, as so many of them are, claiming to doing one thing when it's really doing something else entirely.
On February 11, 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (ACLU-NC) Board of Directors voted overwhelmingly to oppose Prop. 14 "based upon the ACLU’s strong interest in the value and rights of political parties, including third parties, the potential infringement upon these parties’ First Amendment rights of association."
Not surprisingly, special interests are raising hundreds of thousands of dollars to pass Proposition 14, including money from health insurance corporations, developers and financial institutions because Proposition will make it easier for them to elect candidates they “choose.”
A General Description:
In June 2010, California voters will have the chance to fundamentally alter the state’s primary election system. Currently, California operates under a modified closed primary system.
Under this system, political parties nominate candidates for the November General Election through a June Primary Election. The primary is described as “closed” because voters may select only their own party’s candidates, and may not “cross over” to vote for candidates in other parties. It is a “modified” closed primary because each party has the option of allowing independent voters (also known as “decline-to-state” voters) to participate in its primary. Currently, both the Democrat and Republican parties allow unaffiliated voters to participate in the primary election for their parties.
If voters elect to pass Proposition 14, the state will switch to a “top two” candidate open primary system. This system differs from the current format in two ways.
First, all voters, regardless of party registration, would have the option of voting for any candidate.
Second, the primary’s top two candidates for each office, again regardless of political party, would advance to a runoff election in November. If two Democratic candidates each receive more votes than any Republican candidate for the office, the November election would feature a run-off between the two Democrats, or vice versa.
A few points about Prop 14:
* Prop 14 will be the end of 3rd parties in California
Third parties already have a difficult challenge to be heard under our present system. Lack of money makes it very hard for them to compete with the major parties. Even so, over time, third parties have made an enormous contribution to our system in their minority role. For instance, it was the Reform Party of the 1990’s that focused America on the perils of deficit spending while the two major parties failed to lead on the issue.
Because 3rd parties will be unable to bankroll a candidate to finish in the "Top 2", all of the 3rd parties, and their “unwanted” challenges to the establishment, will be silenced because they will not be able to participate in November election.
Richard Winger, of Ballot Access News, says, "It it becomes law, the only way a party will be able to remain on the ballot will be to have registration above 1% of the last gubernatorial vote. Currently that requirement is 88,991 registrants, but after 2010 it is likely to be close to 100,000 registrants." Naturally, in this catch-22, this will be virtually impossible when 3rd party candidates never appear on the November ballots so voters don't even know they exist.
* Under Prop 14, no voter can cast a write-in vote for Congress or state office in a November election
Prop 14 curtails the ability of voters to cast a write-in vote for anyone they wish in the general election by including as a provision -- "8606. A person whose name has been written on the ballot as a write-in candidate at the general election for a voter-nominated office shall not be counted."
According to Richard Winger, "If this passes, California would be one of only 7 states in which no voter could cast a write-in vote for Congress or state office in a November election, and have that write-in counted."
---------
An example of Prop 14 -- If Prop 14 had been passed last June, our current Governor candidates in an open primary could result in ONLY the top two Republican billionaires, spending their personal fortune, be the nominees in November election. The Dems are far outspent.
47 states have PARTISAN state legislative elections.
---------
Governor Candidate Stewart Alexander: Proposition 14 is a trick on voters
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/04/09/18644158.php
Vote No on Proposition 14
http://www.stoptoptwo.org/will-prop-14-kill-third-parties/
California Proposition 14, Top Two Primaries Act (June 2010)
http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_14,_Top_Two_Primaries_Act_%28June_2010%29
Proposition 14's title, ballot summary and analysis as they appear in the state's official voter guide
http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/14-title-summ-analysis.pdf
Proposition 14 arguments and rebuttals as they appear in the state's official voter guide
http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/14-arg-rebuttals.pdf
Campaign finance information about the "Yes on 14, Californians for an Open Primary" campaign
http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1322507&session=2009
'Open Primaries in California: The Future of Proposition 14'
http://rosereport.org/20100311/open-primaries-in-california-the-future-of-proposition-14/
Stop Top Two
http://www.stoptoptwo.org/
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Top Two Primary/Proposition 14 Debate: Feinstein vs. Gesicki
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvbRvp-bIbw
Some points made in the video:
* It's not an Open Primary, it's a Top Two Primary.
California had Open Primaries in 1998 and 2000 in which every voter could vote in every party's primary, and then candidates from each party would advance to the November election. The Top Two Primary takes away the right of all parties to have candidates in the general election.
* There's no guarantee you're going to get the Best Two candidates.
We could have vote splitting amongst numerous candidates and have candidates with just 15 or 20% of the vote advancing onto the November election. The Top Two actually limits choice in November.
* It's not true that Primary Elections have low voter turnout. If you have a highly competitive race, there is high turnout.
* The Top Two Primary functions as a Trojan Horse to be an incumbency protection program. The candidates do not have to list their party affiliation.
* Washington State passed a version of the Top Two Primary. In 2008, out of 139 partisan candidates, only one incumbent lost in the primary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvbRvp-bIbw
Some points made in the video:
* It's not an Open Primary, it's a Top Two Primary.
California had Open Primaries in 1998 and 2000 in which every voter could vote in every party's primary, and then candidates from each party would advance to the November election. The Top Two Primary takes away the right of all parties to have candidates in the general election.
* There's no guarantee you're going to get the Best Two candidates.
We could have vote splitting amongst numerous candidates and have candidates with just 15 or 20% of the vote advancing onto the November election. The Top Two actually limits choice in November.
* It's not true that Primary Elections have low voter turnout. If you have a highly competitive race, there is high turnout.
* The Top Two Primary functions as a Trojan Horse to be an incumbency protection program. The candidates do not have to list their party affiliation.
* Washington State passed a version of the Top Two Primary. In 2008, out of 139 partisan candidates, only one incumbent lost in the primary.
Date: April 25, 2010
To: gpcamediawg
Subject: San Jose Mercury News Misrepresents Prop 14's affect on Green Party
This is a letter M.F. sent to the Editorial Board of the San Jose Mercury News.
Subject: Concern with your misrepresentation of Green Party in your Prop 14 endorsement
April 25th, 2010
Dear Ed Clendaniel and Randall Keith, San Jose Mercury News Editorial Board
I am a former Mayor and City Councilmember in Santa Monica and a current co-chair of the Green Party of the US. I want to express deep concern from a journalistic standpoint about how your paper portrayed the Green Party in your endorsement of Proposition 14.
As you may know, Green Parties all over the world thrive where they operate under more fair and representative electoral systems than we have in California (and the US.) If California Greens believed that operating under Prop 14 would more accurately reflect the real support in the electorate for green policies and positions than our the current system, we would likely support it.
However, the Green Party of California unconditionally opposes Prop 14, both because it discriminates against green minded voters and because it reduces choice and voice for California voters as a whole. Many of our party's members find it distasteful at best that supporters and endorsers of Prop 14 (like your paper) feel they can tell California's smaller independent parties that Prop 14 is good for them, when Prop 14 is designed to eliminate our voice and knock us off the ballot.
Specifically your editorial stated: "The top-two primary system is opposed by both major parties, since it would diminish their power. They also say it would exclude third parties from the general election — but the only member of the Green Party ever sent to the Assembly, Audie Bock of Oakland, was elected after an open primary."
This is deceptively misleading. It not just that the Democrats and Republicans say that Prop 14 would exclude California's smaller independent parties - it is those parties themselves that say this. The Libertarians, Greens and Peace & Freedom Party all oppose Prop 14.
If you want to advocate for Prop 14 that is your right. But when you state what you believe its likely impact will be on parties like the Greens, you have a responsibility as editors to say that the Green Party does not share that view. Instead you conveniently omitted this fact and tried to discredit this concern about Prop 14 by playing upon a faux anti-establishment populism against Democrats and Republicans.
Furthermore, your Audie Bock reference is neither accurate nor forthcoming. Green State Assembly candidate Bock was elected in a March 1999 election under blanket primary rules, not Prop 14 rules. In the first round of that election, she received only 8.5% in the first round, coming in 3rd. Had Prop 14 been in effect, that would have been the end of her campaign. But because the blanket primary provided for the top vote-getter from each ballot qualified party to advance to the run-off, she had a chance and won.
Perhaps most importantly in your editorial, you failed to mention that Prop 14 specifically eliminates one of the only ways California's smaller independent parties retain their ballot status - by appearing on the general election ballot and receiving at least 2% of the vote for a statewide constitutional office. How you can say these parties would benefit under Prop 14 without even mentioning this incredible negative for them is remarkable to say the least.
By your misstating and/or omitting these key facts, its hard to see your editorial in favor of Prop 14 as an honest attempt to influence voters. As such, it speaks of an abuse of the public trust we the people place in journalists and editors like yourself.
Sincerely,
Mike Feinstein, Co-Chair, Green Party of the United States
Santa Monica, CA
To: gpcamediawg
Subject: San Jose Mercury News Misrepresents Prop 14's affect on Green Party
This is a letter M.F. sent to the Editorial Board of the San Jose Mercury News.
Subject: Concern with your misrepresentation of Green Party in your Prop 14 endorsement
April 25th, 2010
Dear Ed Clendaniel and Randall Keith, San Jose Mercury News Editorial Board
I am a former Mayor and City Councilmember in Santa Monica and a current co-chair of the Green Party of the US. I want to express deep concern from a journalistic standpoint about how your paper portrayed the Green Party in your endorsement of Proposition 14.
As you may know, Green Parties all over the world thrive where they operate under more fair and representative electoral systems than we have in California (and the US.) If California Greens believed that operating under Prop 14 would more accurately reflect the real support in the electorate for green policies and positions than our the current system, we would likely support it.
However, the Green Party of California unconditionally opposes Prop 14, both because it discriminates against green minded voters and because it reduces choice and voice for California voters as a whole. Many of our party's members find it distasteful at best that supporters and endorsers of Prop 14 (like your paper) feel they can tell California's smaller independent parties that Prop 14 is good for them, when Prop 14 is designed to eliminate our voice and knock us off the ballot.
Specifically your editorial stated: "The top-two primary system is opposed by both major parties, since it would diminish their power. They also say it would exclude third parties from the general election — but the only member of the Green Party ever sent to the Assembly, Audie Bock of Oakland, was elected after an open primary."
This is deceptively misleading. It not just that the Democrats and Republicans say that Prop 14 would exclude California's smaller independent parties - it is those parties themselves that say this. The Libertarians, Greens and Peace & Freedom Party all oppose Prop 14.
If you want to advocate for Prop 14 that is your right. But when you state what you believe its likely impact will be on parties like the Greens, you have a responsibility as editors to say that the Green Party does not share that view. Instead you conveniently omitted this fact and tried to discredit this concern about Prop 14 by playing upon a faux anti-establishment populism against Democrats and Republicans.
Furthermore, your Audie Bock reference is neither accurate nor forthcoming. Green State Assembly candidate Bock was elected in a March 1999 election under blanket primary rules, not Prop 14 rules. In the first round of that election, she received only 8.5% in the first round, coming in 3rd. Had Prop 14 been in effect, that would have been the end of her campaign. But because the blanket primary provided for the top vote-getter from each ballot qualified party to advance to the run-off, she had a chance and won.
Perhaps most importantly in your editorial, you failed to mention that Prop 14 specifically eliminates one of the only ways California's smaller independent parties retain their ballot status - by appearing on the general election ballot and receiving at least 2% of the vote for a statewide constitutional office. How you can say these parties would benefit under Prop 14 without even mentioning this incredible negative for them is remarkable to say the least.
By your misstating and/or omitting these key facts, its hard to see your editorial in favor of Prop 14 as an honest attempt to influence voters. As such, it speaks of an abuse of the public trust we the people place in journalists and editors like yourself.
Sincerely,
Mike Feinstein, Co-Chair, Green Party of the United States
Santa Monica, CA
For more information:
http://aglobalgreen.blogspot.com/2010/04/s...
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$30.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network