According to this article in the Contra Costa Times, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger still favors bringing the “top-two” system to California, even though California voters rejected it in 2004, and even though Oregon voters rejected it 2-1 in last week’s election. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
If only Washington voters would reject it too…
A major factor in Washington voters passing the “top two” was that state’s long history with its blanket primary, in which voters could cross party lines in the first round of voting. I wonder how many of them thought they were voting to bring back the blanket primary.
Another by-product of the blanket primary is that many Washingtonians have no use for political parties.
NO primaries are needed.
P.R. and A.V.
Any possible way to get P.R. and A.V. into the brain of Gov S. aka Terminator (in movies) ???
Good luck in trying — ALL incumbents are now about 99 percent plus EVIL monsters with their EVIL leftwing / rightwing extremist control freak ideas.
I telephoned Phil Keisling on November 11 and said I wish he would support an elimination of the primary, and just one election in November using IRV. Keisling was the number one proponent of “top-two” in Oregon. He was noncommittal about that idea of abolishing the primary.
Keisling’s intentions, like Washington Secretary of State Reed’s, are probably to eliminate the “spoiler” problem without giving the voters more choices in the general election.
In all of the discussion that I’ve read on the issue
of a top-two General ballot, some items haven’t come
up. One would be, that we need to remember that the
state of Louisiana was founded by the French so they
don’t have the tradition of English Common Law that
the other states follow. Two, written in our Federal
Constitution in the 12th Amendemnt is voting for the
President by Congress from among the THREE highest
vote winners from the November election. So, if its
necessary that the President get 50% of the vote from
among 3 candidates why is it acceptable that all other
offices be chosen from only 2 in any state other than
Louisiana? Granted, the Vice President is only chosen
from the top two candidates but that has more to do
with the fact that the Vice President Constitutionally
is to preside over the Senate when it is in session &
not show up only when there is a 50-50 tie on a vote!
Another thing is that irregardless of the system that
would be used (IRV or something else) wouldn’t it be
in conflict with Prop. 61(?) which stated that each
ballot qualified party is entitled to have its top
vote getter on the November ballot? Special elections
in California do work differently. If someone wins 50%
in the first round they are elected. Otherwise, a run
off is held with each party’s top vote getter on the
ballot like a general election, however the election
time is only 2 rather than the 5 months normally used.
Finally, Richard since 1968 when the Peace & Freedom
and the American Independnent Parties first qualified
for the ballot, how many times have there been where
over 20% of the Congressional & legislative seats have
had 3rd party or independent candidates on November’s
ballot? That some what shows how difficult it is to
campaign already in California. Historically, it has
been rare to have 5 or more candidates on the ballot
other than for state office.
Deemer: Louisiana’s adoption of its “top two” (popularly called the “open primary”) had nothing to do with its French background. LA’s “top two” is an extension of the old one-party (truly NO-PARTY) system, in which elections were decided in the Democratic primary, with a Democratic runoff if necessary.
When Southern Republicans began running a few candidates in the 1960s, they almost never had primary opposition, so they only had to run in the general election– whereas a Democrat had the aggravation and expense of both a primary and a runoff primary campaign prior to the general election. The Democrats naturally resented the fact that the Republican only had to campaign in the fall, and the Dems wanted to force the Republican to run in the same election with the Dems– hence, the push for the “open primary.”
Between 1966 and 1979, the Mississippi legislature enacted the “top two” (aka “open primary”) five different times, but its implementation was blocked each time– thank God.
Meanwhile, Louisiana began using the “open primary” for its state and local elections in 1975; it also used it for its congressional elections from 1978 through 2006.
The “top two” is certainly not a new idea. California voters rejected it for state offices in 1915 and for state AND congressional offices in November 2004. North Dakota voters rejected it in the early 1920s.
Click here for a post that includes Louisiana’s and Mississippi’s history with the “open primary” (“top two”).
In the November 9 “top two” post here, which is now on page 3, Ash Roughani #24 says that voters should be limited to 2 choices in the final, deciding election because that assures the viability of both candidates. Here’s my response #25:
There’s no guarantee that the two final candidates in the “top two†will both be viable, regardless of what state it is. Extreme candidates sometimes slip into the second round, edging out more moderate candidates. The extreme candidate then loses in a landslide.
That was the case in the final round for governor in Louisiana in both 1991 and 1995.
In a system of party primaries, to be sure, each party has the right to nominate one candidate for each office on the general election ballot. And there is no limit on the number of independents who can run in the general election.
In my state’s 2003 general election for governor, we had FIVE candidates. How many candidates did California have for governor in your 2006 general election?
#7 When Foster v Love was argued before the US Supreme Court. Louisiana AG Ieyoub argued that Louisiana’s electoral system was so novel that the time regulations imposed by Congress were totally inapplicable. He said that if Louisiana wanted to, they could hold the election in August with a runoff in September.
The Love lawyer argued that the system used by Louisiana was the same system used by every State in 1872 when Congress set the uniform election date for Representatives, and therefore it should be held on date set by Congress. The US Supreme Court apparently agreed with him.
#8 In 2002, 2004, and 2006, Louisiana had 26, 28, and 33 candidates, respectively, on the general election ballot for US representative, 4.14 per race.
Now that Louisiana has retrogressed to using party primaries, there were only 16 candidates on the general election ballot or 2.29 per race (a 45% decline).
In two districts, there was NO general election. One of these was the 3rd CD held by Charlie Melancon. There weren’t even primaries. This is the seat that was formerly held by Billy Tauzin (Jr). In the Foster v. Love litigation, all Mr. Love wanted to do was be able to vote for or against Billy Tauzin on election day.
#9: In 1872, all– or almost all– of the parties nominated by convention. In Louisiana’s “open primary,” the parties have no way of officially nominating candidates.
It was not until the early 1900s that states began requiring parties to nominate by primary.
#10: The general election was the first round in those congressional races. If a second round was needed, there were then only 2 candidates per seat.
Right– Louisiana has “retrogressed” to becoming one of 49 states that hold party primaries in congressional elections. I predict that the federal courts will order Washington state to “retrogress” too.
This was just the first year that LA restored party primaries for Congress. The point is that each party has the right to nominate one candidate per seat in the general election, and there is no limit on the number of independents who can run. In contrast, there are NEVER more than 2 candidates in the second round of the “open primary”/”top two.”
The voters are obviously happy with Charlie Melancon. There would not have been a contested election for that seat even if LA were still using the “open primary.”
Re: #6, Prop 60 in California only applies to partisan offices. For example, the Superintendent of Public Instruction is a non-partisan office, and the parties have no right of nomination, let alone placement on the general election ballot. The same is true for county offices.
The proposed Top 2 initiative in California would define a new type of election, a Voters’ Choice election which would not have partisan nominees.
Prop #60 did guarantee that the candidate who received the most votes in the presidential primary would be placed on the general election ballot – but California election officials, political parties, and ballot access activists ignore that clear and explicit provision.
#11 In 1872, Louisiana had two groups claiming to be the rightful government, and two sets of congressional returns were presented to Congress, one signed by Governor Pinchback and one by Governor Warmouth. Two elections were contested, and the challenger was seated on the last day of the term, March 3, 1875.
Elsewhere, voters would simply write the name of the candidate they wanted to vote for on a piece of paper and deposit that in the ballot box. Some candidates (or their supporters) would distribute printed ballots. Sometimes they would pay voters to take a ballot (“There is no free lunch” means that there was a cost to be paid for accepting the vittles). Or they would try to stuff several ballots in the ballot box at once. Political gangs (or parties, if you prefer) would attempt to keep other politcal gangs from distributing their ballots, conflicts that sometimes led to gang members (or political associates) being killed.
The Australian Ballot was supposed to cure all this, by having the government print the names of ALL the candidates on a ballot, which would permit voters to choose their favored candidate in secret, or even write in the name of a candidate as they had been able to since 1788. In South Australia, candidates only needed two singatures, that of a proposer and a seconder. They certainly didn’t need the “nomination” of a political party/gang.
But the political party/gangs soon corrupted this system, so that in effect the government was now printing and distributing the party ballots, even going so far as to implement (con)fusion ballots – which have absolutely NO connection to the election of individuals. Parties were given the right to “nominate” which soon to the power to “not nominate” and thereby exclude candidates from the ballot and being chosen by the People.
33 candidates is more choice than 16 candidates, more than twice as much.
Billy Tauzin was popular too. We don’t know whether Mr.Love wanted to vote for or against him on election day. We do know that he wanted to vote, to have a choice.
It was the federal district court that moved the Louisiana congressional general election to November. This was upheld by the 5th Circuit (and the US Supreme Court did not accept an appeal).
If a court finds that the Washington election laws are in violation of Congress’s time regulation, the solution is to move the election, not to change the manner.
How are they going to argue otherwise? The Washington system is closer to the system used in 1872 when Congress set the uniform election date.
Remember that the purpose was to prevent people moving from State to State and voting for multiple representatives. The partisan primary makes that possible. With primaries starting in February, you might be able to get 5 elections in.