“First– This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act.”
Second– The People of the State of California hereby find and declare all of the following:
(a) Purpose. The Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act is hereby adopted by the People of California to protect and preserve the right of every Californian to vote for the candidate of his or her choice.”

In 2004 voters may have been confused by Prop 60 which the legislature had proposed.

#14/13

Probably tied.

It would have been up to each of the parties whether D’Amato could seek multiple nominations. If a party declined, then D’Amato could choose between the parties. It doesn’t matter whether or not the parties were acting rationally or in their ultimate best interest.

And remember that Eugene Platt had signed a loyalty oath to not run if he failed to get the Democratic nomination.

I think in New York, “independents” are classified as blanks. As in Mayor Bloomberg is a registered blank”.

In 2004, a state judge in California prohibited the “top two” from being called an “open primary” in the voter’s guide. The “top two” (Prop. 62) lost in 51 of the state’s 58 counties.

If memory serves, the Oregon Supreme Court in 2008 forbade M65 from being called an “open primary.” Nearly 66% of the voters said “no” as the “top two” monstrosity lost in all of the state’s counties.

#13: “If Eugene Platt had won the nomination of both the Green and Democratic parties, then voters might equate the two parties.”

On at least one occasion, Sen. Al D’Amato had the nominations of the Republican, the Conservative, AND the Right to Life parties. Do you think that New Yorkers equated those three parties?

This year, Mayor Bloomberg, a registered independent, had the nominations of both the Republican and the Independence parties. Did voters equate those two parties?

You’re not saying that New Yorkers are smarter than South Carolinians, are you?

If Platt had not sought the Democratic nomination, then the voters would likely have ignored him completely.

It of course does not matter if this would happen in the particular instance of Eugene Platt for it to be a rationale that courts have found to be a legitimate basis for State law.
*****
If Eugene Platt had won the nomination of both the Green and Democratic parties, then voters might equate the two parties. This may or may not be something that the Democratic Party would want to happen. If Eugene Platt had told the party: “I’m going to seek the nomination of the Green Parry, and since it will be a convention, it is an almost sure deal; and if I don’t get the Democratic nomination, I’m going to do everything in my power to capture voters, contributions, party staffers for the general election”, the Democratic Party might have denied him a place on their ballot, and told him to go away, we don’t want this sort of political association.
*****
Green Party activists appear have a fantasy that the the change in Illinois was directed at them. When someone explains the neutral rationale for the change, they are deluded into believing that he is doing so only in an effort to destroy the Green Party and that he has always favored slating by the Democratic and Party.
*****
I seriously that the Working Families Party would make an independent nomination in such a case. Remember, the WFP had also nominated Platt, and don’t appear to be the least bit concerned that their nomination was cancelled after he didn’t get the Democratic nomination.

I don’t consider an general election with two, exactly two, and only two choices on the ballot to be an “open general”.

“So why should fusion make any difference? The State’s rationale is to prevent factionalism and encourage majority results.”

Because there is no “factionalism” being prevented in this case. If Platt won the Green nomination and didn’t seek the Democratic nomination, then he would have been on the ballot anyway.

“This precluded the Democratic Party from considering whether they wanted to be coerced into involuntary political association with the Green Party through a fusion candidacy by Platt.”

The Democratic Party could not be “coerced” into supporting a fusion candidacy. If it is the will of the voters to nominate Platt through a Democratic Party primary or convention, then the voters have spoken. I thought that you were rather skeptical about the rights of “political gangs” compared to those of the voters.

Long-standing provisions of election law seem to be just fine until the Greens decide to use them. When Greens try to use slating just like the Democrats and Republicans do in Illinois, then they are engaged in some plot to thwart The People from voting in the primary. When Greens to try win multiple party nominations under fusion just like Democrats and Republicans have been doing for decades, they are trying to “coerce” the other party into associating with them.

Suppose incumbent Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) decided to go for the Working Families Party nomination in the 5th Congressional District after winning the Democratic nomination. Somehow I really, really doubt that he would be taken off the ballot if the Green Party candidate won the WFP nomination instead.

The Top 2 proposition in California characterizes the primary election as an “open primary” and the general election as an “open general” election.

So why should fusion make any difference? The State’s rationale is to prevent factionalism and encourage majority results.

I don’t believe that the distinction warrants characterizing the brief by State of South Carolina as being in error.

The same is true of the state-mandated open primary, in which a party’s ballot is available to ANY voter. That’s why I predict that, when a case involving the state-mandated open primary reaches the US Supreme Court, the court will strike it down.

I doubt that Eugene Platt entered the Democratic primary expecting to lose (of course, he may have already been contemplating the current lawsuit in the event that he did lose and was excluded from the general election ballot).

“… simply let any individual who wishes to run in an election in which the entire electorate may vote…”

This describes general elections. Any individual who chooses not to run under a party label may file for the general election as an independent (in a few places, of course, a loser of a party nomination may then qualify as an independent). In the “top two,” all candidates might just as well be independents.

Howard Phillips also tried to persuade Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) to seek the USTP/Constitution Party’s presidential nomination.

So what is the problem? He is not cluttering the ballot or confusing voters? He will just be on the ballot as a green instead of a green-democrat?

In my opinion, the problem is that the staff of the South Carolina Election Commission believes that fusion itself is a bad idea, and since they have not been able to persuade the state legislature to dispense with it they are attempting to do so by bureaucratic means.

I have been told face-to-face by a staff member at the Election Commission that he doesn’t support “this fusion stuff”. He offered that as a personal opinion, but now he and the director have taken it beyond personal opinion and made it state policy in direct conflict with the state legislature, which has left fusion as state law despite attempts in several recent legislative sessions to do away with it.

The American Independent Party in 1996 held a California state convention, of course, but I don’t know what city it was held in.