Washington does not permit losing candidates in the primary, whether on-ballot or write-in to declare as write-in candidates for the general election.

#15 Independent candidates often must gather many signatures. In Texas, this is in competition with the party primaries (recall the “Save yourself for Kinky” campaign in 2006). Independent candidates in Hawaii qualify by the primary.

Why would a candidate for office consider any election system as anything other than a two or three stage process.

Louisiana now employees lockout devices on the side of their voting machines which election judges manipulate to prevent some voters from casting a vote in congressional elections while they are also voting in a legislative election. I wonder whether the elections judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution. You might recall the proposal last year to prevent minor parties from nominating congressional candidates. They essentially had to pledge to not have primaries.

I think that the original decision would have been more accurate to have said, that under State X’s election laws, a basis function of a political party is to nominate candidates for office. Under a Top 2 system it is not a basic function of a political party to officially nominate candidates for office.

In Mississippi, a voter can not, according to State law, participate in a partisan primary unless he intends to support the nominated candidates at the general election. That is a pretty severe constraint that some voters might be unwilling to accept.

The only thing definitive I could find on Rossi was that he had run in 2000 as the “Gino Rossi GOP”. Maybe the alliteration between ‘Gino’ and ‘GeeOhPee” was effective, much like Ronald Reagan Republican is.

For the legislature, there were 22 “G.O.P.”; 4 “G O P”; and 1 “Grand Old Party” preferences. What is your inference on the use of punctuation?

If an independent or 3rd party candidate is capable of getting a plurality in a general election, they are capable of finishing in the Top 2 in a primary, no? And if an independent or 3rd party candidate is capable of getting a plurality, certainly even more are capable of finishing second.

In 2006, there was only one, REPEAT ONE, independent or 3rd party legislative candidate in Washington. Are you going to blame that on Top 2 as well? After all it was the law in Washington at the time.

Some States do not maintain records of the political beliefs of their citizens, it is true. But even they prevent or discouraging with individual citizens from organizing with other citizens on an ad hoc basis.

Elections and lotteries both are processes that can be fair or unfair. I was trying to understand what your understanding of the meaning of fairness is. You have told me that an election process with certain properties is fair, therefore a fair election process is one with those properties.

Not even a so-called “voter-nominated primary election”?

In reality, the two rounds in this system are the general election and the runoff general election. The purpose of the first round is to winnow the field to two candidates, regardless of party.

No mention in #16 of write-in votes…

SEC. 5. (a) [1] A voter-nomination primary election shall be conducted to select the candidates for congressional and state elective offices in California.

[2] All voters may vote at a voter-nominated primary election for any candidate for congressional and state elective office without regard to the political party preference disclosed by the candidate or the voter, provided that the voter is otherwise qualified to vote for candidates for the office in question.

[3] The candidates who are the top two vote-getters at a voter-nominated primary election for a congressional or state elective office shall, regardless of party preference, compete in the ensuing general election.

(b) [1] Except as otherwise provided by Section 6, a candidate for a congressional or state elective office may have his or her political party preference, or lack of political party preference, indicated upon the ballot for the office in the manner provided by statute.

[2] A political party or party central committee shall not nominate a candidate for any congressional or state elective office at the voter-nominated primary.

[3] This subdivision shall not be interpreted to prohibit a political party or party central committee from endorsing, supporting, or opposing any candidate for a congressional or state elective office.

[4] A political party or party central committee shall not have the right to have its preferred candidate participate in the general election for a voter-nominated office other than a candidate who is one of the two highest vote-getters at the primary election, as provided in subdivision (a).
—-
Somehow unfair* to the party hack extremists ???

Shed a tear for the party hacks — IF the proposal gets adopted — with the standard court cases by the party hacks.

As noted earlier – P.R. and A.V.
NO primaries are needed.

In the “top two,” on the other hand, independents are placed on the first-round ballot along with all the other candidates. If lightning strikes and an independent makes the runoff, he then faces a second campaign.

The top two vote-getters in the “top two” are both compelled to conduct TWO general election campaigns, which makes campaigning more expensive (in Louisiana, to be sure, there is no runoff when one candidate gets 50%-plus in the first round).

#12: 49 states (all but Washington) now enable the parties to officially nominate candidates for the U. S. Congress. In 2008, Louisiana wisely restored party primaries for Congress.

Louisiana’s Democrats invite registered independents to vote in their congressional primaries, while the Republicans do not.

50%-plus is required to win in Louisiana’s “top two.”

Are write-ins permitted in the California “top two” proposal?

“Many voters… are legally constrained from participating in [party primaries]…”

How so? If a voter wants to participate in a party’s primary, and registering with that party is required to do so, then that’s what the voter should do. In Jones, e. g., Scalia said that a voter living in a one-party jurisdiction should simply JOIN THE PARTY.

In Washington state, Reed and McKenna (your heroes for pushing the “top two”) both had the advantage of running as incumbents. Rossi, in contrast, was a non-incumbent running against the incumbent governor. What’s your explanation for Rossi picking “GOP” instead of “Republican” for his party preference on the ballot?

“3rd party candidates and independents are even less likely to be elected under a partisan primary system, than under Top 2.”

You’ve gotta be kidding! That’s the most ridiculous statement I’ve seen in a long time. As Tom noted in #12, independents and small party candidates almost never reach the runoff in the “top two,” whereas, in a partisan system, every ballot-qualified party has the power to have one candidate per partisan office on the general election ballot. And every qualifying independent is placed on the general election ballot. Almost every general election only requires a plurality to win, while 50%-plus is needed to win the “top two” runoff.

Furthermore, in the “top two,” all or most small parties will eventually cease to exist.

It obviously doesn’t matter to you if parties are placed in an unfair situation, since you don’t give a damn about political parties anyway.

Regardless of how Judge Coughenour rules, his decision will be appealed to the 9th Circuit.

#12: Iowa has open primaries, despite having party registration. Also, Utah has party registration, but the Democrats there have an open primary.

That’s what happens at Presidential nominating conventions every four years. In 48 states, political parties nominate candidates for Senate, House of Representatives, Governor and other statewide races. In 47 states, they nominate for all of these offices plus state legislature. Many local races are also partisan. The term “nomination” is specifically written into the election laws of my state, and I presume many others as well.

“Many voters do not pay attention during the partisan primaries, either because the are legally constrained from participating in a process which they are forced to fund, or they don’t see the relevance of the decisions being made.”

Many states have open primaries by necessity, as they don’t have partisan registration. The only thing that voters are constrained from doing in these states is hopping around from party to party in different races (such as Democrat for Governor and Republican for Secretary of State). Other states allow independents to vote in party primaries.

“How is that “unfair”? What is your definition of fairness? While it might be your desire that you win the lottery, it certainly is not “unfair” if you don’t. 3rd party candidates and independents are even less likely to be elected under a partisan primary system, than under Top 2. Doesn’t that make the partisan primary system even more unfair than Top 2?”

You can’t be serious about comparing elections to the lottery. My definition of fairness is that every political party who passes a modest ballot access test in terms of signatures, registered members or vote totals should have their nominee on the general election ballot. The same should hold for independent candidates who meet a modest signature test. Third parties and independents have a difficult time winning under plurality. In most top two elections, they’re not even on the general election ballot.

Many voters do not pay attention during the partisan primaries, either because the are legally constrained from participating in a process which they are forced to fund, or they don’t see the relevance of the decisions being made. Under Top 2 this will be less true. Surely 3rd party and independent candidates if they are sensible will make an effort to reach voters.

Both Sam Reed and Rob McKenna ran indicating a preference for the “Republican Party” and were easily elected, running nearly 20% ahead of the presidential ticket and about 12% ahead of Rossi. Your explanation is about as plausible as those who claimed that Spanish-speaking voters in Flordia confused Libertarian with Lieberman.

How is that “unfair”? What is your definition of fairness? While it might be your desire that you win the lottery, it certainly is not “unfair” if you don’t. 3rd party candidates and independents are even less likely to be elected under a partisan primary system, than under Top 2. Doesn’t that make the partisan primary system even more unfair than Top 2?

#7 What about when Joe Lieberman was elected senator from Connecticut. Was that “unfair” to the Democratic and Republican parties because they were split between voters who voters who supported Lieberman, and those who supported the nominee of their party? And even it was “unfair” to the parties, why does that matter?

#10 Judge Coughenour made clear that he wasn’t going to be overturning Top 2, and he has set a schedule that gives time for the legislature to clarify the loose ends of the current legislation, and to also conduct the 2010 elections using Top 2.