In 1915, California Progressives, led by Gov. Hiram Johnson, promoted a ballot measure for nonpartisan (“top two”) elections for state offices. The voters, who several years earlier had approved nonpartisan local elections, rejected the 1915 measure, 58.2% to 41.8%.

Nebraska’s nonpartisan state legislative elections were enacted through a ballot measure in the 1930s.

Now we learn that you are a minor party HACK, Demo Rep.

NE got its ONE house legislature as a result of the MAJOR EVIL corruption by the party hacks in NE — mainly Elephants in the bad old days.

The nonpartisan stuff was deemed *progressive* — part of the progressive election reform agenda to reduce the power of the EVIL party hacks

– nonpartisan local governments, voter petitions for constitutional amendments, laws and recalls — and a bit earlier — even the SECRET ballot and official primary and general election ballots.

How many websites have to have the history of election reforms in the world — before it is too late ???

Wiki folks are working 24/7.

P.R. and nonpartisan A.V. — two more MAJOR reforms — regardless of party hacks, juveniles and overly sensitive folks.

Other than Louisiana and Washington, Nebraska is the only state that elects its legislature on a nonpartisan basis.

The one-house legislature is a terrible idea– which is why no state but Nebraska has it.

Top 2 in the nonpartisan primary in NE.

Clogged primary ballots in NE only if a gerrymander incumbent is NOT running again ???

Are the party hacks in NE trying to bring back party hack primaries ???

i.e. how many possible *serious* candidates in WA did not have enough time, money and effort to run in 2008 ???

There was a Green, Libertarian, and one independent candidate for the US Senate in 2006 who collectively received 66,969 votes.

There was one independent candidate (and no minor party candidates) for the US House in 2006. She received 11,956 votes.

While it is true that Senators are members of Congress, the reference to Congress between two explicit references to the Senate and prevalent usage of Congressman/woman/person to refer to a Representative may have caused some to infer there were multiple independent candidates for the US House, and that the Green and Libertarian candidate for Senate received 70,000 votes.

There was no US senatorial election in 2008, so it is impossible to make comparisons with 2006. There were no Republican or Democratic senatorial candidates in 2008 either.

There was one independent candidate for the US House in 2006, Linnea Noreen in CD 7. She received 11,926 votes.

In 2008, there were 7 minor party or independent candidates for the US House, one each expressed a preference for the Constitution, Green, or Libertarian parties, while 4 expressed no party preference. Collectively these 7 candidates received 23,220 votes.

So for the federal races that may be compared, there was a 600% increase in the number of non-major party candidates, a 300% increase in the number of congressional districts where a voter could vote for a non-major party candidates, and a 95% increase in the votes cast for non-major party candidates. When I tried to calculate a percentage increase for minor party candidates, I got a divide by zero error.

Under the blanket primary, it was fairly common to have a bipartisan delegation. An incumbent could get cross-over votes in the primary, preempting a more competitive candidate from the opposite party, so a challenger might well be more extreme. Or it might simply be that a voter would want to vote for a candidate who had been a school board or city council member and be indifferent to the party.

Under the Pick-A-Party primary, a voter who picked their party on the basis of the gubernatorial or senatorial primary, would have been blocked from voting for their choice for legislator. And so legislative selections would be increasingly by more partisan voters even in districts that were relatively balanced.

In districts where one party is dominant, supporters of the minority party are at least allowed to vote for who represents them. I think that is a good thing.

The non-major party candidates for U.S. Senate in Washington in 2006 got 70,000 votes, or 3.2%.

In 2008, there were numerous races where candidates were unopposed in the general election, where an independent or minor party candidate would have to do little more than file to get on the general election ballot.

In the 1998 California gubernatorial race, the vote for the minor party candidates in the primary was about the same in the primary and the general election (3.22% vs 3.56%).

P.R. and A.V.

NO primaries are needed.