Comments on: Finally, a California Newspaper Story Mentions that Prop. 14 Would Increase Legal Requirements for Parties to be Recognized

By: Jim Riley

Jim Riley — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:46:23 +0000

#23/21 That is not what your Proposition 60 in 2004 said.

By: Steve Rankin

Steve Rankin — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:13:05 +0000

#21: Those California presidential primaries were evidently “beauty contests.”

#22: “Since when does each State have to have the same party hack nomination system ???”

All of the states don’t have the same nomination system.

By: Demo Rep

Demo Rep — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:56:09 +0000

# 19 — Since when does each State have to have the same party hack nomination system ???

P.R. and A.V. — end the rule of the party hacks.

By: Jim Riley

Jim Riley — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 01:46:42 +0000

#19 There is a Democratic congressional nominee in Texas that the Texas Democratic Party has now decreed is a non-person. If you go through their list of candidates and pictures, they simply skip over that district (23 follows 21, sort of like office buildings that don’t have a 13th floor, and elevator goes from 12 to 14.

So now Texas recognizes the nomination by the Democratic Party, but the Democratic Party bosses don’t support the candidate.

#20 4 of the 6 California parties did not place the candidate supported by the most voters in their primary on the general election ballot.

By: Steve Rankin

Steve Rankin — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 01:24:04 +0000

I would add that all 50 states and the District of Columbia officially recognize the parties’ nominations for U. S. president.

By: Steve Rankin

Steve Rankin — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 01:19:20 +0000

#18: When a political party nominates candidates by primary, that’s certainly stronger and much more democratic than a mere endorsement.

49 states– all but Washington– obviously consider it important that the parties’ nominations for Congress be officially recognized.

And 48 states– all but Louisiana and Washington– consider it important that the parties’ nominations for all or most state offices be officially recognized.

By: Jim Riley

Jim Riley — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 05:26:46 +0000

#14 I would use Top N that have a greater share than N/N+1 of the vote, with a minimum of 2.

Why is it important that the government give official recognition of the endorsements of the political parties.

By: Richard

Richard — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:42:18 +0000

Yes, that it was I was trying to say.

By: Steve Rankin

Steve Rankin — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:32:14 +0000

#13: “When one state, like California, deprives parties of the ability to run in November, that wrecks any party unified congressional campaign.”

Just to make sure that all of your readers understand what you mean here, I want to expand on this. If the “top two” takes effect, the first round will be in June (?), with all candidates, including independents, on a single ballot. For each office, the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, will advance to the November general election.

Thus, there is no assurance that a party will have a candidate for Congress– or any other office– on the November ballot.

By: Steve Rankin

Steve Rankin — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:27:02 +0000

#13: We have to keep reminding ourselves that most advocates of the “top two” monstrosity don’t give a damn about political parties.

“If Californiaâ€™s Prop. 14 did not include congressional elections, it wouldnâ€™t be so bad.”

California had a special referendum in October 1915 for a “top two” for STATE offices. The voters, who just a few years earlier had approved nonpartisan “top two” elections for CITY AND COUNTY offices, rejected the 1915 measure with 58.2 percent.

And, of course, California voters in 2004 said “no” to the “top two” for STATE AND CONGRESSIONAL offices, as it lost in 51 of the state’s 58 counties.