Home General California Libertarian Candidate Produces Own Radio Ad Against Proposition 14, Pays to Get it On Air
formats

California Libertarian Candidate Produces Own Radio Ad Against Proposition 14, Pays to Get it On Air

Published on June 5, 2010, by in General.

Gary Bryant, Libertarian Party candidate for California Assembly, 3rd district, has produced his own radio ad against Proposition 14, the top-two ballot measure on the June 8 ballot. He uses his own voice, and the ad lasts one minute. It cost him $205 to have it air four times on Monday, June 7, on KNCO, 830 on the dial, in Grass Valley, California.

Click here to listen to the ad.

37 Responses

  1. Jim Riley

    Gary Bryant is running for the AD 3 in the northeastern corner of the state. In 2000, under the blanket primary, there were 3 candidates, one Democrat, one Republican, one Libertarian.

    The primary results:

    Republican 63.9%, Democrat 29.6%, Libertarian 6.5%

    The general election:

    Republican 61.4%, Democrat 32.7%, Libertarian 5.9%

    The general election was essentially a repeat of the primary, with the Libertarian share of the vote declining.

    Under the Top 2 Open Primary, all voters in AD 3 would be free to vote for the candidate of their choice in the primary. All voters would have an equal opportunity to participate in the choice of their assemblyman.

    All candidates would be on an equal footing and be free to seek the votes of all voters.

    Independent candidates who secure 40 signatures, equal to any other candidate would also be free to run.

    The two candidates with the most support would advance to the general election, where voters would make their final decision.

    Under the current system an independent candidate would have to gather 7626 signatures. That is neither free nor equal.

    Under the current partisan primary system, the 4.9% of the AD 3 electorate registered with the AIP, Green, and P&F will be denied the right to vote in the primary. That is neither free nor equal.

    The 20.3% of the AD 3 electorate not registered with qualified parties, will be permitted to vote only at the whim of the political parties, and then will be restricted to only voting for certain candidates. That is neither free nor equal.

  2. Jeff Trigg

    In AD 3, Prop. 14 would TAKE AWAY VOTER CHOICE in November and leave only 2 “moderate” candidates with no write-in option. Under Top Two Prop 14, ALL Voters would only have two choices on the ballot that counts in November, and in as many as 1/3 of those AD races, BOTH candidates will be from a POWER party. Top Two LOCKS IN POWER for the top two POWER parties. Steve Peace, architect of Prop. 14, admitted this week that Prop. 14 has flaws because it oppresses voter choice and alternative parties and Steve Peace said the legislature would have to fix problems with Prop. 14. The architect of Prop. 14 says Prop. 14 is flawed and the dysfunctional legislature must fix it. OR VOTE NOT, like Jim Riley proves we need to do. Thanks Jim Riley for pointing us to Vote No on Prop. 14!!!

    Prop. 14 abolishes even write-in votes in the election that matters most in November. That is just sinister and indefensible.

  3. Excellent story. Thanks for post.

    Latest news from Independent Greens of Virginia..

    The ballot petition deadline is this Tuesday June 8th at 5:00 pm.

    Virginia has 11 congressional districts. Virginia has not statewide races in 2010. 1,000 valid petition signatures are required to make the ballot for U.S. House.

    The Independent Greens of Virginia candidates ballot status this Sunday morning:

    1st: Gail “for Rail” Parker (IG)
    confirmed on ballot

    2nd – Kenny Golden (IG endorsed Indy)
    1,800 signatures as of Saturday night

    3rd – James Quigley ( IG endorsed (L)
    status ukn

    4th – no Indy Green

    5th – Jeff Clark (conservative Indy expected IG nominee)
    nearing 3,000 signatures Sunday morning

    6th – Jeff Varne (IG endosed centrist)
    confirmed by state board on ballot Friday

    7th – Floyd Bayne conservative IG 7th District Co-Chair – confirmed by state board on ballot Friday

    8th Capt Ron “for Rail” Fisher – confirmed on ballot-

    9th Jeremiah Heaton conservative Indy, possible IG nominee 3,000 plus signatures

    10th William “Bill” Redpath (L), former national Chairma, endorsed by IG

    11th David William Gillis Jr (IG) confimred on ballot

  4. Phil Sawyer

    Hello,

    Following are my endorsements for the California Statewide Direct Primary Election for the Propositions (6-8-10):

    Proposition 13: Yes

    Proposition 14: No

    Proposition 15: Yes

    Proposition 16: No

    Proposition 17: No

    Yours truly,

    Phil

    Philippe L. Sawyer, Member:

    Amnesty International USA
    Coalition for Free and Open Elections
    Democratic Party of the United States
    Democratic Socialists of America
    Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
    United Public Employees, Local #1

  5. @ 2
    Primary and general election are not the same, far fewer people pay attention to candidates in June (or August or February or whenever any given state has its primary).

    The california measure also deletes party labels from the primary ballot, and even destroys the ability to write in candidates. Even getting nationwide presidential nominees of non-top two political parties that are on the ballot in all or virtually all other states would become much more difficult, since retention by party vote for candidates would go away.

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/06/top-two-parallels-with-an-older-different-prop-14-in-california-1960s/


    Regular readers of IPR are by now familiar with California’s “Top Two” Proposition 14, which would have the effect of eliminating all or almost all third party and independent candidates from the general election ballot, removing party labels from the primary ballot, and ending all write-in voting in the most populous US State. IPR’s first (and so far only) official editorial, against Prop 14, is here. The vote will be held this Tuesday, June 8. IPR’s articles on Prop 14 are among the top Google News results for “prop 14? and “top two.”

    What many IPR readers may not know, however, was that there was a previous Prop 14 in California, way back in the 1960s, which many believed discriminated against racial minorities (much as the current Prop 14 is believed by many to discriminate against political minorities). The California and US Supreme Courts came to that conclusion about the earlier Prop 14 in the 1960s. If the new Prop 14 passes on Tuesday, it is likely that the California and US Supreme Courts will once again be asked to consider whether a California Prop 14 unconstitutionally discriminates against the rights of certain minorities.

    Wikipedia article text follows.
    See the link for sources, links, and future revisions.

    California Proposition 14 was a 1964 ballot proposition that amended the California state constitution, nullifying the Rumford Fair Housing Act. Proposition 14 was declared unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court in 1966. The decision of the California Supreme Court was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 in Reitman v. Mulkey.

    Rumford Fair Housing Act

    The Rumford Fair Housing Act was a law passed in 1963 by the state of California to help end racial discrimination by property owners and landlords who refused to rent or sell their property to “colored” customers. It was drafted by William Byron Rumford, the first African American from Northern California to serve in the legislature. The Act provided that landlords could not deny people housing because of ethnicity, religion, sex, marital status, physical handicap, or familial status.

    Proposition 14

    Many of these property owners disagreed with this act. Many felt that it was too restrictive and represented unfair interference by state government in private affairs. Thus, in 1964, the California Real Estate Association sponsored an initiative to counteract the effects of the Act.

    The initiative, numbered Proposition 14 when it was certified for the ballot, was to add an amendment to the constitution of California. This amendment would provide, in part, as follows:

    Neither the State nor any subdivision or agency thereof shall deny, limit or abridge, directly or indirectly, the right of any person, who is willing or desires to sell, lease or rent any part or all of his real property, to decline to sell, lease or rent such property to such person or persons as he, in his absolute discretion, chooses.

    Following much publicity the proposition gained the endorsement of many large conservative political groups, including the John Birch Society and the California Republican Assembly. As these and other groups endorsed the proposal it became increasingly more popular and the petition to have the proposition added to the ballot garnered over one million signatures. This was more than twice the 480,000 signatures that were required. The initiative proved to be overwhelmingly popular, and was passed by a 65% majority vote in the 1964 California elections.

    Unconstitutionality

    Soon after it was passed, the federal government cut off all housing funds to California. With the support of Governor Edmund G. Brown, the constitutionality of the measure was challenged soon afterward. In 1966, the California Supreme Court held that the proposition was unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection and due process provisions of the California Constitution.

    The US Supreme Court in the case of Reitman v. Mulkey affirmed the decision of the California Supreme Court and stated that the proposition violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This decision established an important precedent that states could remove a constitutional amendment passed by initiative, if the amendment encouraged racial discrimination.

  6. @ 2
    Primary and general election are not the same, far fewer people pay attention to candidates in June (or August or February or whenever any given state has its primary).

    The california measure also deletes party labels from the primary ballot, and even destroys the ability to write in candidates. Even getting nationwide presidential nominees of non-top two political parties that are on the ballot in all or virtually all other states would become much more difficult, since retention by party vote for candidates would go away.

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/06/top-two-parallels-with-an-older-different-prop-14-in-california-1960s/

    Regular readers of IPR are by now familiar with California’s “Top Two” Proposition 14, which would have the effect of eliminating all or almost all third party and independent candidates from the general election ballot, removing party labels from the primary ballot, and ending all write-in voting in the most populous US State. IPR’s first (and so far only) official editorial, against Prop 14, is here. The vote will be held this Tuesday, June 8. IPR’s articles on Prop 14 are among the top Google News results for “prop 14? and “top two.”

    What many IPR readers may not know, however, was that there was a previous Prop 14 in California, way back in the 1960s, which many believed discriminated against racial minorities (much as the current Prop 14 is believed by many to discriminate against political minorities). The California and US Supreme Courts came to that conclusion about the earlier Prop 14 in the 1960s. If the new Prop 14 passes on Tuesday, it is likely that the California and US Supreme Courts will once again be asked to consider whether a California Prop 14 unconstitutionally discriminates against the rights of certain minorities.

    Wikipedia article text follows.

  7. WakeUP!

    Jim Riley,

    The actual PURPOSE of the evil, f a s c i s t – s o c i a l i s t “Top-Two” electoral system is to create a state controlled, one-party system.

    Having one primary where everyone must participate is a one-party system.

    In or out, it’s the same as the old USSR.

    “Top-Two” is an evil repeat of the failed C o m m u n i s t electoral system.

    NO CHOICE. NO LIBERTY. THAT’S “TOP-TWO.”

    Evil people support “top-two.”

  8. Jim Riley

    #3 Under Proposition 14, the two candidates, regardless of their political party preference, who receive the most votes from all voters, regardless of their political party preference, will advance to the general election.

    The last time California had a similar system, in 1998 and 2000, the results from the primary and general elections were quite similar, though minor party candidates generally did better in the primary.

    Jeff Trigg is apparently arguing that minor party candidates did better in the primary, because voters weren’t paying attention. A more plausible explanation is that voters in the general election were squeezed, feeling that a vote for a minor party candidate was wasted.

  9. ALLEN

    It would be nice to have NONE OF THE ABOVE on the ballot and have it count. That way we could just vote in someone else. The powers at be would not like that, but we would have better choices.

  10. Phil Sawyer

    “WakeUp!” (#8) is really on to something. If Proposition 14 passes, there will be only Democratic vs. Republican (or Democratic vs. Democratic; or Republican vs. Republican) races in November – with very few (if any) exceptions. An electoral system that only allows for one or two large parties to have candidates in the general elections is not all that far removed from the systems utilized by Stalinist societies.

    “WakUp wrote of “fas.-soc.” [I am using abbreviations so that this message will pass the Yahoo! system and get posted immediately rather than to have to wait for it to go to Richard] electoral systems. An amusing but sad example of such is that of the People’s Republic of China, which could reasonably be referred to as fas. because it no longer is com. (and always was Stalinist, even when com.). How ironic!

  11. #9: “Under Proposition 14, the two candidates, regardless of their political party preference, who receive the most votes from all voters, regardless of their political party preference, will advance to the [final] election.”

    The “top two open primary” enables more extreme candidates to sometimes get enough votes to squeak into the runoff and squeeze out more mainstream candidates. Let’s look at two fairly recent governor’s races under Louisiana’s “top two.”

    In 1991, David Duke, the ex-Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, reached the runoff against ex-Gov. Edwin Edwards, who had already been tried for fraud. The candidates who had been endorsed by the national Republicans and the state GOP, respectively, finished third and fourth. Many Louisianans then held their noses and voted for Edwards, who won, 61% to 39%.

    Now-US Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) was squeezed out of the 1995 runoff for governor by Cleo Fields, a black liberal Democrat. Fields’s runoff opponent was Mike Foster, a white conservative Republican (who had switched from the Democrats just a few weeks earlier). Foster was elected with some 66% of the vote.

    If Louisiana had had party primaries, it’s highly unlikely that either Duke in 1991 or Fields in 1995 could have gotten 50%-plus in a party primary– which Louisiana requires when it does have party primaries. In other words, neither Duke nor Fields would have reached the general election ballot.

    FLUSH 14!!

  12. Jim Riley

    #5 There is nothing in the actual text of Proposition 14 or SB 6 that supports a conclusion that candidates who prefer a “non-qualified” party will be denied the option of having that preference appear on the ballot next to their name.

    Even if the statutes did have such a restriction, they would likely run afoul of the US and California Constitutions.

    Proposition 14 itself does not define what a party preference is. However, it declares that current party affiliations on voter registrations, which are currently a “declaration of intent to affiliate with a political party at the next primary” be converted to a “disclosure of party party preference”. Voters who currently have “declined to state their intent to affiliate” will be converted to “no disclosure of party preferences”.

    Voters in California are free to declare an intent to affiliate with a “non-qualified” political party. Voters who have affiliated with a “qualified” party that has lost its qualification, such as the Reform Party or Natural Law Party, nonetheless retain that affiliation. New registrants are free to designate an affiliation with a non-qualified party. When a political body organizes in an attempt to become qualified, they have an indefinite period of time before they notify the Secretary of State of their effort. Nonetheless, county election officials are required to maintain a record of their party affiliations. There is absolutely no way that a party affiliation may be changed in California, except by the voter executing an updated voter registration affidavit.

    The entire scheme of party qualification in California is based on voters first registering with a non-qualified party, and then the State counting the number who have so affiliated to determine if the party becomes qualified. On registration forms, voters must first choose whether to state their intended party affiliation, or “decline to state” their intended party affiliation. Those who choose to state their intent, may check a box next to a currently qualified party, or may write in the name of an non-qualified party.

    Election officials separately tabulate registered voters who (1) have stated an intent to affiliate with a qualified party; (2) those who have declined to state an intent to affiliate; and (3) those who have stated an intent to affiliate with other (non-qualified) parties.

    SB 6 simply recasts a declaration of an intent to affiliate, with a disclosure of political party preference. Voters will be entirely free to disclose a party preference, whether of not the party is “qualified” or “non-qualified”, or they may choose not to disclose a preference.

    Voters will have the right to participate in a primary for a voter-nominated office regardless of their disclosed party preference or lack thereof, including a disclosure of a preference for a “non-qualified” party.

    I don’t believe Richard Winger disagrees with this conclusion.

    Under the terms of SB 6, when a candidate declares his candidacy for a voter-nominated office, he has the option of having his party preference appear on the ballot or a blank space. A candidate’s party preference must be that which he disclosed on his signed voter registration affidavit.

    Proposition 14 will modify the Constitution of the State of California to state “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.”

    The statutes do in fact provide the manner, going so far as to specify the format of how the party preference is expressed, and the typeface and point size. The statutes explicitly provide how a candidate exercises the option of having their party preference or a blank space appear on the ballot, and specifies that a candidate’s party preference must match that disclosed on his signed voter registration affidavit. The Secretary of State will provide on SOS website, a 10-year party registration history of each candidate.

    There is no way to read SB 6 and Proposition 14 in any way than to mean that the “party preference” of a candidate is the same as the “party preference” he disclosed on his voter registration affidavit, and that a voter may disclose a “party preference” for a “non-qualified” party.

    But let us suppose for argument’s sake that SB 6 did restrict candidates to expressing a preference for a “qualified” party.

    If the political parties do take Proposition 14 to federal court (Say in Libertarian Party of California, et al v Tobin), California will argue that a candidate’s political party preference is simply a personal and individual belief displayed on the ballot for the information of the voters, and that a candidate’s personal party preference in no way implies that the candidate is the nominee of a political party, qualified or not. California’s only interest is ensuring that the information is accurate, which it does by requiring a candidate to use the same party preference in both primary and general election; match the candidate’s party preference disclosed on their voter registration; and to provide a 10-year history of their party registration.

    Once California successfully makes that argument, a candidate’s party preference becomes protected speech. California has absolutely no rational or compelling interest in suppressing political beliefs simply because they may not be as popular as others. If the voters disfavor a candidate because they don’t like his party preference, they can simply choose not to vote for the candidate. California is not going to win a US Supreme Court case arguing that their regulations are intended to protect the voters from “idea crowding” where they might be exposed to too many novel, eccentric, non-orthodox, or unpopular ideas.

    Proposition 14 amends the California Constitution to provide that a voter may vote for any candidate without regard to the voter’s disclosed party preference. If California were to make it more difficult for a voter to find a candidate who shares his party preference, either by preventing certain candidates from having their party preference appear on the ballot in a manner that is consistent with other candidates, or forcing the candidate to have a false statement of non-party preference, then they would be restricting the voter’s right to vote, and they would be doing so on the basis of the candidate’s political party preference. When the Constitution say “without regard to” it means “without regard to”. If SB 6 did not comply with the US and California constitutions, then the non-compliant provisions would be severed.

  13. Jim Riley

    #12 Steve Rankin writes: “The “top two open primary” enables more extreme candidates to sometimes get enough votes to squeak into the runoff and squeeze out more mainstream candidates. Let’s look at two fairly recent governor’s races under Louisiana’s “top two.””

    Proposition 14 says “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.

    Opponent’s of Proposition 14 are indifferent, if not actively opposed, to the right of every Californian to vote for the candidate of his or her choice.

    “In 1991, David Duke, the ex-Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, reached the runoff against ex-Gov. Edwin Edwards, who had already been tried for fraud. The candidates who had been endorsed by the national Republicans and the state GOP, respectively, finished third and fourth. Many Louisianans then held their noses and voted for Edwards, who won, 61% to 39%.”

    In 1991, Edwin Edwards received 523,195 votes in the open primary; David Duke received 491,342 votes, Buddy Roemer received 410,090 votes, and Clyde Holloway received 82,683 votes. Since Edwards and Duke received the most votes from the voters, they advanced to the general election.

    “Now-US Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) was squeezed out of the 1995 runoff for governor by Cleo Fields, a black liberal Democrat. Fields’s runoff opponent was Mike Foster, a white conservative Republican (who had switched from the Democrats just a few weeks earlier). Foster was elected with some 66% of the vote.”

    It is appears that much of Landrieu’s support, but not all, went to Fields; while Foster probably picked up most of the support for fellow Republican Buddy Roemer.

    “If Louisiana had had party primaries, it’s highly unlikely that either Duke in 1991 or Fields in 1995 could have gotten 50%-plus in a party primary– which Louisiana requires when it does have party primaries. In other words, neither Duke nor Fields would have reached the general election ballot.”

    If Louisiana had party primaries, it is unlikely that Roemer would have been elected in 1987. If he hadn’t been elected in 1987, he wouldn’t have switched parties in 1991, and Clyde Holloway might have been nominated in a primary with a few 100,000 voters participating.

    Democracy is about a process. You are focused on outcomes. Do you believe in equality of opportunity, or equality of outcomes?

  14. Phil Sawyer

    Jim Riley Says:
    June 6th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
    #12 Steve Rankin writes: … [snip] … Opponent’s of Proposition 14 are indifferent, if not actively opposed, to the right of every Californian to vote for the candidate of his or her choice. … [snip] …

    Phil Sawyer responds:

    How you have turned things around! I would say that those in favor of Propositon 14 “are indifferent, if not actively opposed, to the right of every Californian to vote for the candidate of his or her choice” in the general elections (i.e., no “minor party” candidates, independent candidates, or write-in candidates – only Democrats and Republicans). Currently, I am a Democrat but I am opposed to Propostion 14. I want the ability to vote for candidates of other parties, independent candidates, or write-in candidates – if I so choose. Opponents of Proposition 14 are not necessarily opposed to blanket primary elections. As a matter of fact, I signed the petition and voted for the proposition that gave voters of the Golden State the most recent blanket primary, and I enjoyed voting in such. What opponents of Proposition 14 all agree upon, probably, is that it is totalitarion (or at least totalitarion-like), to only allow candidates of the two largest parties in the general elections.

  15. Phil Sawyer

    My phrase, “#12 Steve Rankin writes” in my message above (#15) is an error. It got stuck in there, somehow, when I was cutting and pasting. Steve, please forgive me!

  16. WakeUP!

    The REALITY is this:

    Prop 14 creates a single state controlled primary, which means, in the end, that this will be a one-party state controlled system. Everyone will be forced to participate in this single state party. They will become mere factions within the single party.

    This is what people think of then they think of …….. C O M M U N I S M !

    PROP 14 or “Top-Two” is pure evil and so are its supporters.

    STOP “Top-Two!”

  17. Jim Riley

    #15 If we look at AD 3, objectively more voters will prefer both of the Democratic candidates to Gary Bryant, the Libertarian candidate.

    About 5% of the electorate, those registered with the American Independent, Green, and Peace&Freedom parties will be legally barred from voting for who their assemblyman is tomorrow.

    The 20% of the electorate that is not registered with a qualified party, if they choose a Republican and Democratic ballot, will be more likely to choose based on the gubernatorial and senatorial race, than the race for assembly. So who is on the November ballot will be decided by a very small portion of the electorate.

    Under Top 2, voters would choose from among the 4 candidates who filed, and the two with the most votes advance to the general election.

  18. #14: “Opponent’s of Proposition 14 are indifferent, if not actively opposed, to the right of every Californian to vote for the candidate of his or her choice.”

    The above is more true of the advocates of Prop. 14, whether they realize it or not. Voters would indeed get to choose among all the candidates in the preliminary round. But suppose a voter’s favorite candidate doesn’t make it to the final round– the election that really counts. In the election when people are really paying attention, that voter must choose between the “lesser of the evils.” And when both runoff candidates were from the same party, the other five parties’ faithful voters would be effectively disenfranchised (not to mention the supporters of any independent candidates from the first round).

    In the fall campaign for Congress– which is usually a national campaign– California would have US House districts in which both candidates were from the same party.

    FLUSH 14!!

  19. #14: As to what you said in your next to last paragraph about Louisiana’s 1987 governor’s race: The top two vote-getters in the “open primary” were both Democrats, Buddy Roemer and Gov. Edwin Edwards. Edwards then declined a runoff, enabling Roemer to become governor after getting just 33% of the vote.

    If the state had had party primaries, there would have been a general election consisting– at the least– of a Democratic nominee and a Republican nominee.

    The Louisiana “open primary”/”top two” system is part of the residue of the old one-party (truly NO-PARTY) system, in which elections were decided in the Democratic primary, with a Democratic runoff if necessary.

    FLUSH 14!!

  20. Question: Under Prop. 14, what happens when one of the top two vote-getters drops out before the second round of voting?

    #9: “The last time California had a similar system, in 1998 and 2000, the results from the primary and general elections were quite similar…”

    You’re referring to California’s blanket primary, in which each party was empowered to have a candidate for each partisan office on the general election ballot. Also, any independent candidates were assured of a place on the general election ballot, and that was the only campaign that independents had to wage.

    In contrast, in the “top two open primary” that Prop. 14 would impose, independent candidates would be on the first-round ballot with all the other candidates. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, would advance to the runoff. Thus the top two candidates would be required to finance and conduct TWO general election campaigns.

    Click here and see especially “History” and “Louisiana System.”

    This was written during the 2004 initiative campaigns in California and Washington state.

  21. Tom Yager

    #14 Abel Maldonado and most of the Prop 14 supporters in the media are VERY focused on outcomes. They think that it’s so unfair that those Big Dumb Meanies on The Far Left and The Far Right dominate the primaries by actually bothering to show up and vote. They think that the election system must be overhauled to benefit the moderates who don’t take the personal responsibility to do so.

  22. Tom Yager

    #14 There are multiple interests that need to be balanced in the choice of an election system.

    1. The right of political parties to choose their own candidates. To nominate, not just “endorse”. Parties are not only their leadership, but are also their members, who comprise about 80% of California’s registered voters.
    2. The right of voters to choose in the primary election.
    3. The right of voters to choose in the general election.

    The blanket primary, while relatively weak on the first criteria, was very strong on the second and third. As the blanket primary was voided by the Supreme Court, California was forced to choose between giving voters more choices in the general election (through the partisan primary system), or more choices in the primary election (through Top Two).

    I believe that the electorate is better served by prioritizing choice in the general election. It’s your prerogative to prioritize choice in the primary if you want to, but I don’t think that you can seriously claim that voters who are limited to voting in only one primary at a time are in a “Gulag” while voters who are limited to only two choices in the general election are “free”.

  23. Jim Riley

    #19

    What happens under a partisan primary system if your favorite candidate is not of the same party as you are, and he loses, in part because it was illegal for you to vote for him?

    What happens if you are an independent, and your favorite gubernatorial candidate is running for the nomination of a different party than your favorite senatorial candidate.

    What happens if your favorite candidate receives 40% of the vote, but loses his party primary, and you detest the winner of your party’s primary?

    “In the fall campaign for Congress– which is usually a national campaign– California would have US House districts in which both candidates were from the same party.”

    This is a problem how?

  24. Jim Riley

    #21

    Steve Rankin asks:

    “Under Prop. 14, what happens when one of the top two vote-getters drops out before the second round of voting?”

    California, in general, does not permit candidates to withdraw. and requires them to pledge not to do so as part of their declaration of candidacy.

    There is an exception for death of a nominee, if it occurs at least 68 days before the general election.

    For a partisan office, the party may choose a new nominee. And if this creates another nomination vacancy, that vacancy may also be filled (eg if the nominee of a party for the senate died; and that party chose as its nominee its nominee for an assembly seat; the party may also choose a new nominee for the assembly race).

    For a nonpartisan office, in case of death of a nominee, the candidate with the next highest number of votes at the primary becomes a nominee in the general election. SB 6 extends this procedure for voter-nominated offices.

    If the death occurs later than 68 days before the general election, then the deceased candidate’s name remains on the ballot, and if that candidate is elected, it is treated as if the death occurred after the election, creating a vacancy in office.

  25. Jim Riley

    #21 Audie Bock was the only independent candidate qualifying for the general election ballot under the blanket primary. There was also a Democrat, Republican, and a Libertarian candidate running in her assembly district. So on the blanket primary ballot, only the three partisan candidates appeared. All 3 partisan candidates appeared on the general election ballot, along with Bock.

    All 3 partisan candidates received a smaller share of the vote in the general election than they had in the primary election, and the Republican and Libertarian candidate served as spoilers harming the possibility of election of an independent candidate.

    Under a Top 2 Open Primary, Bock and the Democratic candidate would have advanced to the general election. If the elected had been framed more in non-partisan terms, Bock might have been re-elected.

  26. Jim Riley

    #22 The State of California has no business legislating to produce election outcomes, whether to produce more moderate candidates, or to produce battles between political parties, or to increase the power of labor unions in the election process.

  27. #24: If your favorite candidate is not of the same party as you are, you should change your party registration. Californians have until 15 days before the primaries to change their registration.

    If you’re an independent– who steadfastly refuses to join a party– you should be grateful that you’re able to participate in the candidate-selection process of one party.

    You obviously want to help nominate the candidates of multiple parties– while clinging to your independent status. In other words, you want to engage in a political one-night stand.

    Would you have the same people serve as delegates to both the Democratic and the Republican conventions?

    If you were able to support your favorite candidate in your own party’s primary, and he lost, you at least got to vote for him. And your party will have a candidate in the general election, which is not assured in the final round of the “top two open primary.”

    In a system of party primaries, the voter usually has more than just two choices in the final, deciding election.

    While the fall debate at the national level would be Democrat vs. Republican, the debate in some California US House districts would be Democrat vs. Democrat OR Republican vs. Republican (intra-party differences should be settled prior to the final campaign).

    I have frequently accused you of not giving a damn about political parties, and you have yet to deny it.

  28. Jim Riley

    #23 While voters affiliate with a political party in a primary election, they really should not be considered to be members of the party. They don’t generally participate in the day-to-day activities of a party, and usually don’t give monetary or other support to candidates.

    Citizens should be free to organize as they see fit to support whichever candidates they wish in all elections.

    It would be ridiculous to prevent a citizen from supporting a candidate in a primary election, whether by urging him to seek office, providing a monetary contribution, placing a yard sign, or encouraging other persons to vote for him. But it just such a restraint the partisan nominating system imposes on voters.

  29. Jim Riley

    #24: “If your favorite candidate is not of the same party as you are, you should change your party registration.”

    A voter should always be free to vote for their favorite candidate, just as they are free to encourage them to run, support them financially or otherwise, and encourage others to vote for him.

    “If you’re an independent– who steadfastly refuses to join a party– you should be grateful that you’re able to participate in the candidate-selection process of one party.”

    And be thankful that you are not put in jail for social deviancy?

    “You obviously want to help nominate the candidates of multiple parties– while clinging to your independent status. In other words, you want to engage in a political one-night stand.”

    If a voter voted for a minor party candidate for president in every general election since 1988, what would they be engaging in (at least in the World of Bad Analogy)

    “I have frequently accused you of not giving a damn about political parties, and you have yet to deny it.”

    You would apparently formally incorporate political parties on the government.

  30. WakeUP!

    Cut through all the BS.

    If there is only one primary with everyone in it, you have a

    ONE PARTY SYSTEM controlled by the State.

    We’ve seen that before.

    Prop 14 is “Back to the USSR.” It’s a Trojan Horse designed to end free elections in America.

  31. Robert Chang

    Steve Peace was the man that brought us rolling blackouts and skyrocketing electricity bills when he pushed through energy deregulation. His open primary initiative has the same unintended consequences that could lead into Louisiana-style crook vs. racist elections.

  32. #30: In California Democratic Party v. Jones, the US Supreme Court advised voters in one-party jurisdictions to JOIN THE PARTY.

    I notice that you didn’t answer my question about the same people serving as delegates to both the Democratic and the Republican conventions.

    “If a voter voted for a minor party candidate for president in every general election since 1988, what would they be engaging in (at least in the World of Bad Analogy)?”

    And your point is…??

    “You would apparently formally incorporate political parties on the government.”

    I would follow the precedents of the federal courts, which you obviously want to ignore.

  33. #31 and #32: The Louisiana “open primary” 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 the Republicans starting running a few candidates, the Democrats enacted the “open primary” in order to (1) force Republicans to run in the same election with the Democrats, and (2) return Louisiana to the two-step election process that everyone had been accustomed to.

  34. Tom Yager

    #26 I think you’re really reaching here. Even if every single Libertarian and Republican voter would have gone for Bock in a two-way race, she still would have gotten a little under one-third of the vote. That’s a novel definition of spoiler. Bock will still have to make up a 34-point deficit against her Democratic opponent, which is an awful lot.

  35. Jim Riley

    #35 Steve Rankin had argued that independent candidates were better off under the blanket primary than they would be under Proposition 14. I was pointing out that there was only a single independent candidate under the blanket primary, and she would have done at least as well under Proposition 14.

    If you look at the primary results where Bock was not on the ballot, there were a lot of voters who would have voted for Bock but could not.

    It is conceivable that if the general election had been framed in terms of Chan v Bock, rather than Democrat(whoever) v. Bock, Bock might have done better.

    There will certainly be more independent candidates under Proposition 14. Most will lose. But there is certainly more of a possibility.

  36. Batch convert any video file to iPOD / PSP / Mobile / Zune

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>