On February 14, the Peace & Freedom, Libertarian and Green Parties filed this amended complaint in Superior Court in Alameda County, California, in Rubin v Bowen. This is the case in which the parties argue that the top-two system, as it works in the real world, unconstitutionally injures voters who desire to vote for minor party and independent candidates. The judge in this case had asked that the plaintiffs file an amended complaint.
A complaint does not set forth precedents or evidence that a law is unconstitutional. A complaint merely sets forth the problem that the plaintiffs have with the existing law. Evidence, and precedents, will be mentioned in future documents.
There were 75 Republican candidates, and 61 Democratic candidates who received more than 5% of the vote in the June primary election, yet failed to advance to the general election.
Surely voters who desired to vote for these candidates were as injured as those who desired to vote for those other candidates.
ps the complaint makes no claims on behalf of voters who might desire to vote for independent candidates.
#1, no, those voters weren’t as injured, because they had some other member of their party to vote for.
#2 What evidence do you have of the relative injury?
3. Are you really that obtuse Riley?
They weren’t injured because they are members of a party that was able to place one of their members on the ballot.
That is the purpose and function of a “political party.” The members agree, because of mutual related interests, to assist each other in electing like minded candidates, to the exclusion of all others. They may compete within the party over minor differences, but they oppose others outside the party over major differences.
So, by being in a party, the members have agreed in advance that their interests are being served by whatever party member advances to the general election. If this is not the case, the individual has the option of leaving the party.
OTOH, under the evil, fascist-socialist “top-two” system there is only one primary, which means there is only one party. Everyone is forced to be in the one, state-controlled, USSR-styled party.
Under “top-two” the powerful interests inside the single party system can choose the only two legally allowd candidates, and all other parties and independents are excluded.
The result, if the evil “top-two” cabal is allowed to spread nationwide, is a one-party state and the end of free elections in America.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
NO EVIL primaries, caucuses and conventions.
#4 They are citizens who when they registered to vote marked a box indicating that they preferred a particular party. It didn’t mean that they supported every candidate of the party.
In June 2012, one race had the following results:
D 34.2%
B 28.6%
M 25.8%
E 6.1%
H 5.4%
Why were the voters who supported candidates M, E, and H harmed (or not harmed) by their not advancing to the general election ballot.
#7, probably 95% of all the registered voters in California, or more, filled out a voter registration form before Prop. 14 went into effect. Those 95% or more of California voters didn’t say they “preferred” a particular party; they joined a particular party.
#7 Getting a few lemons as party nominees comes with choosing to be in party system.
Ending free elections in America by adopting “top-two” seems to be an extreme solution.
If we have free elections, that unsatisfied party member will then have multiple candidates from multiple paries and independents in the general election in November, if we manage to have free elections in America.
Adopting “top-two” goes far beyond throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
“Top-two” is like dragging the baby out by the hair, chopping it into bits and burying it in an unmarked grave in the back yard.
Yeah – it’s evil.
#8 They wouldn’t have been permitted to vote in some elections if they didn’t check a box. But you ducked the substantive question:
In June 2012, one race had the following results:
D 34.2%
B 28.6%
M 25.8%
E 6.1%
H 5.4%
Why were the voters who supported candidates M, E, and H harmed (or not harmed) by their not advancing to the general election ballot?
#9
In June 2012, one race had the following results:
D 34.2%
B 28.6%
M 25.8%
E 6.1%
H 5.4%
Why were the voters who supported candidates M, E, and H harmed (or not harmed) by their not advancing to the general election ballot?
National legislative bodies in every country with a population of at least 100,000 are partisan bodies. Political scientists have been studying political parties for over 100 years, and they are unanimous that political parties are essential for representative government.
Political science research also shows that party label on the ballot is easily the single great determinant of how voters vote.
We don’t elect isolated individuals to bodies like congress or state legislatures. Even when Minnesota had non-partisan elections for state legislature, it was quickly realized that the Minnesota state legislature could not function without internal parties, so very soon there were intra-legislative political parties, the “Conservatives” and the “Liberals” in the Minnesota legislature. Finally the voters said, “If you’re going to have parties in the legislature, let’s bring back partisan elections so the voters are included in the real-world process.”
It’s just naive to think that parties aren’t inevitable and necessary. Political Science may not be the most successful branch of science, but it is largely valid and valuable, and to ignore all of the findings of political scientists, to never read their books, never explore their research, is not rational.
#13 Is the Nebraska legislature not a government?; or not representative?
Is only 1/2 the senate, and none of the assembly in California representative? If California prior to 2012 had the essence of representative government, why are its finances in such a mess?
I’ll repeat my question:
In June 2012, one race had the following results:
D 34.2%
B 28.6%
M 25.8%
E 6.1%
H 5.4%
Why were the voters who supported candidates M, E, and H harmed (or not harmed) by their not advancing to the general election ballot?
Are you only able to answer the question, if I include the party labels?
Candidate H preferred a party Y which only has 0.8% of all registrants. Was it only these 0.8% who were harmed, or were the 4.6% who did support that party, but nonetheless voted for H harmed?
The answer to @11, 12, and 14 is this:
All the voters were harmed because in the REAL election – the general election – held in November there were only two candidates representing a single, state-controlled party allowed on the ballot. All other parties and candidates were excluded. The voters, who often only vote in the General Election – which is logical and their right, were denied the right to a full spectrum of candidates in a free electoral system.
What you are advocating is a fascist-socialist, one-pary state; the elimination of free choice; and the eventual elimination of free elections in America. That is how your evil, “top-two” system harms all voters and would-be voters in America.
California’s finances are in a mess because of a basic Constitutional flaw:
No Government, at any level, should be allowed to borrow money ever for any purpose. It should be Constitutionally prohibited. The US Constitution of those of any State that allows borrowing should be amended to prohibit borrowing. This is an essential reform needed for sound government and to maintain a free society.
“Neither borrower nor lender be.”
This is a basic Constitutional requirement for sound government and maintenance of liberty.
The Nebraska Senate is a partisan body, in its actual operation. The major parties recruit members to run for the Senate, and back those candidates, and everyone in the Senate is aware of who the registered Republican Senators are, and who the registered Democratic Senators are.
Face it Riley, in a discussion of the real issues involved, you have lost on all counts.
And you never even try to defend “top-two’s” evil intent and eventual outcome from its adoption.
There is NO valid basis, reason, justification or logic for supporting the “top-two” cabal … other than its true intent – the end of free elections in America and creation of a one-party state under the thumb of a rich, power elite.
#17 So the Nebraska legislature preserves the essence of representative government, even though no party labels appear on the ballot, and it is elected using a Top 2 Open Primary system.
Are the voters who support 3rd, etc. place candidates in the primary in Nebraska harmed because the candidate they favored was winnowed?
Jim, do you favor removing party labels from the ballot in Congressional elections? Legislative elections? Which system is better, Nebraska or California/Washington?
Good things about Washington: Later primary; no party registration; minimal standards for party qualification; top two applies to congressional and executive positions; competent Secretary of State.
Bad things about Washington: Partisan filling of vacancies; provisions for partisan filling of vacancies in Constitution; treats parties differently; state-provided party elections; partisan presidential preference primary; no clear differentiation in role of senators and representatives.
Good things about Nebraska: No party labels on legislative ballots; unicameral legislature.
Bad things about Nebraska: Very early primary; party registration; top 2 doesn’t apply to congressional and executive offices; awkward compliance with voter qualification clause of US Constitution;
Good things about California: Top two applies to congressional and executive positions. Nonpartisan local elections.
Bad things about California: Early primary; grossly treats parties differently; party registration; state-provided party elections; partisan presidential preference primary; minor differentiation in role of senators and representatives; incompetent Secretary of State; small legislature relative to population; professional legislators.
Good things about Louisiana: One month between primary and runoff; modest standards for party qualification; some differentiation in role of representatives and senators; top two applies to congressional and executive positions; federal and state elections in different years; long experience with open primary.
Bad things about Louisiana: Partisan registration; top 2 doesn’t apply to presidential nominations.
I think Louisiana and Washington lead so far. Nebraska gets an incomplete because of its mixed systems. California needs to embrace the Open Primary.
#21, Louisiana doesn’t have primaries. It only has elections (held in November of even-numbered years, for Congress) and if no one gets 50%, has a run-off.
Why don’t you ever discuss Instant Runoff Voting? Why don’t you favor that? There could be a complete elimination of primaries in Washington and California, which would mean no candidate was excluded from the election itself. And IRV, or approval voting, would eliminate the need for run-offs after the November election. Why don’t you favor that? That keeps everyone included in the election itself.
@22 Riley doesn’t consider things that could improve the electoral system. He wants “top-two” because it will lead to a one-party state, the end of free elections and control by the government power elite – apparently he thinks he will be part of the ruling cabal.
#22 Louisiana Revised Statues 18:1272 sets the date of the congressional general election as the 5th Saturday after the 1st Tuesday after the first Monday in November of even-numbered years. It sets the congressional primary to the 1st Tuesday after the first Monday in November of even-numbered years. Like in California special elections, the general election for an office is cancelled if one candidate receives a majority of the vote in the primary.
Voters appear incapable of casting an effective vote in an IRV election. If you look at the results in San Francisco elections, large shares of the electorate don’t have a clue when voting and sometimes more than 1/2 of ballots are discarded. The only time there is a strong pattern in transfers is when there is race involved (and remember that is how San Francisco elected someone who didn’t live in the city). Contrast this with the results in the 2012 California elections, where the general election results were often significantly different than the primary. Voters made a more thoughtful decision among the finalists. How many voters would have ranked all 25 candidates in the Senate Race?
Think about if you went to an ice-cream store and had to rank 31 flavors. You would probably be careless among the latter choices. And that assumes the order form would actually permit you to rank more than three. Now imagine that it turns out your first three choices weren’t available, and you were denied ice cream, as the clerk explained something about him being “exhausted”, when he really meant he threw your order in the trash.
Now compare to a conventional ice-cream store. You make your primary choice. The clerk returns and says it is not available. You ask what your choices are. He tells you, and you think about it, maybe you listen to the endorsements of the other customers. You make your choice, or perhaps you decide you will have none of these flavors.
#24, if ranked choice voting is so bad, how come Australians have used it for so many decades without changing it? The same question goes for Ireland. And the voters of Minneapolis, St. Paul, San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, San Leandro, Cambridge MA, seem happy with it. If it works as bad as you say, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors would have put a repeal on the ballot.
San Francisco has never had so many ethnic minorities on its board of supervisors in history, as it has currently. One reason it remains in place is that it saves the taxpayers $4,000,000 every year.
#25 The November 2009 election in San Francisco cost $4 million dollars?
You do know why Australia adopted preferential voting don’t you? Hint: Be Rational doesn’t have a clue.
Ireland doesn’t use IRV, except for President, which they have rather than having a Queen. Why doesn’t San Francisco use STV for its school board and community college board?
The reason for the number of minorities on the Board of Supervisors is the switch to district elections in 2000, coupled with increased participation by Hispanic and Asian voters, along with term limits. When the white male Tom Ammiano was term-limited, he was replaced by David Campos, in a race where the top 3 candidates with 85% of the votes were Hispanic. Erik Mar who was elected supervisor in 2008, had been an elected school board member, elected at large in a plurality (multi-member election). David Chiu was endorsed by his predecessor Aaron Peskin.
In the first IRV election in 2004, the Hispanic Matt Gonzalez was replaced by the white Ross Mirkarimi, so clearly it is not IRV that that is the magic potion.
In the District 10 race in 2010, 55% of ballots were discarded. In the District 7 race in 2012, Trash Dumpster received the most transfers in round after round.
It does not follow that because something is a bad idea that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors would put a repeal on the ballot.