1. http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201410160900

   It’s great to see Mike Feinstein speak about multi-winner pure proportional representation which was my plank as a candidate for CA Governor of California in 1994 when Mike Feinstein supported NOTA for Governor. I lost the primary to NOTA and the Green Party was unaware of proportional representation at the time I accessed the ballot for free speech.

   I believe the first year was the 1993 special election that the Green Party was first ballot-qualified.

   I look forward to the day when the elected leaders in California are held accountable to their past and current opposition to teamwork and cooperation.

   The speaker favoring top two has a good point, in that every voter is treated the same under top two, and that’s true; The two candidates garnering 33.33% (plus one vote) are guaranteed to win.

   Bottom line is that voting is random in all winner-takes-all systems.

   In plurality voting before top two, one candidate can upset the status quo with far less than a majority because of the split vote problem (i.e. one person can win with 10% should there be ten other candidates with 9% each).

   With top two more focus is placed on cooperation, communication and coalition building. Unfortunately, to fight and to sue over top two isn’t conducive to cooperation, and the “leaders” who have spent so much time in courts as opposed to working within rules approved by voters has revealed the arrogance, unaccountability and their failed policies leading up to this day.

2. To be clear, it’s chairs Kevin Takenaga [Libertarian], Kevin Aiken [Peace & Freedom] and Mike Feinstein [Green] who have blocked the campaigns for pure proportional representation (PR) and the unity generated by the 9th USA Parliament since founded on August 6th, 1995.

   Their inability to “think on their feet” at crucial moments in time as recently as the 2012 POTUS elections (i.e. I ran on Roseanne’s POTUS ticket as a Green Tea/Libertarian coalition), and they alone should be held accountable for their actions at the precise moments when they dashed the effort.

   I can name the exact moments in time and the decisions these three had made which poured water on the flame should they wish to follow-up with a denial of their actions in the past.

   Apologies and reversal of the many policies by them aimed at the 9th USA Parliament’s unity campaign could go a long way towards a new beginning to start to repair the damage they have done in the past.

3. Every voter is not treated equally under top-two. Members of major parties are able to vote for members of their own party in November, the great majority of time. For instance, my San Francisco ballot has a Democrat and a Republican on the ballot for every single partisan office.

   Minor party voters are not treated equally because they don’t have any member of their own party to vote for.

4. Richard Winger wrote:
   “Every voter is not treated equally under top-two.”

   Me: There is no discrimination as to which two candidates reach 33.33% (plus one vote), nor which candidate get the most and which gets the second.

   Every voter is free to support whomever they wish.

   So how would anyone be able to say that there some are being maltreated to qualify for the November ballot since they were already given an equal chance as all others?

5. Richard Winger wrote:
   “Every voter is not treated equally under top-two.”

   Me: There is no discrimination as to which two candidates reach 33.33% (plus one vote), nor is there discrimination as to which candidate gets the most and which candidate gets the second most votes.

   Every voter is free to support whomever they wish to determine that who #1 and #2 will be.

   So how would anyone be able to say that there some are being maltreated (i.e. not treated equally) to qualify for the November ballot since they were already given an equal chance as all others?

   As you know I am not interested in fighting between two plurality single-winner district systems since I prefer only multi-winner districts under pure proportional representation (PR).

   To see someone spending all the time for arguing, campaigning against and filing law suits over a something approved by a majority of the voters has been a disaster for unity.

   So please answer how any third party candidate not qualifying in the top-two system had been maltreated because you really need to explain your logic which has been more harmful and destructive to others than the math involved with the regards to how top two works.

   In other words, lawsuits, unfair campaign tactics and fighting against top two and advocates of PR has been far more harmful and damaging than the mathematics of top two from my own prospective as an advocate of improvements through pure proportional representation (PR).

6. NO primaries.

   P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.

7. In reality it isn’t equal because the number of Democrats and the number of Republicans far outnumber members of other parties.

   It would be as though the Olympics said, in the trials, each athlete would compete as an individual, and only the two best athletes in each sport would be allowed into the Olympics itself. This would not be equal for countries with small populations. They would almost invariably be shut out of the Olympics themselves.

8. Richard, that is the nature of plurality elections which creates a two party system.

   If you want proportional representation then work for it like I do.

   But to sue because a voting system is switched from one plurality system to another plurality system is harmful to unity.

   You endeavors to prove that third parties are harmed by top two is a failure. That’s because every individual has the same chance, just as we see in three elections for US Congress of the 53 districts – three are independent candidates who won because the rules were the same for all categories.

   But instead of supporting the candidates who won within the rules which were approved under top two, and instead of working for a better system, you’re focusing on other battles (scatter shooting) and you are not being held accountable for the damage by your actions which continually harm the whole by committing resources and manpower to a your failed, well-intentioned but misdirected plan.

   One analogy is that you’ve led a number of troops into an ambush which could have been avoided because you’re spending your good political capital at the wrong marketplace and using much needed “ammo” on the wrong targets.

9. James Ogle’s last comment reveals that he thinks the 2014 election in California is in June. But by federal law, at least for federal office, the election is in November. The June event is not an “election” because no one can be elected at it. The June event is nothing but a severe ballot access barrier for the election itself. The top-two system is discriminatory because in the election itself, Democratic and Republican voters are able to vote for candidates from their party, but members of other parties are not able to vote for members of their party.

10. Precisely, Richard. Primaries aren’t elections. I remember when I registered to vote for the first time, I registered independent. My parents tried to convince me to register Republican like them, because independents can’t vote in primaries in my state. My response was the same then as it is now, Who cares? They’re just primaries. Many voters feel the same way, primaries don’t matter, we need more choices in November.

11. If there is only one party participating in a election for a particular electoral office, and the Primary Election is going to settle the winner of that office, I think all voters should be allowed to participate.

    I believe Florida has something like this, which usually occurs on the local level in a number of rural counties where even the mighty GOP has not successfully organized.

    I may be wrong, but I believe they call it the “NONPARTISAN PRIMARY” but Richard may need to correct me on this.

12. If the June “event” is not an “election”, why did ‘Tashjian’ say that the voter qualifications specified in the Constitution apply?

13. Richard may have to correct me on this.

    But if my memory is correct, in Florida, when, for example, there are only two candidates who qualify in the Democratic Primary for Sheriff, these two candidates are listed on the Democratic Primary ballot (where only registered Democrats can vote; they are likewise listed on the Republican Primary ballot (where only registered Republicans can vote, and they are also listed on a Nonpartisan Primary ballot(where only Independents and members of 3d parties can vote).

    Whoever get the most votes is nominated, and unless someone qualifies to run as a “write-in” in the General Election, their name is not listed on the General Election Ballot, thus being declared elected at the Primary Elections.

    Again, Richard may have to correct me on this. Nevertheless, it is a fair way for all people to have a say in who shall be elected to a office which is to serve all the citizens of a political jurisdiction – not just the members of one party.

14. In Florida, if all the candidates who could possibly be voted for in the general election are from one party, then that party’s primary for that office is open for all voters (they may just move that race to the nonpartisan part of the ballot).

    But Florida requires all candidates, including write-in candidates to file prior to the primary. So it is quite common for a write-in candidate with ties to one of the party candidates to file as a write-in candidate to thwart this provision.

    Imagine in Miami, that a Cuban and and Black were running in the Democratic primary, and there was no Republican candidate. The Cuban would likely attract cross-over votes. So some write-in candidate could file, and keep the Democratic primary closed.

    When this actually happened in 2012, the 19-year incumbent did manage to win 60:40 in the primary. In the general election, she recieved 99.983% of the vote. The two write-in candidates received 0.010% and 0.007% respectively.

15. Any voting system is an election, and any election can be determined whether it’s proportional or fair. The Pope gets elected in an election, churches and unions, just about any example of votes being cast is an example of an election.

    I am not convinced at all by Winger’s argument that the mathematical mechanics of a voting system don’t apply to primaries.

    That’s a cop out by him to skirt the issue which is math, and my point which is all parties are treated equally under the math of Top Two.

16. Jim Riley:

    Thanks for a better explanation of the Florida law.

    While the law does allow all voters to participate when only candidates of one party qualify, I’m sure (if I understand the last two paragraphs of your reply correctly) there are ways to manipulate the system.

    I still think Florida (thanks to the consistent insistence of Libertarians some years ago) has one of the fairest election laws. While filing fees can be steep, there is no excuse for any 3rd party not having access to the General Election Ballot, provided they keep the party organized according to Florida laws.

    I am so disappointed in the Independent Party of Florida – which has some 250,000 plus registered members – does not in my opinion and from my observation, seriously attempt to draw active candidates to run under its banner.

    How Sad!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.