This story says the percentage of registered voters who voted in some California congressional and legislative races was only one-fourth of the registered voters. The story quotes several experts who express dismay, but no one quoted in the article mentions the point that perhaps California voters don’t like general election ballots with only two candidates on the ballot. In this month’s election, California voters were the only voters in the nation who were not able to vote for any statewide partisan office unless they voted for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
The problem is that people are turned off by divisive politics.
Fortunately, Top Two has offered up a slight improvement that may turn this around.
Of the many candidates for elective office in California in 2014, 29 expressed an interest in a unifying voting system.
But the whiners and dividers in the Libertarian, Green and Peace & Freedom Party are too busy demanding that we go back in time to where they may have random wins with a smaller plurality than 50% plus one vote in the runoff.
At least Top Two allows a random win in the primary for two names with far less than a majority for independents and third parties and many did win.
The majority of people won’t support going back to the old system before Top Two because third parties and independents are wanting to win a seat with far less than a majority of the votes.
Those fighting Top Two just need a fight and we’re too small to be fighting against everyone in losing battles.
We need to unite, but uniting against Top Two has been and will continue a complete waste of time.
Let’s hold these miscreants accountable for their ill-advised noise against Top Two. They are destroying any potential for real unity by taking such a position against the democratic principle of majority rule on which all legitimacy in elections is based upon.
Don’t forget, we have a court hearing coming up in January 2015 in the State Court of Appeals in the lawsuit against top-two.
James Ogle’s comments sound very similar to what the abolitionists in the U.S. were told 1840-1860…stop fighting slavery, just accept it for the sake of national unity.
Fighting a majority who is correct (i.e. supporters of Top Two) is not a good idea.
Fighting slavery is and was a good idea.
Unity and teamwork for the good of the whole is the best idea.
So, If Top Two is correct, then we need not consider at all James Ogle’s “team building” fantasy parliament. Perhaps now we will not have to suffer through any more diatribes for the usaparliament. Let us hope so!
Anti-Top Two people are just slow to learn. But those who wrote Top Two are more aligned with my work and Top Two is a small step towards reforms I’ve been promoting for 19 consecutive years.
So you will not be missed, because someone else has already taken your place.
If suing to turn back Top Two doesn’t work, perhaps all the anti-Top Two people should try approval voting, NOTA, IRV, range voting, the D’Hont or cumulative voting.
Then after another few decades they should start all over.
But never, never look in to pure proportional representation (PR)!
You must do everything possible, take every turn in another direction and go out of your way to avoid PR at all costs.
Spin you wheels in every direction except not towards PR.
You do not want PR because it’s not an alternative and never will be an alternative for you. You have more than made sure of that, there’s nothing else you can do and so why change now?
Period.
The last time Washington had partisan statewide races on the ballot in a mid-term election (in 2010), it had the highest turnout since the 1970s.
As California has more and more foreign born citizens and American born whites move out this trend will continue. Same thing happened in nevada. The foreign born citizens didn’t show and Republicans had a clean sweep. Foreign born citizens show up mainly during presidential elections. Los Angeles talking about having a lottery for voters. Pathetic.
The whole fight over the Top Two election system has exposed the corruption and ineptitude of the leaderless factions of the psychology of single-winner third parties.
They are incredibly arrogant as they indulge in their own ignorance.
Those fighting Top Two are a lot like a drowning swimmer fighting with a lifeguard who is pulling them to safety at the detriment of both.
They think and they claim that they are such the experts when they swim in such conditions against many flags and signs on the beach, but they’re not the so-called experts they claim and their arrogance has been their fall in swimming out and in coming back in.
The observers aren’t very amused by their antics who are safely on high ground having to start all over posting “Hazard” signs all around and having great effort and expense all for naught.
But we watched the same swimmer knock down all the signs before they went into the water.
Now stretch this whole ordeal which has been the same for decades and that’s the analogy of anti-Top Two swimmers.
They were repeatedly given the signs and warnings but we still have to have our day at the beach wasted by them while we go through a very predictable and avoidable sad event in a display of shear stupidity.
The complete irony of course is that they themselves need a Top Two system because in every election there will always be a top two because that’s in the nature of all elections. But they’ve managed to turn a good day into a bad one for everyone including for themselves by denying what is so elementary and obvious because of their own self conceit.
Is that the primary or the general election? Oh yes, you did say election so I guess you meant the general election.
In California, both of our only two elections in 2012 and 2014 have had record low turnouts and the same is true for the 2012 and 2014 primaries.
The Only Two Election System has nothing to do with the proportional representation system used by most democracies around the world. That’s because most countries use a list system which allow parties to be represented in proportion to their voting strength. The Only Two Election System is a non-partisan system. If you’re talking about STV, few countries use it.
Majority of 50% plus 1 eh?
Even with top two the winner is only getting the majority of those that voted. If one adds in all the folks that just are fed up with two choices and therefore stay home with not voting, the “winner” of the top two election got far less than 50% plus 1 .
CT, in 2012 the California Libertarian, Green and P&F Parties’ chairs lobbied and got a “modified” open primary (i.e. not an open primary) and so voters weren’t able to vote across party lines.
I wouldn’t exactly refer to those voter levels as being under the new Top Two system in the 2012 primary.
Return to the old system, where each party nominates its own candidates, make all debates includes all nominees including those Independents making the ballot, then you’ll see some increase in turnout.
CT, I’m not writing about STV. And yes, Top Two is a step towards improved elections. That’s because it offers a guarantee that one candidate will win the runoff with a simple majority of 50% plus one.
Top Two also highlights the top candidates, and any candidate who garners 33.33% plus one vote gets that highlight. And since the primary uses plurality first-past-the-post, there is also a randomness caused by the split vote problem. For example Ron Gold [Republican] won with 12.3% and advanced to the runoff election.
Finally, I am not advocating a party list system for pure proportional representation and while the 9th USA Parliament does accept party lists, they aren’t required. We use all votes, not just party lists.
Top Two is an improvement and going backwards by stopping Top Two is going backwards to a lessor system.
Sure, third parties and independents may want to do away with Top Two because they can win the seat with far less than 50% without Top Two.
But those who support simple majority rule are OK with Top Two.
There are varying degrees of stages of elections and Top Two is slightly better than what we had before. I am not opposed to progress. Top Two is a lot like IRV, except numerals aren’t used. Bot Top Two and IRV guarantee simple majority rule for a single winner.
Washington uses a Top 2 system. In November 2010, all statewide races were limited to a choice between a Democrat and Republican.
in 2010, Washington had the highest turnout (voting divided by eligible) since 1970 (prior to the 18 YO vote).
The problem with parties nominating their candidates is that those parties don’t treat outsiders fairly and only the insiders can choose who gets on the ballot.
By opening up primaries, you see candidates appealing to wider audiences, than just their own party members.
As a candidate myself I see a big difference because it’s better for the candidates to appeal to the general pool of voters for support and so you get a better chance of third parties and independents being both conciliatory to the whole and for being elected by the general pool of voters.
That spells success for third parties, more competition and reward for being team players and fewer dictatorial party bosses who want to control free speech, ballot access and cooperation among all the choices equally including independents.
Kevin, Top Two guarantees a win to any candidate who garners 33.33% plus one vote, but also elects random winners with far less as most plurality election will do. For example Republican Ron Gold won the primary for Attorney General with 12.3% of the vote and advanced to the runoff. Ron was one of the few candidates to attend debates with the Libertarian candidate for AG Jonathan Jaech, who was a very cool candidate.
When I wrote that Top Two guarantees a simple majority I was writing about the runoff.
In the Top Two runoff, one candidate is guaranteed to with with more than 50% and one loses with less than 50% except in case of a tie of course.
Thin lizard, I really don’t agree with your sweeping comments about race, citizenship and votes for Republicans.
Everyone is too different to make such deductions, votes are secret and so there is no way that your claims can be based on facts.
Perhaps if you pointed to some hard evidence then you might be taken more seriously.
That’s my point. If only two candidates (I don’t like) are on the November ballot and others were eliminated (that I did like), my choice is to NOT vote. Which I am already doing in Ohio without top two. I’m not going to vote for the “less of two evils” just so some clunker can get 50.1% of the vote in the November election. If top two ever comes to Ohio the record LOW turn out from 2014 elections will not be a record for long. Many will just stay home. People are sick of two parties. Imagine only two choices on the retail shelf or only two colors of cars, or only two brands of cars. I only started voting again, because the Libertarian Party is on the ballot in the Fall elections in Ohio.
We at the 9th USA Parliament guarantee that your vote will elect everyone you vote for in 2014 as part of our 10,000-member national United Coalition.
All are welcomed.
Votes cast for those beyond 10,000 name limit will be guaranteed to attain 99.99% (plus 10,000 votes) voter satisfaction:
http://www.usparliament.org
Imagine your school district government decided that all the buses will be from one manufacturer, but they decided to let the voters choose which.
What would be wrong with a system where the voters first voted among several manufacturers, perhaps even two different models from a single manufacturer, and then have a second election to make the final choice.
It is the community that is making the choice. It is not the individual choice of each voter.
“The problem with parties nominating their candidates is that those parties don’t treat outsiders fairly and only the insiders can choose who gets on the ballot.”
I thought (before Top Two) political parties could decide if they wanted to allow “non-party members” to vote in their Primaries?
While I still prefer the old system, one of the reasons 3rd party candidates don’t make it to Top Two is they can’t recruit a candidate who is competitive enough to have a chance to make it to Top Two. You can’t run a “no body” and not spend any money on the candidacy and expect the candidate to place high enough to get to Top Two. Even states where the major parties hold closed primaries, have “no body” candidates with no serious effort at being elected, and they get about the same percentage of the vote as do 3rd party candidates under Top Two.
So while I don’t like Top Two, stop blaming Top Two for all your problems. Your problems usually are your candidates.
“I thought (before Top Two) political parties could decide if they wanted to allow “non-party members” to vote in their Primaries?”
Maybe they could I don’t know. But there isn’t much incentive from political parties to support a candidate who is not registered with their own party.
When a person not from the party tries to participate in the party they are immediately figuratively “kicked in the balls” by everyone present at that meeting.
Politics is highly divisive and even their own members are treated with hostility when it comes to introducing new ideas at one of the regular meetings.
Then the voting system doesn’t exactly integrate new comers into their ranks very easily in most cases.
Top Two seems to have alleviated that hostility somewhat from what I’ve seen and I don’t recall that happening much before.
Actual California experience in 2014 contradicts the idea that failure of independent and minor party candidates to advance to the November election is their own fault. Dan Schnur had a strong campaign as an independent candidate for Secretary of State. He was endorsed by the majority of California’s big newspapers. He was well-funded and has excellent credentials. But he came in 4th in the June 2014 primary.
Marianne Williamson, a very well-known and loved author and lecturer, spent almost $2,000,000 as an independent candidate for US House, 33rd district. She spent more than any other non-major party candidate for US House in the nation this year. But she also came in 4th.
Both of these strong independents might have won in a normal system, because they would have had 5 more months to campaign, and they could have won with a plurality. Voters will not focus on independent candidates before the primary season is over. Voters first want to know who the major party candidates will be before they look seriously at other candidates. So top-two is fatal for them.
Under Top Two, all candidates can advance to the runoff with a plurality. In fact, a plurality of 33.33% plus one vote would guarantee that they win one of the two seats on the ballot.
At least with Top Two, we don’t see candidates winning with a plurality anymore, because a majority is guaranteed under Top Two.
If someone spent two million then maybe they spent the money wrong?
Had she spent the money supporting full representation or the unity psychology generated under pure American proportional representation then I may have been disappointed.
In fact she wasn’t interested in proportional representation at all, so how could she support unity for the good of the all? I don’t know who won, but she didn’t have what it takes anyway from what I gathered from my friend who worked with her campaign.
Arrogance can help lose elections just as being humble can help win them.
I agree with you 100% Richard.
Most voters are conditioned to think of a Primary as an election in which only Democrats and Republicans participate in. When 3rd party and Independent candidates are sandwiched in with 4 or 5 Democrats and/or Republicans, they are lost in the crowd – no matter how much money they might have.
You want to give 3rd party and/or Independents a chance, go back to the old system.
To clarify, a candidate can win the primary and a spot on the runoff ballot with a plurality.
Example; Ron Gold [Republican] won the California primary with 12.3% for Attorney General in 2014.
A majority is required to win in the runoff. All the winners won their seats on November 4th with more than 50% in 2014 under Top Two in California.
Alabama Independent, Richard Winger and his crew at the Green, Libertarian and P&F Parties were too busy fighting Top Two to help any candidates in 2014.
I know, because I phoned almost all 250 candidates for State and Federal offices including the three Independent Congressional candidates who were facing incumbent Democratics.
The activists fighting Top two never gave our team the time of day. That is the problem, not Top Two. The situation here is that they’re wrong.
It’s been the same for as long as I’ve known them since 1994.
They just want to spread their conflict and division and have no concept of teamwork for the good of the whole.
They only know vile conflict, give the cold shoulder to cooperation and coalition building and react with censorship and team-splitting for efforts to unity under pure proportional representation which is the solution.
They have no knowledge of team psychology. The only balls they’re kicking aren’t the balls on the field of play. 😉
THE problem is the ANTI-Democracy minority rule pack/crack GERRYMANDERS.
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged gerrymander districts = 1/4 CONTROL.
Remedy – P.R.
—–
Top 2 ONLY produces a mere TWO extremist candidates in each gerrymander district.
i.e. the WRONG remedy — due to election math loose cannon MORONS — the type of MORONS who got the Titanic sunk, who got Chernobyl blown up, who got Challenger blown up, etc. etc.
— MORONS NOT knowing what in Hell they are doing regarding election math — the 3 or more choices problem.
Dan Schnur was not well funded in terms of running a statewide race in California. You can’t look at in terms of no one cares about the office, so you can get by with a few million.
You have to look at it in terms of running for senate or governor. Under the old regime, the number of petition signatures would have been so great that he probably would not have run.
The fact that Schnur finished behind an indicted gun-runner who had tried to withdraw should tell you something. In many counties he Scnurr ran 5th.
He might have had a chance if SOS were a non-partisan office. It is quite unlikely that Padilla or Yee would have run for a non-partisan SOS. Cressman and Peterson likely would have run, and the Democrats would not necessarily have got behind Cressman like they did Torlakson.