Ken Broder has this commentary about the January 29, 2015 decision in Rubin v Padilla at All Gov. Rubin v Padilla is the case concerning California’s top-two system.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Ken Broder has this commentary about the January 29, 2015 decision in Rubin v Padilla at All Gov. Rubin v Padilla is the case concerning California’s top-two system.
Just because private individuals made an argument in the voter’s pamphlet does not mean that is why Proposition 14 was proposed or why the voters passed it.
Broder could just as easily argue, that because the State paid for the dissemination of the opponents utterly false claims, that the State was endorsing them as being truthful.
Even worse minority rule due to the top 2 primary –
roughly 10-20 percent of the D / R folks will NOT vote for a R or D when there are 2 R or 2 D in the general election.
Result REAL 25 percent minority rule in the gerrymander CA legislature —
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 pack/crack totally rigged gerrymander districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL.
REAL minority rule much worse — the special interest gangs who nominate a top 2 primary person who later wins in each gerrymander district.
i.e. TOTAL extremists now in the CA Legislature.