The Most Bizarre Argument I Have Ever Heard
California Proposition 62 is an open primary proposition in which all voters for state offices in the primary can vote for any of the candidates, regardless of party. After the primary, the top two candidates proceed to the general election.
Now the anti-62 forces are emphasizing the fact that a similar situation in Louisiana resulted in David Duke being on the general election ballot. That's not the issue.
The issue is that after the primary, the top two candidates proceed to the general election. Not the top three, not the top six - the top two. Who cares about choice in the primaries if the general election - the election that counts - offers so few choices?
So you would expect that those who are not Democrats or Republicans would be completely opposed to Proposition 62, since it silences the alternative voices.
Well, someone please explain the Committee for an Independent Voice:
Prop 62 – Voter Choice Open Primary – will transform California’s closed, partisan primary election system into an open, non-partisan system. Every voter, including independents, will be able to vote for the best candidate for each and every state and Congressional office, regardless of party, in the primary elections. Voters, not the parties, will decide who runs in general election!
So why is my current ballot, which may have up to six choices, better than the proposed future ballot, which would only have two choices?
Look at the list of people who oppose Proposition 62. Obviously the Republican and Democratic parties are on the list, since Proposition 62 removes their ability to control their own primaries. But look who else opposes Proposition 62:
Governor Jesse Ventura (OE note: Reform party member)
The California Libertarian Party
The Green Party of California
The California Peace and Freedom Party
American Independent Party of California
While the No on 62 people continuously trumpet this dumb David Duke trash, they do make a few valid points here and there:
Third parties will never see the light of a general election under this new system....
Here’s what Prop. 62 will do in California:
DENY ballot access to hundreds of qualified candidates. If this measure had been in effect for the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections, 300 Assembly candidates and 50 Senate candidates would have been denied an appearance on the November ballots.
LIMIT CHOICE. This measure forces voters to choose between only 2 candidates and in numerous districts those candidates will be from the same Party.
There is an opposing view from Bryce Kukloc at California Aggie:
Opponents of Proposition 62 say that it "undermines party integrity" and leaves third parties locked out of the system. This comes off of a very big assumption that letting parties run the show is a good thing. I, for one, think that the voters should be the ones with the final say.
The open primary does not lock out third parties any more than the current system. There may not be as many on the ballot in November, but, statistically, the same number will win the election. As for local elections, in San Francisco's mayoral race last year, a Green Party candidate ran against a Democrat. It is true that third party candidates may not make the general election ballot in some locales, but to be more precise, they will not make it where they do not have enough of a constituency to win.
Fair, but why do we have to be limited to two candidates in the general election? How is this "open"?
Unfortunately for this argument, there is one other state with a similar system that they like to forget: California. Proposition 62 is based on the way local elections have been run in this state for nearly 100 years.
Not quite. While some local elections have a runoff system that limits voter choice to two candidates, others do not.
Here's what the Libertarians had to say back in March:
Now that it appears likely that the "Voter Choice Open Primary" initiative will qualify for the November ballot, California voters should know the consequences of passing the measure. In a pact Faust would be proud of, voters will gain a few more options in the primary by signing away nearly all their real choices in the general election.
Under the proposal, all voters, regardless of party affiliation, would receive the same "open primary" ballot for statewide offices. Anyone could vote for a candidate from any party....However, only the two candidates receiving the most votes would appear in the general election, even if they are both from the same party, which means many voters will have no options come November.
Under the current system, voters usually get four choices in the general election for any given office, including minor party candidates and independents. Under the proposed system the general election will see not just a reduction in the number of candidates, but ultimately in the number of ideas represented. As reported in the March 27 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle, the initiative's backers recognize the chilling effect the proposed system would have on diverse ideas making it to the November elections; they hope and expect that centrist candidates will be favored, to the exclusion of liberals and conservatives.
Aaron Starr, chairman of the California Libertarian Party, referring to Republicans and Democrats, said, "If this deceptive proposal passes, Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum will be even more indistinguishable tomorrow than they are today."
Duf Sundheim, chairman of the state Republican Party, who is opposed to the proposition, predicted the proposed system will reduce primary choices as well: "If I have four Republicans running against two Democrats, I'm going to have to knock off three of those four because it's in my best interest." Art Torres, state Democratic Party chairman, also opposes the measure.
In order to avoid potentially splitting their own vote, each political party will only place one candidate on the primary ballot for each office, completely subverting the current concept of primary elections. More decisions will be made by the party chiefs (think “smoke filled rooms”), and less by the broader base of the party's registered voters.
For voters looking for new ideas from third parties, the effects of the initiative passing would be devastating. Richard Winger, noted ballot law expert and editor of Ballot Access News (http://www.ballot-access.org) for the last 19 years, analyzed 408 California primaries and special elections and discovered that in no case would a third party candidate have made the general election under the proposed rules, except those cases where only one major party candidate was entered in the primary race. This includes instances where a third-party candidate eventually won the election under the existing rules.
Analyzing open primary laws from the 23 states that have adopted one, Winger said, "The initiative would leave Californians with fewer choices on their November ballots than enjoyed by the voters of any other state. No other state restricts the general election ballot to two candidates." He also noted that four months ago, "New York City voters turned down a nearly identical proposal."
Naturally then, minor parties and anyone opposed to real choice are universally opposed to the measure. The 18-year-old Coalition for Free and Open Elections, comprised of the Libertarian, Constitution, Green, Natural Law, Reform, and Socialist parties, and The Committee for a Unified Independent Party, has issued a statement opposed to the initiative.
Starr, referring to a resolution passed by the Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee late last year said, "The Libertarian Party of California expresses its opposition to the Voter Choice Open Primary initiative and its support for Instant Runoff Voting as a preferred solution to the concerns of the initiative's proponents."
The Libertarian Party of California supports Instant Runoff Voting as an alternative that would give citizens more choices by encouraging a broader representation of political ideas. IRV would ensure that the winner of an election was selected by a majority of the voters without restricting the general election ballot to just two candidates.
Comments