Open-primary measure on ballot in California

[MechAg94]

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20100601_Open-primary_measure_on_ballot_in_California.html#axzz0pevnvK2s

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - In another blow to the political status quo, Californians will vote next Tuesday on a ballot initiative that would scrap the primary system for state and congressional elections. Instead, voters could cast ballots for any candidate regardless of party affiliation, with the top two vote-getters advancing to the general election.

The result could be two candidates from the same party or two well-funded candidates.

Read more: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20100601_Open-primary_measure_on_ballot_in_California.html#ixzz0pf0fnxF6
Play fantasy sports and win cash prizes instantly. Philly.com's Instant Fantasy Sports Games

I had to travel to a plant of ours near Rodeo last week.  The radio was full of ads supporting this Prop measure.  I was curious what y'all thought of it.  To me it seems it will turn the primaries into a big Pre-Election and make the main election the Run-Off.  I'm not sure if that is a good thing or not.  

On the other comment about reducing the influence of parties and helping moderates, I have to ask what the odds are of moderates actually participating in the primaries more than the party activists.  

(the article was just the first one I picked off google)

[Northwoods]

Open primaries are how we wound up with McCain as the GOP nominee for POTUS.  He wouldn't have stood a chance otherwise.  I'd say that alone is a good arguement against open primaries.

ANd you know that the thinking (if if can be called that) of the Democrats is that in CA that will effectivly lock the GOP out any statewide election, save the occasional RINO (cough Arnie cough).

[longeyes]

I don't want the other side picking my candidates for me.

[HankB]

Open primaries are how we wound up with McCain as the GOP nominee for POTUS.  He wouldn't have stood a chance otherwise.  I'd say that alone is a good arguement against open primaries.

ANd you know that the thinking (if if can be called that) of the Democrats is that in CA that will effectivly lock the GOP out any statewide election, save the occasional RINO (cough Arnie cough).

Years ago when I was still stuck in Minnesota, a rabidly anti-gun state AG was running in the primary for Governor. MASSIVE crossover voting cost him the DFL nomination, and a moderately pro-gun Democrat ultimately won.

So it cuts both ways.

[longeyes]

Remember the "Stop Hillary" campaign for the open primaries?

How well did that one work out?

[roo_ster]

Party candidates ought to be elected by members of that party.

IOW, no "open" primaries.

[charby]

Party candidates ought to be elected by members of that party.

IOW, no "open" primaries.

I agree.

If you don't like the two parties, go work your ass off to get a viable third or no party candidate on the ballot.

[MechAg94]

I agree.

If you don't like the two parties, go work your ass off to get a viable third or no party candidate on the ballot.

I was thinking along those lines a little.  I was trying to figure the difference between their single, open primary and the general election.  They might as well just outlaw party primaries and have the general election and a run off if no candidate gets a majority.  It is basically the same thing.

[longeyes]

This is designed to make sure the GOP runs emasculated candidates, nothing more than that.

[TechMan]

This is designed to make sure the GOP runs emasculated candidates, nothing more than that.

RINOs from California would be what I am thinking of.  I agree with longeyes, I don't want the other party picking my candidate for me.

[S. Williamson]

It's California.  Unless they elect a Chris Christie, it won't matter.  "Republican" in CA does not equal Republican anywhere else.

[tyme]

If you don't like the two parties, go work your ass off to get a viable third or no party candidate on the ballot.

Not feasible.  It's amazing, though, how many people think that if we just put enough effort into it, we can make 3rd party candidates viable.  It's simply not true.  (It only rarely works, and is due to a fundamental problem with the existing two parties not being able to adjust to changing voter opinion.  The third party might end up either becoming one of the two dominant parties, or the major features of the 3rd party platform end up being subsumed by at least one of the prior two dominant parties.  Either way, over time, third parties are blips.)

http://rangevoting.org/Duverger.html

[longeyes]

Prop. 14 has the backing of people like Arnold Schwarzenegger but no broad backing by people in the process.  It is funded by the usual suspects and has the usual aim, destroying political free expression.  That is arriving first in California should surprise no one since California is being run, more and more every day, on the Venezuela model.

[RocketMan]

Should this pass in California, then you can expect, "Coming soon to a State near you."  Oregon loves to emulate California.

[kgbsquirrel]

Should this pass in California, then you can expect, "Coming soon to a State near you."  Oregon loves to emulate California.

I think it might be more accurate to say that those who move from Cali to places like Oregon love to bring their policies with them.

*from Oregon*

[roo_ster]

It only rarely works, and is due to a fundamental problem with the existing two parties not being able to adjust to changing voter opinion.  The third party might end up either becoming one of the two dominant parties, or the major features of the 3rd party platform end up being subsumed by at least one of the prior two dominant parties.  Either way, over time, third parties are blips.

You kinda contradicted yourself there, so I "fixed it for ya"in the true sense, not the smart-alecky sense.

This is a feature, not a bug.  It leads to stability instead of the anarchy we see in, say, proportional representation schemes.  Not only are PR schemes less stable, they have been shown to result in even less realized liberty than our two-party system.

To put it another way, the two-party system results in greater stability and more liberty as it marginalizes those at the extremes, even the liberty-minded extremes.

If the Tea party influences American parties in a smaller gov't/greater freedom fashion, they'll have done more good than being the usual misanthope-fest ineffective third party.

[RocketMan]

I think it might be more accurate to say that those who move from Cali to places like Oregon love to bring their policies with them.

*from Oregon*

An Oregon native, as well.  Much of what we see here is the result of earlier migrations from California.  Those folks brought their voting styles with them.  Now, their kids are doing the same.
This has been going on since before Tom McCall was the governor.

[MicroBalrog]

To put it another way, the two-party system results in greater stability and more liberty as it marginalizes those at the extremes, even the liberty-minded extremes.

How has this been working out for you in the last seventy years or so?

[Ben]

It's California.  Unless they elect a Chris Christie, it won't matter.  "Republican" in CA does not equal Republican anywhere else.

Yeah, I just finished my mail-in ballot. Took forever to Google some of the candidates views on issues important to me, like the 2nd. Neither of the Repubs running for the local (very liberal) Congressional District mentioned it anywhere on their websites. In a few cases, I had to base my decision on who Tom McClintock endorsed.

Voted no on the Primary measure. No is actually my normal modus operandi on all CA propositions, unless they CLEARLY state they are going to stop something that is costing money. We already have too many regulations here -- don't need to be adding more.

[KD5NRH]

Never mind...misunderstood the question

[geronimotwo]

I don't want the other side citizens picking my candidates for me.

fixed it for ya!

i was registered as an independant for a long time, until i realized that we never had more than one independant running.  finally i switched, to at least help choose the final candidate.  i not only think all people should have the choice to vote for who they choose(regerdless of whose primary it is), but also that the party scheme in general should be done away with.  vote for the person with the good ideas, not the idiot with the parties name that your dad voted for!

[Angel Eyes]

Interestingly, California Democrats are also opposed to Prop 14, claiming it was written by Republicans in a "back room deal."   With whom, they didn't specify.

[KD5NRH]

but also that the party scheme in general should be done away with.

I've said for a long time that the system could be greatly improved by prohibiting the listing of party affiliation on the ballots; if they can't remember which name they wanted, make 'em toss a coin.

Then again, I also think every major-office ballot should include three randomly chosen questions about the candidate's platform; if you can't get two of the three right, your vote doesn't count because you don't know who you're voting for anyway.

[Ben]

Then again, I also think every major-office ballot should include three randomly chosen questions about the candidate's platform; if you can't get two of the three right, your vote doesn't count because you don't know who you're voting for anyway.

Best idea I've heard all day. It generally takes me a minimum of three hours to vote in a major election. Which besides filling in the little bubbles, includes reading the candidates' statements on their websites, then searching other sources for what the candidates didn't say on their website.

Same with propositions, except with them I go into it expecting to vote "No". I have to be convinced by the evidence to vote yes.