There are no less than four current contenders for the GOP’s presidential nomination who may run for president as a third party or Independent candidate: Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Jon Huntsman and Buddy Roemer. And, given the success of Americans Elect in its ongoing effort to obtain ballot access in all fifty states, we may see any number of these candidates square off once again to seek the upstart organization’s nomination for president next year.Read the whole thing.
Buddy Roemer, a former member of the House of Representatives and governor of Louisiana, has already declared his intention to seek the Americans Elect nomination for president in their online primary next year. “Today I officially announce that I will seek the Americans Elect nomination as a proud Republican but as an even prouder American,” said Roemer in a statement last week. Roemer’s announcement was likely precipitated by the fact that he has been excluded from the Republican presidential primary debates and has yet to gain traction among GOP primary voters.
“The Republican Party has not allowed me in the debates. Perhaps they don’t like my message about the corrupting influence of money in politics. But, I believe the American people want to hear the message, so I’m going to seek the nomination of Americans Elect which appears eager to welcome diverse and controversial opinions that may upset the status quo,” said Roemer, who will now simultaneously campaign for the GOP nomination as well as that of Americans Elect.
Showing posts with label primary follies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label primary follies. Show all posts
Is the Republican Primary a Breeding Ground for Third Party and Independent Candidates for President?
One contradiction that often goes unnoticed in our politics today, even though it is apparent across a wide variety of polls and surveys, reveals a tension between partisan affiliation and ideological identification. Though self-identified conservatives consistently outnumber moderates and liberals, Republicans are consistently outnumbered by Independents and Democrats. Given the fact that so Republican primary voters are essentially big government, far right conservatives, in 2012 we should expect any number of libertarian- and moderate-leaning conservatives to seek the presidency as an Independent or third party candidate. And the Republican party's presidential primary may be the breeding ground for their candidacies. From today's column at IVN:
The Republican Presidential Primary and Its Discontents
As the corporate-sponsored clown and puppet show known as the Republican presidential primary race lumbers forward, perhaps we can take comfort in the fact that we will not be subjected to a comparable spectacle by the Democrats. Moreover, the exclusionary character of the contest may well produce a number of worthwhile third party and independent candidates for the presidency. The Daily Caller reports that Gary Johnson may seek the Libertarian Party's nomination for president and Buddy Roemer may go Independent or seek the nomination in the Americans Elect online primary. On Gary Johnson:
Long excluded from the Republican presidential debates, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is now seriously considering a third party run for president in 2012. . . .
Faced with either continuing his quixotic run for the Republican nomination, launching a third party effort, or just giving up, Johnson now says he has been receiving overtures from the Libertarian Party, which will be on the ballot in all 50 states next year.
“One thing I would make clear is that, if I did decide [to seek the Libertarian nomination], that’s nothing that’s pre-ordained,” Johnson told TheDC. “That’s something that I would have to go out and work for. And I would do just that, I would go out and work for that.”On Buddy Roemer:
In an ideal world, Republican presidential candidate and former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer would like Senator Joe Lieberman as his running mate, but the Connecticut senator is not necessarily on the same page.
“Senator Joe Lieberman’s reputation as a reformer and a man of integrity is unrivaled in American politics. He is unequivocally my first choice for a Vice Presidential running mate,” said Roemer in the statement.
The two men’s differing party affiliations — Roemer is a Republican, Lieberman is an independent and formerly a Democrat, seems to actually be something Roemer sees as a plus. For one thing, he touted their shared history of switching parties — Roemer served as a Democratic congressman, and then switched to the Republican Party midway through his gubernatorial reign . . .
If Roemer did decide to go after the Americans Elect nomination, he could continue to run in the Republican primary, which Roemer would certainly do at least through New Hampshire, where, in Sierra’s words, the campaign is “going all out.” Roemer has actually moved to New Hampshire for the election, and as soon as his campaign qualifies for matching funds, they will make ad buys in the first-in-the-nation primary state. “I think they kind of compliment each other,” said Sierra of the Americans Elect nomination and the Republican nomination.
CA: Top Two Lawsuit Reveals Glaring Ignorance of the Law in the Mainstream Press
A new lawsuit is challenging the constitutionality of the top two open primary system in California. From today's column at CAIVN:
Covering these lawsuits for IVN has been an eye-opening experience. Having read through significant portions of California's Elections Code, as well as the complaints and court rulings against top two, the ignorance of even the most basic aspects of the new system among journalists and editors at California's mainstream and corporate news outlets is immediately apparent in their coverage of the legal challenges to the system. Take, for example, a San Francisco Chronicle report on the most recent lawsuit from November 23rd. The article frames the challenge against the law as if it is part of some grand third party strategy to prevent top-two from being utilized in next year's presidential elections. Excerpt:
This is, of course, but one example. Many more could be supplied. Such ignorance of the most basic facts about the new system among those tasked with covering it demonstrates, yet again, the degeneracy of the mainstream news media and political press.
On November 21st, the Libertarian Party of California, the Peace and Freedom Party of California, and the Green Party of Alameda County joined a handful of voters and third party candidates for elected office to file a lawsuit alleging that California’s top-two open primary system is unconstitutional. The suit argues that the top-two primary system disenfranchises minor parties as well as their voters and candidates for elected office by precluding them from participation in California’s general elections. . . .
Implicit in the suit is the presupposition that since the Democratic and Republican parties and their candidates for office are better funded and more widely known than their minor party competitors, the top two system is likely to result in the exclusion of third party candidates from the general election ballot. The complaint thus argues that the top-two open primary system is unconstitutional because it precludes third party voters from casting a ballot for their candidates of choice at the general election, prevents third party candidates from communicating their message to general election voters via the ballot, and denies third parties in general the ability to reach general election voters.
“Because Prop. 14 effectively denies voters their fundamental right of choice by precluding small party candidates from the general election ballot, the Act violates the rights of voters under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and should be overturned,” reads the complaint.
It continues: “By limiting access to the general election ballot, Prop. 14 effectively bars small political parties, their candidates and their members from effective political association, precisely at the moment when the highest number of voters are engaged in the electoral process.”See Ballot Access News for a copy of the complaint. There are now three lawsuits against the top two system pending in California. The other two take issue with smaller aspects of the law that instituted the new system, specifically, the ban on write-in candidates at the general election, the ban on the counting of write-in votes at the general election, and the prohibition against identifying oneself as an Independent or as a member of a political party not officially recognized by the state on the ballot.
The issue of ballot access at the general election is especially important for third parties in California. One of the primary means by which third parties obtain the official recognition of the state is by receiving a certain percentage of votes (at least 2%) in California’s gubernatorial elections. Needless to say, if a party’s candidate is precluded from appearing on the general election ballot because he or she was not among the top two vote-getters in the primary, that party cannot qualify for future ballots via the gubernatorial vote.
The Secretary of State has thirty days to respond to the suit at which point the plaintiffs will ask the court for a preliminary injunction preventing the implementation of the system in next year’s elections.
Covering these lawsuits for IVN has been an eye-opening experience. Having read through significant portions of California's Elections Code, as well as the complaints and court rulings against top two, the ignorance of even the most basic aspects of the new system among journalists and editors at California's mainstream and corporate news outlets is immediately apparent in their coverage of the legal challenges to the system. Take, for example, a San Francisco Chronicle report on the most recent lawsuit from November 23rd. The article frames the challenge against the law as if it is part of some grand third party strategy to prevent top-two from being utilized in next year's presidential elections. Excerpt:
California Secretary of State Debra Bowen was served with the lawsuit Tuesday and has 30 days to respond. The plaintiffs will then ask the court to issue a preliminary injunction in hopes of preventing the new system from being used during next year's presidential contest. [Emphasis added.]Given the cult of the executive and the corporate media's mind numbing focus on the tactics and strategy of the presidential race to the exclusion of basically everything else, it is only to be expected that reporters and editors would place the challenge against the law in the context of the presidential contest. Indeed, from the beginning of the article, the reporter frames her narrative in precisely these terms. She begins:
Voters representing the Green, Libertarian, and Peace and Freedom parties sued Tuesday over the state's new open primary system, saying change will deny voters the right to support third-party candidates in general elections.The problem though is that Proposition 14 specifically excludes the presidential race from the top two primary system! This is one of the most basic facts about the law, as is amply documented at both Wikipedia and Ballotpedia, where we read: "Elections for presidential candidates, and for members of political party committees and party central steering committees do not fall under the "top two" system." Moreover, the reporter's claim that top two applies to "all statewide" candidates is true at face value, but false by omission. All candidates for all congressional and state elective offices, ex. state legislature and US House – which are not "statewide" –, will be elected under the top two system.
Under Proposition 14, approved by voters in 2010, all statewide and presidential candidates will run in a single primary that is open to all registered voters regardless of their political party. The top two vote-getters will then move on to the general election. [Emphasis added.]
This is, of course, but one example. Many more could be supplied. Such ignorance of the most basic facts about the new system among those tasked with covering it demonstrates, yet again, the degeneracy of the mainstream news media and political press.
People Before Parties: Politics and Electoral Reform Group Releases Recommendations for Electoral Reform at #OWS
Two weeks ago, I relayed a number of recommendations for electoral reform being considered by the Politics and Electoral Reform
group at Occupy Wall Street in NYC, in which I have been active. This
past Sunday, the group came to full consensus on the proposal, which has
now been posted in full on the group forum at NYCGA.net. That document is published here in its entirety. Please distribute widely.
People Before Parties: Recommendations for Electoral Reform
A proposal of the Politics and Electoral Reform group at Occupy Wall Street
Free and fair elections inspire good citizenship and public service. They engage the intelligence, good will, and real interests of the people. Free and fair elections ensure that citizens can control their own political destiny, and make genuine contributions to society through sound self-government. Free and fair elections can remedy myriad ills and counteract the abuses of a government that has come to prey upon the resources and spirit of citizens.
The centralization of political power in the hands of two narrow political factions at all levels of government is neither democratic nor republican. Lawmakers representing these factions have rigged our electoral system to ensure their continued monopoly on public office in the United States. No party system whatsoever is mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Government of the people, by the people and for the people has been transformed into government of the people, by the parties, for entrenched interests.
Whatever our political differences may be, surely on this we can agree: our government does not represent the interests or will of the people. It is time to institute free and fair elections in the United States.
A vast majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the way the country is being governed. Americans are not apathetic. They have been demoralized by a forced choice between two corrupted political parties. The two-party system is incapable of providing adequate representation for the many diverse interests constitutive of the American electorate. This is a crisis of democracy and representation. It is a crisis of government.
In the federal system, the states are the laboratories of democracy. We urge the people of states, localities, and General Assemblies nationwide to begin a series of bold new experiments in democratic self-government, to open our political system to the millions of people who go unrepresented by the entrenched factions.
We call for experimentation with reforms to create a level playing field for all voters and for all candidates for elected office – whatever their party affiliation may be, or whether they have none at all –, and to curtail the influence of corporations and narrow political factions over our system of government.
We recommend experimentation with (in no particular order):
• Alternative voting methods. Our voting systems should promote honest participatory democracy. There are alternatives to plurality voting, such as ranked choice voting, approval voting and range voting, liquid democracy and so on.
• Independent, nonpartisan redistricting. Voters should choose their representatives, lawmakers should not choose their own voters. A bipartisan commission is not a non-partisan commission. Independent council and computer drawn districts can remove partisan bias from the redistricting process.
• Smaller and more localized districts. It is time to expand the number of representatives in local and state government and in the House of Representatives. This will ensure a closer relationship between the people and their elected officials, putting the latter on a shorter leash.
• Proportional representation. Winner-take-all, single member district plurality voting has allowed narrow political factions to wield disproportionate influence within our system of government. Proportional representation has been used in the United States in the past to break up party monopolies. It can be implemented again.
• Expansion of franchise. Laws that restrict the right to vote should be repealed. Those who are denied the right to vote because they have, for example, served time in prison, should be re-enfranchised. Participation can be encouraged through simple reforms such as election day voter registration.
• Term limits. Election to public office is not a lifetime appointment. Fortunately, the people need not wait for officials to implement laws limiting their own terms. The people can impose term limits at any election by voting for alternatives to the representatives of the entrenched factions.
• Ballot access reform. Ballot access laws that favor the major parties and discriminate against independent and third party candidates, which are common in all fifty states, should be repealed and replaced with fair and reasonable alternatives. The default state of the ballot should be open.
• Primary election reform. A public election should be open to the public. If parties desire to hold closed primary elections, they can provide for their own caucuses or conventions.
• Initiatives and referenda. The people retain the right to originate ballot initiatives and referenda and to recall any elected official.
• Vote counting. Electronic voting machines are produced, operated and serviced by a small number of corporations with significant ties to powerful political factions. Unless there are significant controls to protect against the rigging of such machines, hand-counted paper ballots should be re-introduced into our voting systems.
• Holiday voting. Voting should be encouraged not discouraged. Election day should be ruled a holiday to encourage voter turnout.
• Fusion voting. Parties should be able to nominate the candidates of their choice across party lines.
• Combination and synthesis. A liquid democratic primary with an instant runoff between the top four candidates from the primary in the general election. Countless other possibilities.
This list is not exhaustive.
We urge assemblies across the country to deliberate on reforms that can help break the ruling political monopoly in government through free and fair elections, and put people before parties. We urge the people of states, localities and general assemblies nationwide to demand the implementation of electoral reform and begin a series of bold new experiments in democratic self-government, from the bottom up.
-------
This proposal was developed by the Politics and Electoral Reform group at Occupy Wall Street between September and November 2011. It contains input from well over 100 individuals who attended group meetings in Liberty Plaza as well as many others from across the country who influenced the proposal through online discussions. The document was produced through a collaborative writing process. It was approved by the Politics and Electoral Reform group with full consensus support on November 6, 2011.
People Before Parties: Recommendations for Electoral Reform
A proposal of the Politics and Electoral Reform group at Occupy Wall Street
Free and fair elections inspire good citizenship and public service. They engage the intelligence, good will, and real interests of the people. Free and fair elections ensure that citizens can control their own political destiny, and make genuine contributions to society through sound self-government. Free and fair elections can remedy myriad ills and counteract the abuses of a government that has come to prey upon the resources and spirit of citizens.
The centralization of political power in the hands of two narrow political factions at all levels of government is neither democratic nor republican. Lawmakers representing these factions have rigged our electoral system to ensure their continued monopoly on public office in the United States. No party system whatsoever is mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Government of the people, by the people and for the people has been transformed into government of the people, by the parties, for entrenched interests.
Whatever our political differences may be, surely on this we can agree: our government does not represent the interests or will of the people. It is time to institute free and fair elections in the United States.
A vast majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the way the country is being governed. Americans are not apathetic. They have been demoralized by a forced choice between two corrupted political parties. The two-party system is incapable of providing adequate representation for the many diverse interests constitutive of the American electorate. This is a crisis of democracy and representation. It is a crisis of government.
In the federal system, the states are the laboratories of democracy. We urge the people of states, localities, and General Assemblies nationwide to begin a series of bold new experiments in democratic self-government, to open our political system to the millions of people who go unrepresented by the entrenched factions.
We call for experimentation with reforms to create a level playing field for all voters and for all candidates for elected office – whatever their party affiliation may be, or whether they have none at all –, and to curtail the influence of corporations and narrow political factions over our system of government.
We recommend experimentation with (in no particular order):
• Alternative voting methods. Our voting systems should promote honest participatory democracy. There are alternatives to plurality voting, such as ranked choice voting, approval voting and range voting, liquid democracy and so on.
• Independent, nonpartisan redistricting. Voters should choose their representatives, lawmakers should not choose their own voters. A bipartisan commission is not a non-partisan commission. Independent council and computer drawn districts can remove partisan bias from the redistricting process.
• Smaller and more localized districts. It is time to expand the number of representatives in local and state government and in the House of Representatives. This will ensure a closer relationship between the people and their elected officials, putting the latter on a shorter leash.
• Proportional representation. Winner-take-all, single member district plurality voting has allowed narrow political factions to wield disproportionate influence within our system of government. Proportional representation has been used in the United States in the past to break up party monopolies. It can be implemented again.
• Expansion of franchise. Laws that restrict the right to vote should be repealed. Those who are denied the right to vote because they have, for example, served time in prison, should be re-enfranchised. Participation can be encouraged through simple reforms such as election day voter registration.
• Term limits. Election to public office is not a lifetime appointment. Fortunately, the people need not wait for officials to implement laws limiting their own terms. The people can impose term limits at any election by voting for alternatives to the representatives of the entrenched factions.
• Ballot access reform. Ballot access laws that favor the major parties and discriminate against independent and third party candidates, which are common in all fifty states, should be repealed and replaced with fair and reasonable alternatives. The default state of the ballot should be open.
• Primary election reform. A public election should be open to the public. If parties desire to hold closed primary elections, they can provide for their own caucuses or conventions.
• Initiatives and referenda. The people retain the right to originate ballot initiatives and referenda and to recall any elected official.
• Vote counting. Electronic voting machines are produced, operated and serviced by a small number of corporations with significant ties to powerful political factions. Unless there are significant controls to protect against the rigging of such machines, hand-counted paper ballots should be re-introduced into our voting systems.
• Holiday voting. Voting should be encouraged not discouraged. Election day should be ruled a holiday to encourage voter turnout.
• Fusion voting. Parties should be able to nominate the candidates of their choice across party lines.
• Combination and synthesis. A liquid democratic primary with an instant runoff between the top four candidates from the primary in the general election. Countless other possibilities.
This list is not exhaustive.
We urge assemblies across the country to deliberate on reforms that can help break the ruling political monopoly in government through free and fair elections, and put people before parties. We urge the people of states, localities and general assemblies nationwide to demand the implementation of electoral reform and begin a series of bold new experiments in democratic self-government, from the bottom up.
-------
This proposal was developed by the Politics and Electoral Reform group at Occupy Wall Street between September and November 2011. It contains input from well over 100 individuals who attended group meetings in Liberty Plaza as well as many others from across the country who influenced the proposal through online discussions. The document was produced through a collaborative writing process. It was approved by the Politics and Electoral Reform group with full consensus support on November 6, 2011.
Seeking Input for Electoral Reform Wish List: What Say You?
Since the Occupy Wall Street protests began in downtown Manhattan on September 17th, I have noted on a number of occasions that there is an inspiring amount of independent and third party activity and organizing taking place at the demonstrations. Members of the Green, Libertarian, Socialist and Reform parties, among others, have been involved in the movement from the very beginning, in addition to legions of Independents.
Much of the organizing work being accomplished at Occupy Wall Street is being done within autonomous working groups and caucuses. There are working groups devoted to everything from media and internet to outreach, direct action and reform. There are a number of groups, of which I'm aware, that should be of special interest to independents, third party advocates and opponents of the two-party state. Over the next couple days, I'm going to provide some info on these various groups and relay portions of the documents and proposals they have been working on, all of which can be found through the New York City General Assembly's website for Occupy Wall Street.
Today, the focus will be the Politics and Electoral Reform group – in which I have been active for a number of weeks. The group is working on a proposal recommending electoral reforms that could be implemented by states and localities to level the playing field for those who have been marginalized, and whose interests are not represented, by the Republican-Democrat two-party state. Numerous reforms are being considered by the group, which is collaborating on a working draft document for the proposal. Here is an excerpt from the section of the document specifically devoted to the recommendations for reform:
Much of the organizing work being accomplished at Occupy Wall Street is being done within autonomous working groups and caucuses. There are working groups devoted to everything from media and internet to outreach, direct action and reform. There are a number of groups, of which I'm aware, that should be of special interest to independents, third party advocates and opponents of the two-party state. Over the next couple days, I'm going to provide some info on these various groups and relay portions of the documents and proposals they have been working on, all of which can be found through the New York City General Assembly's website for Occupy Wall Street.
Today, the focus will be the Politics and Electoral Reform group – in which I have been active for a number of weeks. The group is working on a proposal recommending electoral reforms that could be implemented by states and localities to level the playing field for those who have been marginalized, and whose interests are not represented, by the Republican-Democrat two-party state. Numerous reforms are being considered by the group, which is collaborating on a working draft document for the proposal. Here is an excerpt from the section of the document specifically devoted to the recommendations for reform:
• Alternative voting methods. Our voting systems should promote honest participatory democracy. There are alternatives to plurality voting, such as instant runoff voting, ranked choice voting, approval voting and range voting, liquid democracy and so on.(Note: the proposal is a living document, and any of the above could and probably will be changed by the group at some point.) I'm relaying this excerpt because many readers here at Politea have thought long and hard about a lot of these issues, and could provide some interesting suggestions that could be taken up by the group. So what say you, folks? What do you think of the recommendations as they stand? Should any be amended? or dropped? or edited? Are there any important potential reforms that are missing from the list?
• Independent, nonpartisan redistricting. Voters should choose their representatives, lawmakers should not choose their voters.
• Smaller and more localized districts. Expansion of the number of representatives in local and state government and in the House of Representatives. This will ensure a closer relationship between the people and their elected officials, putting the latter on a shorter leash.
• Proportional representation. Winner-take-all, single member district plurality voting has allowed narrow political factions to wield disproportionate influence within our system of government. There are alternatives.
• Expansion of franchise. Those who are denied of the right to vote because they have, for example, served time in prison, should be re-enfranchised.
• Term limits. Election to public office is not a lifetime appointment. Term limits should be imposed by law or by the people at the ballot box.
• Ballot access reform. All should be equal before the law regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof. Ballot access laws that favor the major parties and discriminate against independent and third party candidates should be repealed and replaced with fair and reasonable alternatives. The default state of the ballot should be open.
• Primary election reform. A publicly funded election should be open to the public. If parties desire to hold closed primary elections, they can provide for their own caucuses and conventions.
• Initiatives and referenda. The people retain the right to originate ballot initiatives and referenda.
• Vote counting. The reintroduction of hand counted, paper ballots, or the introduction of significant controls to protect against the rigging of electronic voting machines, which are produced, operated and serviced by corporations with significant ties to powerful political factions.
• Weekend or holiday voting. Voting should be encouraged not discouraged.
• Fusion voting. Parties should be able to nominate the candidates of their choice across party lines.
• Campaign finance. Publicly funded election campaigns, or matching fund systems that allow candidates who refuse to accept corporate donations to compete on a level playing field with candidates who are heavily financed by corporate interests.
• Combination and synthesis. A liquid democratic primary with an IRV runoff between the top four candidates from the primary. Countless other possibilities.
RNC Seeks to Override State Sovereignty
Republicans and Democrats do not represent the American people, the constituents they are allegedly elected to represent, but rather the narrow factional interests of the parties and their corporate sponsors. In other words, the Republican and Democratic parties represent a direct threat to democratic, republican government in the United States. Consider the uproar in the GOP in response to reports that Florida may decide to move its primary election to January 2012. Excerpt from CNN:
Florida is now expected to hold its presidential primary on the last day in January 2012, a move likely to throw the carefully arranged Republican nominating calendar into disarray and jumpstart the nominating process a month earlier than party leaders had hoped. . . .Apparently, the petty tyrants in the politburo of the Republican National Committee believe that they can dictate the time and manner in which states hold their elections. The United States Constitution says otherwise. Article 1, Section 4:
If that happens, it would almost certainly force the traditional early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada to leapfrog Florida and move their primaries and caucuses into early- to mid-January. . . .
Florida's move would directly violate RNC rules that forbid any state other than the first four "carve-out" states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina -- from holding a primary before March 6. [Emphasis added.]
States that ignore the RNC rules are subject to losing half of their delegates -- party representatives who ultimately choose the nominee -- to the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida, next August.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.The very idea that a narrow, factionalist group such as the Republican party could override the US Constitution and the federalist system of government, and dictate when a state decides to hold any election, should be held in contempt by every thinking American. Now the question is whether the people of Florida will kowtow to the demands of the party's apparatchiks or assert their political independence as guaranteed by the US Constitution.
Exhibit A in the Case Against Party Government
The Democratic and Republican parties have so distorted our politics and government that many Americans are likely incapable of imagining that self-government is possible without the interference of the party apparatus. At The Think 3 Institute, Sam Wilson reflects on the character of the "party state":
In every case, perhaps, a party-state exists, not only when one party monopolizes government and forbids opposition parties, but when government and politics themselves are imagined only in terms of parties -- when parties become the fundamental organizing principle of political life.There is, of course, no mention of party or parties in the US Constitution. But this likely is not the case in any number of state constitutions. Consider the simplicity of the First Amendment to the US Constitution in the Bill of Rights:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Compare that with Article 1, Section 1 of the New York State Constitution's Bill of Rights:
No member of this state shall be disfranchised, or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land, or the judgment of his or her peers, except that the legislature may provide that there shall be no primary election held to nominate candidates for public office or to elect persons to party positions for any political party or parties in any unit of representation of the state from which such candidates or persons are nominated or elected whenever there is no contest or contests for such nominations or election as may be prescribed by general law.Party government is an aberration, a cancer in the US body politic.
Top Two and Third Party Strategy
It is no secret that third party activists are some of the most outspoken opponents of the top two style primary system. One of the most frequent objections is that top two will result in the exclusion of third party and independent candidates from the general election, needlessly robbing voters of an array of candidates to choose from when it really counts. But what are third party advocates to do in states where top two is already the law of the land? Unless they are willing to simply throw up their hands and give up the fight, or engage only in drawn-out court and petition battles that may or may not result in the repeal or reform of the system, they must adapt to the new environment. So the strategic question then becomes: how can third party and independent candidates leverage the system to their advantage? Today's column at CAIVN provides some thoughts that could help to flesh out an effective third party or independent strategy in states with top two. Excerpt:
The vote-splitting phenomenon creates potential strategic openings for third party and independent candidates in both lopsided districts that lean heavily toward one of the two major parties, as well as in districts where the major parties are relatively competitive. To ignore such opportunities is both short-sighted and self-defeating, even if one continues to work toward the ultimate goal of repealing or reforming of the system as a whole.
An analysis of the new maps that have been drawn up by California's Citizens Redistricting Commission reveals that there are twelve State Assembly districts and six State Senate districts in which the percentage of decline-to-state voters is significantly greater than the percentage in the state at large. The state legislative district with the highest percentage of Independents is AD19 in West San Francisco, where 31% of voters are registered Independent. Indeed, there are more than twice as many decline-to-state voters as Republicans in this majority Democratic district. Just 13% of AD19's voters are registered Republican, while 53% are Democrats.
No less than six Democrats have already expressed interest in running for the open seat, including two Daly City council members and the current San Francisco Assessor. To get a sense of the potentially surprising effects inherent in the top-two open primary system, let's assume for the sake of argument that six Democrats, a Republican, an Independent and a third party candidate from the Green or Peace and Freedom Party (it is west San Francisco after all!) were to run in the district's primary election next year.
One might easily conclude that two Democrats would be assured the top two spots in the primary and head to the general election, since it is a Democratic majority district. But, if there were a Democratic favorite supported by half of all registered Democrats, with the rest of the district's Democrats more or less equally supporting the other five Democrats in the race, the Republican, Independent or third party candidate could easily advance to the general election with as little as 8-10% support in the primary, depending on how the district's Independents vote. [Emphasis added.]
It is for this precise reason that the state's Democratic and Republican parties are considering holding caucuses or conventions prior to any such primary elections, to nominate the candidate who would be the "official" representative of the party at those elections and hopefully avoid splitting their party's vote.Read the whole thing. It is noteworthy that the Democratic and Republican parties cannot stop anyone from running for a given office in the primary under their party's banner. Upstart Democrats and Republicans can run in the primary even if they are actively opposed by the party as a whole. One could imagine an array of potential dirty tricks that could be played by a well-organized third party organization given this situation. One would need only take a page or two out of the Democrats' and Republicans' playbooks, for instance, by running "dummy" major party candidates in order to split the major party vote and create an opening for a third party or Independent campaign. Of course, a third party group may not have to even do this, as the Democrats and Republicans could very well supply those candidates themselves. And sometimes it seems like all of the candidates from the major parties are "dummy" candidates, no?
The vote-splitting phenomenon creates potential strategic openings for third party and independent candidates in both lopsided districts that lean heavily toward one of the two major parties, as well as in districts where the major parties are relatively competitive. To ignore such opportunities is both short-sighted and self-defeating, even if one continues to work toward the ultimate goal of repealing or reforming of the system as a whole.
Group Launches Campaign for Top Two Primary in Arizona
A new organization in Arizona called the Open Government Committee is launching a ballot initiative to implement a top two style primary system in the state. From today's column at AZIVN:
Earlier this month, the Arizona Open Government Committee officially launched its campaign to bring a top-two style open primary system to the Grand Canyon State by ballot initiative in next year’s elections . . .The organization may find a fair amount of support among Arizona Independents, who now outnumber Democrats in the state and are steadily gaining on Republicans. From last month at AZIVN:
The new system would be implemented for all partisan elections except those for President and Vice President of the United States. The proposed amendment would guarantee that all qualified voters have an “unrestricted right” to vote for the candidate of their choice. Under the current system, Republicans cannot vote for Democratic primary candidates and vice versa.
“No longer will primary elections exist in which Democrats are limited to just choosing among Democratic candidates and Republican voters cast ballots just for Republican candidates, while Independent voters are largely left out altogether,” stated former Republican State Senator Carolyn Allen.
Yet, Independents are not completely left out of the present system. Though, while they may opt to vote in the Democratic or Republican primary, they cannot cast a primary vote for a Republican in one race and a Democrat in another.
Proponents also argue that the new system will open the political process. “Currently, partisan candidates seeking the nominations of their party often simply address the issues of a narrow group of voters who vote in the primary election,” said Paul Johnson, a former Democratic mayor of Pheonix who has since registered as an Independent, and is spearheading the movement. Under the new system, “candidates will be forced to address issues of importance to all of us – Independents, Democrats and Republicans alike,” he stated.
Johnson and Allen are among those spearheading the effort, as reported here at AZIVN last month.
Opponents of top-two style open primary systems object to the fact that it limits voter choice to just two candidates in the general election. “In practice, it would eliminate minor party and independent candidates from the November ballot,” wrote ballot access expert Richard Winger in an op-ed for the Sacrameto Bee arguing against California’s top-two initiative. Winger points out that this was indeed the case in Washington after the state instituted its own brand of top two in 2008. “Washington, for the first time since it became a state in 1889, had no minor party or independent candidates in November for any statewide state race or for any congressional race,” he stated.
“I call them Choke Point primaries, because that is precisely what they are – they create a choke point so general election voters have less choices,” writes Solomon Kleinsmith at Stop Top Two, an organization founded in opposition to the California initiative. The group notes that there are numerous reform alternatives to the top-two open primary system that would incentivize political participation and lead to more representative government in the United States. It suggests, for example, proportional representation, instant runoff voting, approval voting, and multi-member legislative districts. The Open Government Committee is set to begin collecting signatures to get its initiative on next year’s ballot later this month. They must collect nearly 260,000 valid signatures by July 5th 2012.
The group sees a golden opportunity for reform in the growing number of voters in the state who refuse to affiliate with either of the major parties. In 1990, Democrats and Republicans accounted for 89% of registered voters in Arizona. Ten years, later 18% of Arizonans were registered with no party affiliation or with a third party. By April of this year, 33% of the state’s 3.2 million registered voters opted not to affiliate with either major party, surpassing the registration numbers of the Democrats, who now account for just 31.3% of Arizona’s voters. Based on this trend, many observers predict it is only a matter of time before Independents and third party supporters overtake the Republicans as well. See the Secretary of State’s website for registration numbers going back all the way to 1924, when there were fewer than 100,000 registered voters in the whole state!Though many advocates of third party and independent alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans are staunch opponents of top two, the proposed amendment in Arizona not only does away with the state's semi-closed partisan primary election system, it also requires uniform primary ballot access rules for all candidates seeking to get onto the primary ballot, whether they are registered with a party or with no party at all. This would be a big improvement over Arizona's current system, which overtly discriminates against third party and independent candidates.
CA: Democrat Turned Tea Party Activists Seeks to Challenge Top Two Ban on Write-In Candidates
An intervener in a lawsuit pending against the implementation of California's top two primary system may expand the scope of the challenge. Currently, the suit challenges the so-called "party preference ban," which prohibits individuals not affiliated with any party from identifying themselves as Independents on the ballot, and prohibits members of parties not officially recognized by the state from stating their party preference on the ballot, forcing them instead to list themselves as having "no party preference." The intervener in the suit seeks to challenge the ban on write-in candidates in the general election, and the ban against counting any write-in votes cast in any general election. Excerpt from CAIVN:
A Democrat-turned-Tea Party activist is seeking to intervene in a lawsuit against California’s top-two style open primary in opposition to the disenfranchisement of write-in voters. It is highly unlikely that many voters knew there was a third candidate seeking their support in the special election for the open congressional seat in CD 36 held earlier this month. Indeed, the very existence of a possible third candidate in the race would seem to have been impossible, as this was the first special general election for the US House held under California’s top-two open primary.
There were only two candidates named on the ballot, Democrat Janice Hahn and Republican Craig Huey, but Los Angeles resident Julius Galacki sought the office as a write-in candidate in protest of the new primary system . . . Before launching his last minute write-in bid for the US House seat, Galacki unenrolled from the Democratic Party and changed his registration to the Tea Party in order to challenge SB6’s ban on write-in candidates and its prohibition against counting write-in votes cast in general elections.
“The Top Two Primary illegally disenfranchises voters and disqualifies candidates from running for office. Simply put, the Top Two Primary must be put on hold until the Legislature has fixed its troubling flaws,” said Gautam Dutta, Mr. Galacki’s attorney, in a press release.
Galacki’s claim hinges on a tension between two sections of California’s election code that arose following the implementation of SB6 and the top two system. Section 15340 guarantees the right to cast a vote for any write-in candidate in any election. It states: “Each voter is entitled to write the name of any candidate for any public office, including that of President and Vice President of the United States, on the ballot of any election.” However, section 8606, added to the code by SB6, prohibits the counting of such votes in a general election. It reads: “A person whose name has been written on the ballot as a write-in candidate at the general election for a voter-nominated office shall not be counted.”
Having voted for himself as a write-in candidate in the special general election, Galacki seeks to challenge top-two both as a registered voter who was prohibited from running for the office as a write-in candidate and as a voter who cast a write-in ballot that was not counted . . .
New Group Seeks to Implement Top Two Open Primary in Arizona
The California Independent Voter Network recently expanded into Arizona, a state where registered Independents now outnumber Democrats and are quickly gaining on Republicans. A multipartisan group of former elected officials there have formed a new group that wants to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2012 that would implement nonpartisan, top-two style primaries like that passed by voters in California last year. From AZIVN:
The Open Government Committee, as the newly-formed organization is called, began to take shape earlier this year. In an op-ed for The Arizona Republic in April, Paul Johnson argued that partisan politics is wrecking our country . . . He concluded the article with a call for nonpartisan primaries and invited like-minded individuals to join him in an effort to reform the primary process, writing:Read the rest. Of course, the top two style primary is not the only way to bring about the results its supporters desire. Richard Winger listed five potential alternatives at Ballot Access News in September 2009, when the system was being debated in California:
“If you want to change the current system disproportionately dominated by the special interests of the two parties, we need help. We will need a monumental effort to collect signatures, legal volunteers to defend against the parties who will not release power easily, and to help get our message out to voters.”
Since then, Johnson has been joined in his effort by a number of former lawmakers from both the Republican and Democratic parties. Among them are former Republican party congressional candidate Paulina Morris, former GOP lawmakers Carolyn Allen and Bill Konopnicki, and former Democratic legislator Ted Downing . . .
Supporters of the top-two primary system favored by the Open Government Committee argue that it will encourage voter participation among Independents, provide for more competitive elections, and potentially lead to the election of more moderate candidates for public office . . .
Opponents of the top-two system argue that though it may expand choice in the primary election, it reduces choice in the general election to just two candidates – who could very well be from the same party –, while potentially pushing third party and Independent candidates out of the political system altogether. Ballot access expert Richard Winger states that, in practice, the blanket primary and top-two style system do not in fact result in the election of more moderate candidates in states where they have previously been implemented such as Louisiana and Washington. “When someone tells you that we need a top-two open primary to get more moderate politicians in office, ask them for evidence,” wrote Winger in an op-ed for the Los Angeles Daily News.
The Morrison Institute report, which favors a nonpartisan primary, admits the lack of evidence in two footnotes . . .
1. California could return to cross-filing, which was used between 1914 and 1958. This is the California term for fusion. The California legislature between 1914 and 1958 was known for being very non-ideological, with a substantial number of legislators having been nominated by both major parties.
2. California could try non-partisan elections for the state legislature. The voters considered this idea in 1915 but defeated it.
3. California could try a classic open primary, in which the practice of voters joining political parties on the voter registration form is abolished. Then, on primary day, each party has its own primary ballot, but all voters are free to choose any party’s primary ballot.
4. California could try a system in which any candidate is free to either run in the “top-two” primary, or instead skip the primary and qualify directly for the November ballot. The California blanket primary, used in 1998 and 2000, had this characteristic to a certain degree; independent candidates stayed out of the primary and petitioned directly to the November ballot. In this proposed new system (which has never been tried in any state), candidates could choose to run in the primary, and the top two vote-getters would be on the November ballot. Candidates who ran in the primary and didn’t place in the top two would not be able to appear on November ballot. However, candidates who skipped the primary could qualify for the November ballot. The incentive a candidate to run in the primary would be that the candidate expects to qualify among the top-two and wishes to campaign in the primary season.
5. California could use Instant-Runoff Voting and abolish the primary completely.Or, alternatively to the last alternative, a state could implement range voting or score voting.
Cross-Over Voting and the Primary Process
When the professional partisans of the major parties argue in favor of closed primaries, their main malicious boogeyman is the so-called cross-over voter. If you are not registered with their party, they maintain, you should not be allowed to cast a ballot in a publicly funded primary election because your intention might be to somehow sabotage the party's nomination process with your single vote by casting your ballot for a weak candidate. Freedom of association, they state, implies the right to exclude non-party members from the nominating process to protect the party against malicious cross-over voters. Fair enough. But why should the rest of us have to foot the bill to administrate the nominating process of some private affair such as a Republican or Democratic party primary? If the primary is a publicly funded election, shouldn't that election be open to the public? A lengthy and highly informative article at Ogden on Politics takes a close look at the primary process in general and the phenomenon of cross-over voting in Indiana in particular, to make the case that a voter should be allowed to vote in any primary she or he wishes. Excerpt:
There only is one issue, if it can be called that, on which both "major" parties agree: make matters as difficult as possible for another party to obtain equal status, especially access to placement on the ballots. The individual parties are not named in Indiana statutes that regulate primaries. The parties do not have to be named. There have been other parties, always - as long as I can remember, and from what I have read - called "third" parties. Occasionally a candidate for (what usually is not a major) office from such a party will draw a respectable number of votes. Rarely, a third-party candidate will win. The reality is that the two major parties hold the lock and all sets of keys to the system . . .
The two "major" political parties have used (or some would say "abused") the mechanisms of government to preserve their forms and dominance, and advance their interests, by statute. . . . The two parties control the basic structure of the election process . . . These statutes were enacted by the General Assembly and signed into law by the Governor. The majorities in both houses and the governor were Democrats and Republicans. It is reasonable to infer the legislation in which they take the keenest interest and upon which their political lives depend - that encompassing election laws - was drawn in such a way as to give their parties control . . . A voter otherwise eligible should be able to vote in the primary election of either party for several reasons.The whole article is well worth a read. The piece contains a number of fascinating tidbits. For instance, in Indiana, any poll worker or voter may challenge any other voter's right to cast a ballot in a party primary. Excerpt:
I.C. 3-10-1-6 allows a person to vote in a primary election for a specific party - Voter only can vote in one party's primary or the other - if the person is listed in the poll books for that precinct. There is a record of the party for which the person voted in the previous primary. But Voted can ask for a ballot in the other party's primary. It has been my experience that the poll workers ask a person "What ballot do you want?" I never have been asked a variation of "You have voted Democrat in the past. Is that the ballot you want?" I.C. 3-10-1-9 allows for Voter to be challenged at the primary. "A voter in a precinct may challenge a voter or person who offers to vote at a primary election. The challenged person may not vote unless the person (1) is registered; (2) makes: (A) an oral or written affirmation under IC 3-10-12; or (B) an affidavit ... (3) at the last general election voted for a majority of the regular nominees of the political parties for whose candidates the challenged person proposes to vote in the primary election and intends to vote for the regular nominees of the political party at the next general election; or (B) if the challenged voter did not vote at the last general election, intends to vote at the next general election for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party holding the primary election."Are there such laws on the books in any other states?
Pressure Mounts for Open Primaries in Pennsylvania
This week's column at CAIVN takes a look at the growing pressure for open primaries in Pennsylvania. Some excerpts:
With abysmally low voter turnout in the closed primary elections held earlier this month in Pennsylvania, pressure is mounting to open the process to Independents. On May 17th, Pennsylvania voters headed to the polls to cast their ballots in primary elections for county and municipal offices, school boards and judges. Or rather, more precisely, voters didn’t head to the polls to cast their ballots in the state’s primary elections. As local Patch columnist Tom De Martini wrote reflecting on the returns: “Primary voter turnout is usually low, but Tuesday's showing at the polls was one of the worst I can recall since I starting casting ballots in 1979.” One local CBS News affiliate felt it necessary to emphasize that, despite the low turnout, the results still count: “low voter turnout was the theme for the day, even though a few key races were up for decision. A whopping 80 percent of voters bypassed the election, but the results still count.”
Pennsylvania is one of twenty states in which Independents and third party voters are prohibited from casting a ballot in the Republican and Democratic party primaries, according to a tally by The Center for Voting and Democracy. Roughly one million Pennsylvanians, about one in eight voters, are not affiliated with any party or are registered with a third party. The abysmal showing in the primary elections by the state’s Democrats and Republicans is leading to increased calls for open primaries . . .
When faced with criticism of the closed primary system, its supporters in the Democratic and Republican parties often reply by stating that if Independents desire to vote in the primary elections, they can simply change their affiliation. Independents respond by pointing out that if the Democratic and Republican parties want publicly funded primary elections, these elections should not be effectively closed to the public . . .
The problem posed by Pennsylvania’s closed primary system is exacerbated by the fact that candidates for local and state offices often cross-file in both the Republican and Democratic primary elections, which can easily result in uncontested general election races . . .
Perhaps one might argue that if Independent Pennsylvanians are so frustrated with the Democratic and Republican parties, they can register their discontent by voting for Independent or third party candidates in the general election. But Democratic and Republican party activists work tirelessly to ensure that such candidates do not appear on the ballot . . .
Party Preference and Voter-Nominated Offices: the Incoherence of Partisan Designation in California's Top Two Primary System
Yesterday, California's 36th Congressional District held a special primary election to fill the US House seat vacated by Democrat Jane Harman shortly after her re-election last year. This was the first election for a US House seat held under California's new top two primary system. According to the CA Secretary of State's semi-official tally, Democrat Janice Hahn and Republican Craig Huey have taken the top two spots in the field of sixteen candidates. (The situation looked fairly different when I submitted today's article for CAIVN late last night, reporting that two Democrats were likely to take the top two spots.) If and when Hahn and Huey are declared the official winners of the race, they will then proceed to the general election runoff in which they will be the only two candidates on the ballot. This result is likely to surprise mainstream political observers, many of whom expected Hahn and Democrat Debra Bowen to easily trounce their Republican, independent and third party rivals.
For many supporters of alternatives to the Democratic-Republican two-party duopoly, the difference between a general election with two Democrats, or two Republicans, or one of each on the ballot, is likely negligible to non-existent. There are a number of lawsuits pending against the top two style primary. Among them are one in Washington state challenging the constitutionality of the top two system as such, and at least two in California challenging a number of provisions specific to the legal scaffolding of the Golden State's newly instituted system. For an extensive discussion of the suits, see this presentation by Richard Winger and Gautam Dutta filmed at the general assembly of the Green party of California earlier this month.
Dutta is the attorney representing the plaintiffs in one of the lawsuits against California's system. One of the plaintiffs in that suit, Michael Chamness, was a candidate in the special primary election for the 36th Congressional District. Though a member of the newly-formed Coffee Party, Chamness was forced to state on the ballot that he has "no party preference" because the Coffee Party is not one of the six parties officially recognized by the state (i.e. Democrat, Republican, American Independent, Green, Peace and Freedom, and Libertarian). Chamness's suit thus claims that the implementing law for the top two primary forces him to lie to voters. Under California's old system, he would at least have been allowed to identify himself as "independent."
Under the implementing law for California's top two system – namely, Senate Bill 6, passed as part of a late night budget deal in February 2009 – the partisan labeling system thus privileges the category of party and then narrows the definition of party to include only a small number of such groups, with a high bar to maintain inclusion in the set of permitted partisan designations. Even despite the claims in Chamness's suit, this might appear reasonable enough to some observers. But there remains an underlying contradiction between these rules and the overall logic of the primary system itself.
The law implementing California's Proposition 14 replaced the old party-nominated/partisan system of offices with what is termed a "voter-nominated" system of offices. See this release from the Secretary of State contrasting the two systems. Under the old system, the winner of a particular party's primary election become that party's official nominee. This is not the case under top two. The candidates on yesterday's ballot in CD-36, for instance, do not technically represent their parties. Party designations reflect only the individual affiliation of the given candidate, not an official endorsement from the party. Nor does their election in a primary mean that they become the "official" candidate of their chosen party. It is for this reason that you can end up with a choice between two candidates from the same party on the general election ballot. See this release from the Secretary of State on voter-nominated offices.
As candidates under California's top two primary system are no longer running for a partisan office, but rather a voter-nominated office, the partisan labeling scheme limiting the party designations that a given candidate may choose from to describe him- or herself on the ballot must be considered an anachronism of the old system and should be abolished. The new system has changed the very nature of the office, but this change is not coherently reflected in the partisan labeling system utilized on the ballot.
For many supporters of alternatives to the Democratic-Republican two-party duopoly, the difference between a general election with two Democrats, or two Republicans, or one of each on the ballot, is likely negligible to non-existent. There are a number of lawsuits pending against the top two style primary. Among them are one in Washington state challenging the constitutionality of the top two system as such, and at least two in California challenging a number of provisions specific to the legal scaffolding of the Golden State's newly instituted system. For an extensive discussion of the suits, see this presentation by Richard Winger and Gautam Dutta filmed at the general assembly of the Green party of California earlier this month.
Dutta is the attorney representing the plaintiffs in one of the lawsuits against California's system. One of the plaintiffs in that suit, Michael Chamness, was a candidate in the special primary election for the 36th Congressional District. Though a member of the newly-formed Coffee Party, Chamness was forced to state on the ballot that he has "no party preference" because the Coffee Party is not one of the six parties officially recognized by the state (i.e. Democrat, Republican, American Independent, Green, Peace and Freedom, and Libertarian). Chamness's suit thus claims that the implementing law for the top two primary forces him to lie to voters. Under California's old system, he would at least have been allowed to identify himself as "independent."
Under the implementing law for California's top two system – namely, Senate Bill 6, passed as part of a late night budget deal in February 2009 – the partisan labeling system thus privileges the category of party and then narrows the definition of party to include only a small number of such groups, with a high bar to maintain inclusion in the set of permitted partisan designations. Even despite the claims in Chamness's suit, this might appear reasonable enough to some observers. But there remains an underlying contradiction between these rules and the overall logic of the primary system itself.
The law implementing California's Proposition 14 replaced the old party-nominated/partisan system of offices with what is termed a "voter-nominated" system of offices. See this release from the Secretary of State contrasting the two systems. Under the old system, the winner of a particular party's primary election become that party's official nominee. This is not the case under top two. The candidates on yesterday's ballot in CD-36, for instance, do not technically represent their parties. Party designations reflect only the individual affiliation of the given candidate, not an official endorsement from the party. Nor does their election in a primary mean that they become the "official" candidate of their chosen party. It is for this reason that you can end up with a choice between two candidates from the same party on the general election ballot. See this release from the Secretary of State on voter-nominated offices.
As candidates under California's top two primary system are no longer running for a partisan office, but rather a voter-nominated office, the partisan labeling scheme limiting the party designations that a given candidate may choose from to describe him- or herself on the ballot must be considered an anachronism of the old system and should be abolished. The new system has changed the very nature of the office, but this change is not coherently reflected in the partisan labeling system utilized on the ballot.
The Case for Open Primaries in Pennsylvania
At Patch, Joe Ferraaro makes the case for open primaries in Pennsylvania, where, by means of cross-filing, Democrats and Republicans often succeed in securing the primary nomination of both major parties. The result, in many cases, are non-contested general election.
NOTE: A prior version of this post was published yesterday, but was auto-deleted due to some problems at Blogger.
People not registered as Democrats or Republicans (Non Major Party or NMPs) are frozen out of the process. Given the exceptionally small numbers of people who vote in these elections, an even more minuscule number can decide who runs the show for the rest of us . . .There are a number of active groups seeking to implement open primaries in Pennsylvania, check out Independent Pennsylvanians, for instance. Another solution, of course, would be to privatize the primary process and make the Democrats and Republicans pay all the costs associated with foisting their misrule on the population.
In a primary election, we can expect a turnout of about 15 percent of the registered voters, which translates roughly to about 10 percent of the population. In terms of who votes, that means in a two-way race, only 5 percent of the people need to vote to tell the rest of us what is going to happen—5 percent telling the other 95 percent what to do . . .
Have you ever thought about how much it costs to run an election from a taxpayer standpoint? . . . Now, how fair is it that only members of the major parties may participate in this process? Should the two major parties be called upon to foot the bill because, after all, the primary system is set up for their benefit and their benefit alone?
Cross-filing, as Kane brings up, creates a shut-out situation for those not involved in with these political parties. Is it really one-person/one-vote? I am surprised some hot-shot lawyer hasn’t brought up an "equal protection under the law" type of argument to make this system fall down. One fair solution may be to completely open up the primary process in Pennsylvania. The parties nominate as they have before, but anyone who is of age and in good standing may cast a primary ballot.
NOTE: A prior version of this post was published yesterday, but was auto-deleted due to some problems at Blogger.
Arizona Independent Calls for Non-Partisan Elections
Paul Johnson is a former mayor of Phoenix Arizona and a former Democrat. Like a growing number of Arizonans, Johnson is now an Independent. Indeed, Independents now outnumber Democrats and are quickly gaining on Republicans in the state. In a commentary for The Arizona Republic, Johnson argues that "partisan politics is wrecking our country," and makes the case for non-partisan elections in order to ensure that Independents are not disenfranchised from the political process, while moderating the effects extremist primary voters in the Democratic and Republican parties have on our political system. Johnson furthermore argues against the public subsidization of Democratic and Republican party primary elections. Excerpt:
Update: Johnson's op-ed has sparked a lengthy discussion in the comments of the letters to the editor section of the Arizona Republic.
Today, we have a two-party system built upon a simple principle: Win. Public policy comes second. The current two-party system, not the one envisioned by our forefathers, has created a currency of distortion, exaggeration, misrepresentation, centralization of power and the unfortunate motivation to put political stripes above the greater good.
Today, the two-party system rewards extremism and punishes moderation. We need to change the reward system in politics. In Arizona's partisan primaries, less than 9 percent of the registered voters decide who will represent each party. This gives a disproportionate influence to extreme groups - and, if that's OK with you, stop reading right here. Unfortunately, we all pay the price . . .
With partisan primaries and publicly funded elections, economic and business issues are no longer a priority. Compromise is ignored. The average Arizonan has no voice. Extremists rule.
And, so, with no organized effort, independent voters are on their way to becoming the majority party. Arizona's voters are giving up on realignment in the party system and have moved to disalignment with either party. Within the next few years, independents are going to make up the majority of Arizona voters. But the political game is rigged against them.
We will not change human nature. But if we change state and federal elections to a system more like our nonpartisan city elections, we will change behavior and thus outcomes . . .
Our federal and state elections currently subsidize partisan primaries, and at least one of the parties has suggested it plans to sue to keep independents from being able to vote in its primary. As independents are quickly becoming the majority party, this subsidy is not justifiable.There is no longer any justification for the public subsidization of the primary elections for the Democratic and Republican parties. The Democratic and Republican parties are not public entities, they are private organizations that have simply seized control of government at all levels in the United States over the course of what is basically indistinguishable from a long, slow coup. The longer Americans continue to pretend that Republicans and Democrats represent anything other than the interests of the parties and their corporate sponsors, the longer we will have to endure the corporatist subjugation of the American people.
Update: Johnson's op-ed has sparked a lengthy discussion in the comments of the letters to the editor section of the Arizona Republic.
The Pathetic Partisan and the Duopolist Filter
Last week, in an article at Salon, Glenn Greenwald considered the "impotence of the loyal partisan voter," touching on a paradox inherent to the two-party state and duopoly system of government. The point is actually quite simple: if you are a loyal voter for one of the two major parties, it is virtually assured that you thereby guarantee your own political irrelevance. Greenwald writes:
That's what a rational, calculating, self-interested, unprincipled Democratic politician should do: accommodate those factions which need accommodating (because their support is in question), while ignoring or scorning the ones whose support is not in question . . .Greenwald, however, proved incapable of liberating himself from the ideology that sustains the two-party state. As GG wrote in response at Shiny Ideas:
In short it is not, contrary to what Glenn seems to be saying, necessary to invoke blind loyalty to describe the voting habits of the Democratic base. As for a potential solution to this impasse... Glenn Glenn Glenn, I kept waiting for you to say "two party system", but you never got there. Which is sad, because you could broach the subject of our fucked up political duopoly and people would actually listen to you. The solution is for people to have a viable alternative to both the Republicans and the Democrats.The next day, Greenwald was invited onto Lawrence O'Donnell's show on MSNBC to talk about the column. To his credit, O'Donnell hammered home the point that even Greenwald was unwilling to articulate: the two-party system is the problem. Such criticism of the two-party state rarely penetrates the media's duopolist filter. A rough transcript of O'Donnell's statements from the segment (video below):
They take us for granted once they are past the primary zone and its just Democrat against Republican, they are simply placing the bet that you are stuck, as the two-party system sticks you, in the lesser of two evils choice and they will always win that vote from you. . . .Even then, Greenwald refused to take the two-party state to task, and instead offered nothing more than platitudes about the importance of waging primary challenges as the GOP did in 2010. So, Greenwald objects to the fact that the Democratic party is all-too-willing to accommodate the political opposition while "kicking its base whenever possible," but then his solution is to become more like the opposition! Thanks to Tirade Faction for the link.
I think the structural problem here is the two-party system. The two-party system is a monopolistic system invented by politics, American politics, which, American business loves monopoly whenever they can get to it, and they love this monopoly because it doesn't allow you any kind of gradation in your choice, you have to go with the Democrat because the Republican is out of the question. That's why the third party challenge is the only thing that you ever see move one of these parties in one direction or the other . . .
Privatize the Primaries
The new top two primary system in California is forcing the state's political parties to re-evaluate, if not entirely overhaul, their traditional political and electoral strategies. Since all candidates for a given office will appear on the same primary ballot, and the top two vote-getters –regardless of their party affiliation or lack thereof–, then advance to the general election, party strategists fear that the potential fragmentation of the vote will result in an outright loss by default. For instance, if there are two Democrats and three Republicans represented on the ballot, the Republican candidates will necessarily be at a disadvantage, since the GOP vote will be split between three candidates, while the Democrats rally around two.
This dynamic provides a potential strategic opening to third party and Independent candidates. If the Democratic and Republican party vote is split among an array of candidates, an Independent or third party candidate could conceivably advance to the general election by garnering, say, 20% of the primary vote – or even less depending on the particulars of the election. The California Republican Party is therefore preparing to run a "pre-primary," in which the party would nominate its candidates ahead of the official primary election. W.E. Messamore reports at CAIVN:
On a related note, I've been trying to track down dollar amounts for the cost of publicly administering the primary elections of the Democratic and Republican parties on a state by state basis, but have not had much luck finding the relevant info. Anyone out there have any ideas on where to look?
This dynamic provides a potential strategic opening to third party and Independent candidates. If the Democratic and Republican party vote is split among an array of candidates, an Independent or third party candidate could conceivably advance to the general election by garnering, say, 20% of the primary vote – or even less depending on the particulars of the election. The California Republican Party is therefore preparing to run a "pre-primary," in which the party would nominate its candidates ahead of the official primary election. W.E. Messamore reports at CAIVN:
At its convention this year, the California Republican Party has adopted changes to maintain its ability to influence the outcome of California's primaries. The new measures would allow the Republican Party to run a "pre-primary" of sorts. At least that's how critics see it. The state GOP will now officially be able to pick party favorites via early endorsements. . . .This "pre-primary" would not be a public election, but rather a private affair, fully funded by the state's Republican party itself. This is a step in the right direction. The public primary election process effectively functions as a massive subsidy to the Democratic and Republican parties for which all taxpayers are forced to foot the bill. Why should Democrats, Independents and third party supporters be forced to pay for the nominating elections of the Republican party? Why should Republicans, Independents and third party supporters have to pay for the nominating elections of the Democratic party? From The Desert Sun, via The Hankster:
Riverside County is starting to evaluate what cost savings would come if political parties' internal elections were no longer part of the primary election ballot. Candidates for the parties' central committees comprise a significant portion of ballots in California's primaries.
In 2008, 53 percent of the candidates on Riverside County's June ballot were central committee candidates. They comprised 40 percent of the county's primary ballot last year, according to an analysis published last week in the San Diego Union-Tribune.It is long past time to remove the private affairs of narrow, factionalist groups such as the Democratic and Republican parties from the public ballot. From The Political Party Pooper:
Now an effort is starting, led by the San Diego registrar, to take such candidates off the regular ballot and instead create a separate selection process. The change needs the Legislature's endorsement, but it could save millions statewide, according to the Union-Tribune's report.
Primary elections are paid for by the residents of the jurisdiction, they are included in the budget of the Election Board as provided for by the Legislature. What are Primary elections about? The simplest answer is that Primaries are about narrowing the field of candidates for a General election, whatever that election be for, such as a Presidential, Congressional, or local office . To simplify it even further, typically, in the United States, the Primary Election is all about choosing a Party Candidate to run in the General Election. Primary Elections are the tool by which the two political parties, Republicans and Democrats, choose their candidates.This situation is all the more egregious in states with closed or semi-closed primaries in which only party members are even allowed to cast a ballot. The primary process then becomes a recruitment tool for the party: "Let your voice be heard! Join the party so you can vote in the primary!" If Democrats and Republicans do not want the public at large to be allowed to vote in their primary elections, then those elections should not be publicly funded, but rather privately administered and funded by the parties themselves.
Does it seem odd to you that local citizens are forced to pay for a political party’s candidate selection process? Isn’t that something the political party ought to pay for? After all, it’s their gig, it’s for their benefit, why are taxpayers footing the bill for their election? And we DO KNOW that these are Party Elections, because the Supreme Court has called them such.
With a cost of around $33 Million per State (averaged), the total bill is over $1.6 Billion for these elections across the nation. That includes money for poll workers, sites, ballot counting, and all of the other things necessary for a fair election process.
So the question I want answered by political party supporters is: why are we, the taxpayers, paying for your political party’s election?
It’s not constitutional, and in fact, I’d have to say that if anything, it’s probably illegal. Especially considering that no political party in America has the legal authority to tax citizens for their election. So, let’s hear from the party supporters. Let’s hear your excuses.
On a related note, I've been trying to track down dollar amounts for the cost of publicly administering the primary elections of the Democratic and Republican parties on a state by state basis, but have not had much luck finding the relevant info. Anyone out there have any ideas on where to look?
Chamness v. Bowen: Coffee Party Activist Files Suit Against Top Two
From this week's column at CAIVN:
California's top two open primary system is facing a legal challenge from an Independent activist affiliated with the Coffee Party movement. On February 17th, former State Senate candidate Michael Chamness filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking an injunction against the implementation of the top two open primary in the upcoming special election to replace Congresswoman Jane Harman in California’s 36th Congressional District. Harman announced her retirement from the office on Monday, triggering a special election to fill the seat.
A non-profit consultant and Coffee Party activist, Chamness was a candidate in the special primary election for State Senate District 28 last month, one of the first elections to be held under the top-two system in California. Because Chamness is not affiliated with a ballot-qualified party, the legal scaffolding for the top two open primary system – namely SB 6 – prohibited him from stating his party preference on the ballot, nor was he permitted to identify himself as an Independent, as would have been the case under the old primary system. Instead, he was listed on the ballot as having “No Party Preference.” . . .
As he intends to run in the primary race for CD 36, the lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction blocking the implementation of SB 6 in that election on the grounds that Chamness has already been forced “to lie to voters about his political views” and would be made to do so again if he must state on the ballot that he has “no party preference.” . . .
The suit names California Secretary of State Debra Bowen and Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk of Los Angeles Dean Logan as defendants. Coincidentally, Chamness and Bowen will also face off in the primary election for CD 36. Bowen has already officially declared her candidacy for the House seat being vacated by Jane Harman. As the complaint points out, Bowen will seemingly benefit from what some view as a double standard established in SB 6: while she will be allowed to state her particular party preference on the ballot, Chamness will be prohibited from doing so [Emphasis added.] . . .Read the whole thing.
Against Publicly Funded Party Primaries: Why should the people have to subsidize the primary elections of fringe groups like the Democrats and Republicans?
A few years ago, Washington state instituted a "top two" style primary system like that recently adopted in California. From a letter to the editor of The Olympian in Washington state:
I am increasingly disgusted by the continuing efforts of the Democratic and Republican parties to overturn the "Top 2 Primary" system. In fact, they are convincing me that in the next election I should vote for a third-party candidate - anyone but a Democrat or a Republican.
Political parties were mistrusted by America’s Founders, for good reason. Political parties were not established by our Constitution. Why should my tax dollars be spent helping them choose their candidates? If they want to have an election in which only candidates recognized by the respective parties can run under the party label, let them finance their own primaries. Taxpayers have made it plain that they do not want to finance elections for the benefit of the parties. What part of “no” do the parties not understand?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)