posted
As I'm sure all the Californians know, there are two measures on the November ballot regarding primary elections. Prop 60 basically wants to enshrine our current primary system in the State Constitution. Prop 62 wants to radically change the primary system to allow open primaries (except for presidential nominations and elections of party central committees) and also change things so that the top two vote recipients--regardless of party--advance to the general election, rather than the top one vote recipient of each party.
I'm a little unsure of myself on these ones. My first instinct was to vote no on 62. But I noticed that some notable politicians, like Richard Riordan (former Mayor of LA) and Leon Panetta (former Congressman and White House Chief of Staff--also a resident of my home town) support 62. I'm not sure how much stock to put in the opposition's argument about Louisiana's primary system, although it doesn't seem completely out there. On the other hand, I'm not really a fan of party politics.
Anyone else have any thoughts?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
saxon, what provision does Prop62 make for third party candidates? Will there only ever be two candidates in the general election?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't look great for third-party candidates. Any party can still get on the primary ballot, but there are only ever two candidates for statewide and national positions in the general election. It doesn't do anything to specifically deny third-party candidates a spot on the general ballot, but in practice it will likely mean that there will seldom if ever be a third-party candidate in the general election.
The top two vote recipients in the primary get to be on the general ballot. That means it could be two Democrats or two Republicans, one of each, or even a Green and a Reform.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it, though? In theory, it doesn't limit third-party candidates any more than any other candidate. And in practice, third-party candidates don't win anyway. It seems to me that any third-party candidate that had a shot at winning in any election system would probably still make it onto the general ballot under this system.
It's an interesting question. How well did the third party candidates who won their general elections (e.g. Jesse Ventura or Bernard Sanders) do in the primaries? Were they in the top two?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The primary effect and goal of thrid-parties isn't to win the election (they're more realistic than that), but instead to break out of the Coke versus Pepsi style of races between the two major parties by raising issues and provoking responses that would otherwise be ignored.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The third-party candidates in question generally won their own party's primary. What the state of California is saying is that it will no longer honor any given party's primary system, but will instead mandate a full general election and a run-off election.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I keep wondering who is putting these issues forth. Who would profit the most from it?
As an independent, I really don't care to vote in their primaries, and I don't think that they should be messed with anymore. The voting is already complex enough, don't give them any more clauses!
Posts: 2506 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Squicky, if that's what third parties are generally about, do you think that such a change to election procedures would help or hurt their ability to accomplish those goals?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I went through an initial read through of the voter information booklet and I'm voting no on most of the propositions.
I've recently decided to take a different stance on propositions. I used to vote yes on those that I thought were okay ideas, but weren't really sure about.
Now I'm voting no -- even on those propositions where I think that something needs to be done in that area but what the proposition proposes isn't quite there yet. I used to think -- well at least it's a step in the right direction.
That no longer cuts for me anymore. The process locks up too much of the state budget. For that reason I'm even voting no on the stem cell research proposition. I'm for stem cell research, but looking over the proposition it seems to direct support to too few entities with little oversight.
If I do feel that a particular proposition is right on target, I won't hesitate to vote for it, however. Those that close loopholes in state law/practice -- esp. legislation that seems to be a holdover from other times -- are the ones I tend to consider more seriously.
And although as an independent, I like the idea of an open primary, I'm voting no on both 60 and 62.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I will also definately be voting NO FREAKIN WAY on 66. It's the one that will weaken three strikes to let the author of the measure's son out of jail along with thousands of other three strikers.
I'll probably vote no on the gambling measures too, but I have to study them more.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In theory I don't have a problem with redefining what constitutes a violent crime and what doesn't for the purposes of the three strikes law, but there was a bunch of other stuff in 66 that I didn't like.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't yet decided where I draw the lines when it comes to stem cell research -- I'm not voting for Prop. 71 for reasons that don't have a lot to do with the science of it. But I highly recommend you all read this op ed on Prop. 71.
My guess is that it will pass -- I mean who is going to vote against Michael J. Fox? -- which is too bad. I support research in this field, esp. since diabetes is a common thing in my family, but Prop. 71 doesn't quite pass my smell test.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zal, I think our bridge tolls should to the Bay Bridge rather than sending the tolls to So Cal to fix their roads. How many years did it take to fix 880 in Oakland? about a decade? and when So Cal had that tiny little northridge quake that knocked down a section of one of their highways it was fixed in less than a month? Nutty.
Our bridges have paid for themselves many times over and rather than ending the bridge tolls, they only keep going up. How much of that money stays in the Bay Area?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
