The Great Voter Silencer: CA’s Prop 14

[Ballygrl]

I had to read this story twice to see if I was really reading something like this. I don't vote for 3rd party candidates, but I don't think the State has a right to take them off the ballot if they don't get enough votes, and I have written in candidates a few times on a local level, but California would take that away from voters:

http://biggovernment.com/tdelbeccaro/2010/04/01/the-great-voter-silencer-cas-prop-14/

The Great Voter Silencer: CA’s Prop 14
by Thomas Del Beccaro

California’s June primary features one of the most undemocratic initiatives ever foisted upon voters by politicians.  Falsely called an “Open Primary,” when actually it is a Top 2 Primary, the initiative actually reduces voter choices, effectively silences third parties and will harm our democratic process.

Our current system features a primary process in which various partys, Green and otherwise, participate.  The nominees of those partys then square off in November throughout the state along with “write in” candidates.   Prop 14, which is opposed by The California Republican Party, and is pushed by some of the proponents of the failed 2009 Prop 1A tax increase, would end that system in favor of a Top 2 Primary.  Under Prop 14, all of the parties and candidates are forced into a single primary in June and then only the Top 2 vote getters square off in the Fall – no one else has a voice.

1. The End of 3rd Parties in California.  It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Prop 14 would put a literal an end to third parties.  Third parties already have a difficult challenge to be heard under our present system.  Lack of money makes it very hard for them to compete with the major parties.  Even so, over time, third parties have made an enormous contribution to our system in their minority role.  For instance, it was the Reform Party of the 1990’s that focused America on the perils of deficit spending while the two major parties failed to lead on the issue.


Their candidates ran throughout the country and throughout California in the Fall elections.   In doing so, their message against runaway spending and deficits was heard throughout the election process all the way to Election Day.  Their contributions had an obvious impact on the candidates of the major parties.

Under Prop 14, however, future Reform Partys will be no more.  The voice of any such challengers to the establishment will be silenced as of June primary.  Likely unable to bankroll a candidate to finish in the Top 2, all of the third partys, and their “unwanted” challenges to the establishment, will be silenced because they will not be able to participate in November election.  Keep in mind, that overall voter participation, in California primaries, is less than half of that in November.  Voters simply pay more attention in November than June.   As a result, the voice of minority party candidates will effectively silenced long before November when precious few are focused on the great issues of the day.

2. No More Write-In Candidates.  Adding insult to the injury of our system, write-in candidates will no longer exist under the Prop 14 system.  Imagine that: certain politicians want to end your right to mount a write-in campaign – they want to end our right to challenge them in the November election.  On its face, that alone should be reason to vote against this measure.

According to Jefferson, “When wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality.”  The well-funded proponents of Prop 14 want to silence third party voters and write-in candidates. They want to take away your rights.  It is up to all voters to resist that take-over and defeat Prop 14 for the sake of Liberty.

** Join the California Republican Party’s Effort to STOP Prop 14 @http://www.cagop.org/FightForFreedom/

[thundley4]

It could mean the end of Republican nominees in the general election. California is so far left that it would be possible for two moonbats to end up on the ticket.

[Ballygrl]

It could mean the end of Republican nominees in the general election. California is so far left that it would be possible for two moonbats to end up on the ticket.

That's what I think, in reading other comments about this some people think it'll force both parties to run to the middle, also someone said this was passed in the 1960's and the Supreme Court overturned it.

[The Village Idiot]

It could mean the end of Republican nominees in the general election. California is so far left that it would be possible for two moonbats to end up on the ticket.

That is probably the goal. The GOP will offer up RINO's and keep moving left

[NHSparky]

Oh, goody--guess who is in favor of it?

LINK

Proposition 14 has been endorsed by the California Chamber of Commerce  and the Latin Business Association.[7] Other prominent supporters include:

Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[Ballygrl]

Latest polling on this

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_PrimaryElectionsJTF.pdf

Yes-60%
No-27%
Don't Know-13%

[NHSparky]

That's because the idiots don't know what they're voting for--as usual.

[thundley4]

That's because the idiots don't know what they're voting for--as usual.

That might be, but it could be they heavily polled lefties.  it's Califruitopia, of course they are going to heavily poll lefties.

Then again, most propositions put up for votes are written so the common voter becomes confused and votes they way the framer of the proposal wanted.

[GOP Congress]

The Democrats better be careful of what they are wishing for.

This actually could work in favor of conservatives. More specifically, it will work in favor of the THINKING voting public, not just the mindless robots.

Keep in mind the Tea Party movement is not going to go away soon. This reminds me of how the US got into World War II.

Many people don't realize that the US had been ambivalent about entering the world wide fray. (Of course, this deserves a completely different analysis track, as I actually believe much of the CAUSE of WWII was started by American isolationalism, primarily instigated by Roosevelt's New Deal policies, which literally shut down cold trade with Europe and Asia, leading those countries to gear up for war in the early to mid thirties. I digress for now).

When the US entered the war, it was kick ass and take names, and we didn't forget.

The same pattern is arising now. I don't see RINO's doing anything anytime soon. I DO see a lot of dems moving back to the right, though, occupying the current part of the spectrum that the GOP RINO's are occupying, but the current GOP Rinos will simply move to the right, so the entire political spectrum will swing to the right for at least a decade.

[The Village Idiot]

It looks like iCarly and Meg got the GOP nods... so this whole proposition is kind of moot. They only have one party in CA anyway.

[bkg]

This prop should be evidence enough to people in CA that the GOP and DNC have a very similar agenda, just wrapped in different paper...

[Celtic Rose]

It looks like iCarly and Meg got the GOP nods... so this whole proposition is kind of moot. They only have one party in CA anyway.

California Politics are so frustrating 

[Rebel Yell]

Oh, goody--guess who is in favor of it?



Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Well, he needs it simplified.  The idiot voted for two candidates on one ticket.

[DumbAss Tanker]

While I generally think this is completely antidemocratic and wrong, I am not sure it disadvantages either main party with respect to the other.  Each one has issues with fringe voters who periodically wander off into third parties, which seems to hurt them both, though usually in different years.

[The Village Idiot]

While I generally think this is completely antidemocratic and wrong, I am not sure it disadvantages either main party with respect to the other.  Each one has issues with fringe voters who periodically wander off into third parties, which seems to hurt them both, though usually in different years.

So?

This is very anti-democratic if it restricts voter choices in November.

[Celtic Rose]

While I generally think this is completely antidemocratic and wrong, I am not sure it disadvantages either main party with respect to the other.  Each one has issues with fringe voters who periodically wander off into third parties, which seems to hurt them both, though usually in different years.

It may not disadvantage the parties, but it does disadvantage the voters.  Rather than having a variety of third party candidates, it restricts our options to solely Republican or Democrat, and there is actually a fairly good chance that we could end up with just two Democrats if the Republican votes get spread too thinly.

The Primary election is supposed to allow each party to choose its candidate for the November election.  This basically says choose the two we like best at the beginning of the year, then let them duke it out in the ads.

[DumbAss Tanker]

It may not disadvantage the parties, but it does disadvantage the voters. 

I absolutely agree.  It's a complete travesty, and a mockery of the very idea of free elections. 

However, just looking at it tactically and only as far as the two parties go, I don't really see a vehicle by which two Dems could end up running with no Republican, that seems to be the one thing it would not facilitate.  At the same time, it tilts the scales very much in favor or complete and utter RINO GOP candidates.

[bkg]

I absolutely agree.  It's a complete travesty, and a mockery of the very idea of free elections. 

So have "voter intent" laws, the complete lack of ID registration and voter fraud that has been happening for decades. This just turns the temp up another degree.

However, just looking at it tactically and only as far as the two parties go, I don't really see a vehicle by which two Dems could end up running with no Republican, that seems to be the one thing it would not facilitate.  At the same time, it tilts the scales very much in favor or complete and utter RINO GOP candidates.

Something is buried somewhere to benefit someone...

[DumbAss Tanker]

So have "voter intent" laws, the complete lack of ID registration and voter fraud that has been happening for decades. This just turns the temp up another degree.

Yeah, no argument at all with you on that one.

[Celtic Rose]

I absolutely agree.  It's a complete travesty, and a mockery of the very idea of free elections. 

However, just looking at it tactically and only as far as the two parties go, I don't really see a vehicle by which two Dems could end up running with no Republican, that seems to be the one thing it would not facilitate.  At the same time, it tilts the scales very much in favor or complete and utter RINO GOP candidates.

As I read the law, the two candidates that get the highest percentage of the votes are the only ones in the November elections, so, theoretically, if you had two popular democrat candidates who split the 58% or so of the votes in California (I think that is the percentage of the registered Democrats), and the remaining 42% of the votes were spread out over several Republican Candidates ( I think we had seven this year), you could end up with both Democrats getting more total votes than any of the Republicans.  

I'll admit that more RINO candidates is the more likely result, but we could end up with two Democrat Candidates.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Thanks, that clarifies things.  That kind of election ticket sounds like a remarkable bowl of s***soup, but I see what you mean.