E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
From NBC's Alexander Rosen
California voters will have the chance today to decide on a measure that could drastically overhaul the way that candidates are elected in both state and congressional elections.
If passed, Proposition 14 would eliminate party primaries in favor of one free-for-all primary. The top-two candidates, regardless of party affiliation, would then face off in a general election. This resembles the system currently used in Washington state.
Proponents of the measure argue that it will make elections fairer for voters and would reduce partisanship by eliminating what can be polarizing primaries, in which candidates are forced to play to an activist base.
"Proposition 14 will return power to voters by allowing open access in party elections, regardless of party affiliation, or unafffiliation," said Amanda Fulkerson, communications director for Californians for an Open Primary, a group campaigning for Prop 14. The group’s Web site YesOn14OpenPrimary.com contends that the measure will give independent and third-party voters more power in future elections.
But opponents disagree.
"Proposition 14 is like a Trojan Horse that needs to be stopped," said Christina Tobin, a Libertarian candidate for California Secretary of State and chairwoman of StopTopTwo.org, an anti-Prop 14 Web site.
The group is upset because "only two candidates will appear on the November ballot, even two candidates from the same party, and write-in candidates will no longer be allowed," it writes on the site, adding, "Currently in the November election each party’s candidates competes against each other along with any independents, giving voters more than two choices along with the write-in option."
It could, however, be an uphill battle for Tobin and opponents. A May Public Policy Institute of California poll showed a majority of voters intended to vote for the measure -- 60% said they were for it; 27% said they were against; with an additional 13% undecided.
Leave a Comment:
I'd have to give this some more thought, but at first glance, it seems like you'd just be replacing a "polarizing primary" with a potentially even more polarizing general election.
Assuming the top two candidates WERE from the same party, would either party really want to be debating themselves in November?
A lot of you out there have a lot better grasp of these things than I do - will be interested in hearing your thoughts.
Bad idea unless one intends to vote for someone in the opposite party in the primaries so bad that their party candidate can more easily beat them in the general election. Actually we can do that now in CA. Simply ask for a provisional ballot for the other party. Mixing is currently not allowd but that is the whole idea of a primary election. Narrowing down the selection offered by each party to go to the general election.
Prop 16 is, indeed, a Trojan horse.
In California if you are registered as a Democrat or a Republican you get a ballot with which ever party you are with. Only if you are registered nonpartisan can you get a provisional ballot. As far as I know this is the rule.
So your stuck unless your nonpartisan.
Not sure I agree with this specific proposal, but in general, primaries are quite disadvantageous to centrist candidates. While I disagree with disallowing write in votes, proposals like this could help bridge the partisan gap in Washington and elsewhere. Can't say it will probably help California much, as I think most of the problems there stem from government by referendum.
I hate this proposition and I am keeping my fingers crossed that the voters see through this crazy scheme and say "No". Unfortunatley, proponents for prop 14 have spent a lot of money on ads trying to convince voters that it's a good idea.
I voted "No" for all the propositions on the ballet. Not one of them is a good idea.
What a crazy idea. It sounds as bad as the Oklahoma (I think) wanting to do away with voters and have the old gray beards in a smoke-filled room decide who is elected. I remember my days of Calif voting with endless propositions many of which were just off the wall nuts but the loudest voice with the most money could convince plenty of voters that it had merits worthy of either yes or no.
Watching Countdown and Rachel Maddow and laughing like crazy. Birther nutcase Oralie Taitz (spell check won't catch this one) could actually win the GOP nomination and republicans are petrified if she does she'll drag the entire state ballot down the tubes--they just figured out she's a problem in the last week per one of my favorites, Lawrence O'Donnell. The Tea Party Express and the Tea Party Nation are fighting about whose more "tea worthy" and so on. Up next on Rachel was the chicken lady and the prohibitionist and the basketball coach's son; Rachel stated that in NV, you can vote "None of the Above" and the Nevado show host/reporter commented that NONE of the above has nearly won several elections. You just can't make this stuff up.
Chuck Todd did a terrific job summarizing the Arkansas primary, he really does know his numbers and what's behind them.
have a good evening, think I'll settle in for some more laughs.