I have not decided how I like this one yet, but I’m throwing it out for your evaluation.
In another indication of how frustrated voters have grown with politics as usual, California — home of initiative-happy democracy — is considering a radical overhaul.
On June 8, voters will decide the fate of a ballot measure that would replace traditional primaries in state and Congressional elections with, effectively, two rounds of voting. All candidates would run in the first round, and the top two vote-getters — regardless of party affiliation, or unaffiliation — would then face each other in the general election. Voters’ ultimate choice could be two Republicans or two Democrats, or two candidates with high name recognition, or deep pockets, or populist appeal.
Supporters, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado, both Republicans, have been promoting the measure — Proposition 14 — as a kind of electoral panacea, saying it could encourage political moderates and increase turnout in primaries where hard-line candidates often win. And in a state saddled with a $19 billion deficit, high unemployment and low morale, the promise of new blood in Sacramento seems to be a potent one; the latest polls show the measure favored by a majority of voters, and support growing.
“I think people are disappointed in their government,” Mr. Maldonado said. “And that’s why they are supporting this.”
But political parties hate the idea.
“There is zero evidence to suggest the initiative would have the results its proponents claim,” said Ron Nehring, the chairman of the California Republican Party. “We firmly believe that initiative will limit choice.”
Proposition 14 has already performed a miracle, unifying the Democratic and Republican Parties in this polarized state capital. Both have joined a catch-all opposition that includes the state’s Green Party, its Libertarians, the American Independent Party, the socialist Peace and Freedom Party, members of the “birther” movement, and Cindy Sheehan, the liberal antiwar activist.
Small parties, in particular, are unhappy with the proposition, saying it would box them out of general elections, which they say would most likely be populated by better-known and better-financed candidates…
Inserted from <NY Times>
On the plus side, this could increase voter turnout. In the minus side, it tends to marginalize the extremes of both left and right. I think I’m against this, because I think anyone who can gather the necessary signatures has a right to be on the general ballot. What do you think?
6 Responses to “California: A Novel Initiative”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I like it and I think keeping the kooks out from both sides is a good idea. Plus, it would encourage voter turnout since they only have to vote in one primary. These run-off primaries is what discourages voters and I don’t blame them. They are probably thinking “how many times do I have to vote to get my guy in?” I like how we do it in IL – if you’re a registered Dem or Repub, you only get to vote in that primary election. It eliminates a lot of unnecessary voting I believe and prevents these stupid run off elections. As long as you’re registered for that party, that’s the only election you can vote in for the primaries. It shortens the time we have to listen to all that crap from the candidates too.
Lisa those are good points. I’m still undecided.
I don’t see why marginalizing the extremes is a bad thing. That’s just what we need to get the Republican party back down from its current orbit around Pluto and make it a sane party again.
It sounds like all candidates would have a chance in the first round, but again, including minor candidates in the general is more of a bad thing than a good thing. It can deny victory to the side which is in the majority by splitting the vote — see the recent election in Hawaii where the Republican won despite not getting a majority, because the Democrats ran two candidates.
I haven’t arrived at a definite viewpoint about this either, but at first sight it looks like a good ideo.
Infidel, isn’t the GOP’s orbit around Pluto (love it!) a good thing for progressives?
In the short term, yes — but parties always alternate in power sooner or later, and eventually the Republicans will start winning again. It’s too dangerous to risk having the nutjobs still in charge of it when that happens.
Also, a healthy democratic system needs two sane parties. I wouldn’t trust the Democrats with power indefinitely.
Infidel, my goal is the demise of the GOP and it’s placement by a progressive party to the left of the current Democrats, which are already two notches right of center.