1
what's the purpose but only to make the GOP extinct in CA?

2
whose behind this proposition?

3 I think the Proposition violates the freedom of association guaranteed in the US Constitution.  Parties are voluntary associations and should be allowed to choose their own standard-bearers.  If this stands, they need to officially declare all of these offices "non-partisan."

4

what next from these people. like they dont have enough problems as it is.

5 Basically, this is saying my private organization can't hold its own elections...how can that be kosher?  Oh, I know, kosher is being made illegal:
http://tinyurl.com/2ucwas6

6 O/T but wow, so apparently Bill Maher does follow a religion!

7 Isn't Louisiana this way?

8

I voted against this but I'm really curious as to why the California Republican Party spent ZIP, ZERO, NADA in educating people against it.

9

This is where I get in touch with my inner Lex Luthor from Superman I and hatch my plan to detonate a nuke in the San Andreas fault line to make Nevada beachfront property.

 

10 POTUS and VPOTUS elections were like this before 1800.  Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution--because the didn't exist at all in 1787

11 whose behind this proposition?

Posted by: fishdicks at June 09, 2010 02:31 PM (uFokq)

The Republican lieutenant governor and former Assembly & State Senate member Abel Maldonado.

12

THIS IS NUTS.

13 Not a lawyer and don't have any idea about case law on this, but aren't open primaries of any kind a violation of one's right to peaceably assemble?

14
The shit can't hit the fan soon enough in that state.

15 ,,,,,because THEY ( political parties ) did not exist until after the Constitution was written and published for debate / ratification

Public sentiment was strongly against 'faction' -- read the Federalist Papers

16

what's the purpose but only to make the GOP extinct in CA?

The way the legislative districts are jerrymandered in CA pretty much ensures that the GOP is already extinct here, at least as a statewide force.  I voted against 14, but given the solid lock that Dems have on statewide politics here, I did consider voting for it just as a possible way to upend the table.  I mean, it's more likely it would hurt the ruling Dems than the already-moribund GOP.

17 Isn't Louisiana this way?

Yes, yes it is.

18

The Republican lieutenant governor and former Assembly & State Senate member Abel Maldonado.

awesome!

19 I saw this this morning. With such a broad sweeping proposition one wonders why we never heard a damn thing about it from that "free press".

As for it being found unconstitutional I think a lot will depend on how they control access to the ballot.

In any case this is close to what I would have liked to have done for the presidential primaries except instead of culling all but the top 2, they need to have more than one culling vote and work from the bottom up in culling.

20 Washington State just changed to this or something very similar recently.  The issue if I remember was the state claimed they should not be putting on and paying for elections for political parties.  If the Dems wanted a specific candidate, they should find a way to have just that one candidate and the state should not pay the cost of determining who the Dem or Republican candidate in the general should be.  So this is what they came up with.

21

If this goes through CA will become the next Michigan/Detroit all Dem all the time experiment.  Hell they are already half way there.

Boned indeed.

22
this is about as anti-American as the bill they're trying to push through to take away Congressional redistricting rights from the states' legislators.

23 What happened with the SC open primary proposition?  Would it affect Dems voting for Grahmnesty?

24 the new proposition means that it's possible -- and in some years likely -- that there will be no Republican candidate in the general election.

In States like CA, NY, MA, et al it is very likely every election.

25 Washington State already does this, with exactly the results you describe. Last Seattle Mayor primary, there were no Republicans, and the top two went on to the general - and no one knew their party affiliation . It's a pain in the ass, and will have the affect of depressing turnout even further - many people will not take the time to do the increased due diligence required to discriminate  each office-seekers positions, whereas party affiliation gives you a broad idea, and you can then determine the details. I don't particularly care for it, but it's sold as an "egalitarian" improvement. But it only serves to obfuscate the process further.

26 I am so boned.

27
How does a Republic turn into a Democracy?

Like this.

28 And there's a reason it's popular in Democrat controlled states - it allows them to maintain their one-party control while hiding it from sight.

29

The Republican lieutenant governor and former Assembly & State Senate member Abel Maldonado.

awesome!

Posted by: fishdicks at June 09, 2010 02:35 PM (uFokq)

Oh, and the radio ads were sponsored by "Gov. Schwarzenegger's California Dream Team Committee."

I'm sorry, should I have warned your to get a vomit bucket before posting that?

30 Given that many states functionally reduce electoral choice to two candidates, this is just a stricter application of the principle. Now all candidates in the People's Republic will be from the party of the people. @22: they're right. But that means that parties should select candidates via internal caucus/elections, and the state should let unlimited or barely-limited parties play.

31 The article was not very clear about what exactly the proposition does. Does it bar reference to the candidate's political party from appearing on the ballot? If so, it would not seem to be violating the U.S. Constitution, because it does not appear to stop anyone from associating together for a purpose, but rather just does not give the political affiliation of the candidates. Though what the Cali. Constitution says about this I have not a clue.

I can see both parties getting pissed about this, since I suspect plenty of voters vote for candidates based on whether there is a D or an R after the candidate's name, and confusion could result in "misplaced" votes.

32 I think this will be found unconstitutional, but I'm nowhere near informed enough to really have a good idea about that.

Some of us spoke about this on a thread last night. I don't think this will be found un-Constitutional. What it will do is force parties to hold private pre-primaries, which could be done cheaply via the internet an other ways.

But, this is what you get with California, which moves closer to an un-American, whim-of-the-masses democracy with every passing year.

BTW, political parties are not Constitutional entities at the federal level and have no official part in American governmental structure.  Of cousre, that says nothing about the state level and what the states can decide for themselves, but the fact that California is insinuating itself into the decisions of people is par for the course for that center of retardation.

33

This means more CA plates driving around Texas for sure.

34 Remember Edwin Edwards vs. David Duke?

35 Well, if the right puts fewer candidates up for election then their portion of the vote may not split as much.  The net effect may not be what is predicted.  Leftists like their lost causes so if we can get a green, and a socialist, and a progressive, and a unionist, and a transgender cake farter going against a Tea Partier and a Republican then we might be surprised which ones end up on the final ballot.  A few Potemkin candidates is all it would take.  Most Dems only have a 50-50 chance of pulling the right lever when there are only two candidates in the race even under the best of circumstances.

At any rate, we are at the point where we need to seriously consider selling California to Mexico to balance our budget anyway.  Half of them won't even have to change citizenship.

36 What happened with the SC open primary proposition?

It never showed up on the ballot as the State Party had listed on their web site. The SC primaries will remain open primaries.

This vote is much much more than simply open primaries. It is not even a real primary.

It is a single runoff election between all candidates.

37 This isn't a ripe situation for voter fraud and ACORN/Union phony voter  registrations/voting?

38 and in some years likely -- that there will be no Republican candidate in the general election.

I would think its most years likely in CA.  OTOH, its pretty rare when an R has a chance in a general election in that state.

39

I think this will be found un;constitutional, but I'm nowhere near informed enough to really have a good idea about that.

Sadly not Ace. Louisiana passes constitutional muster, and what Cali voters have been fooled into voting for (one last parting stab in the back from Ah-nold the traitor) mimics Louisiana. I expect the same level of political chicanery and corruption soon.

40

Hey ace-

Don't worry your pretty little head over this, Chief.

Much like anti-Semitism, it will probably go away if you just ignore it!

...or better yet, what if you just declare it not to be.

Even Better.

41 21 In any case this is close to what I would have liked to have done for the presidential primaries except instead of culling all but the top 2, they need to have more than one culling vote and work from the bottom up in culling.
_______________

I could see the attraction of that if you started with, say, sixteen contenders and had steel-cage no-holds-barred wrestling matches for the primaries.

42 ParisParamus:

Your private organization can do whatever it wants.  You Whigs can hold seventeen subprimaries to your heart's content.  It just won't be able to make the state pay for it.

And I don't really see what the Constitution (unless ace is talking about the California State Constitution) has to do with this.  Parties appear no where in the Constitution.  The founders weren't really fans of them (they called them 'factions').

I haven't really thought about this enough to have an opinion on it (I don't live in California), but I'm not sure it even matters.  If you can't scrape up enough to get into the top two in an open primary, how are you going to win a general?

I mean, if you can't beat, not one but two democrats, what's the difference how many democrats run in the general?

Success in the open primary will come down to party discipline.  The fewer candidates a party has in the open primary, the greater the chance that party has of getting a candidate in the general.

43

And the article is just wrong:

CA voters were long used to so-called open primaries, where voters could choose between political parties during a primary election. Voters would not have to register by party, meaning anyone could be involved in both parties' primaries. A voter might cast a ballot for a GOP SEN candidate, a Dem GOV candidate and a Green Party House contender.

Not long at all. That arrangement only lasted one primary before being overturned. As Justice Scalia bluntly stated, it was tyranny to tell a political party non-members must be allowed to vote in its primary elections.

44 This is terrible for the GOP in California. Democrats have a massive advantage in voter registrations. They will control the primary elections. Most general elections will be centrist Democrat vs. liberal Democrat. Just what a state on the brink of insolvency needs. /sigh

45

I think it should happen. Awesome.

If a republican is not on the ballot at all (boohoo!), it's because the goober could not even manage 2nd place in a general ballot against 5 democrats, 2 greens and one communist.

So it's not like he was going to win anyway. Who cares?

If he has half a chance in the general election, he should not have too many issues pulling 2nd in a general primary.

In the mean time, it could help conservatives in that state. Not only because the conservative candidates would be fewer (and split the vote less), but because once you toss party affiliation in the trash can - in a heavily heavily democrat state - you've got a better chance at getting independants and moderate dems to vote for the individual candidate, without the party monickers bringing a whole bag of idiotic assumptions like 'LE RACISTE!' and such.

46
Imagine if in November 2008 we had the choice between Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton.

That is exactly what this proposition would do on a national level.

47 Of course, neither party will like it one tiny bit.

48

_{Success in the open primary will come down to party discipline.}

What Up!?

49 What can I say, teh Crazy is strong here...

50 Soon CA will be in fact a single Party State. They can change the name and makeup of their legislature to a single body with a central committee.

They can call it the Duma. They can change the selection of the Governor from a vote by the people to a vote by the central committee and call him the Secretary instead of Governor.

They can eliminate private businesses and make them all State owned and controlled.

Then they will be where all Democrats have wanted to be since FDR.

51

CA republicans have so little control and influence as it stands, it is hard to see how this could erode thier power even more. 

With this election, independents and people who decline to state a party for primary registration, now have a chance to  participate the primary system.   While it is true that a general election could have two people of the same party, such a situation would indicate that the Republican failed to capture the interest of his/her party and the independents. 

I can't say it is a great solution, but the status quo sucks so bad that I was willing to give it a try.  After all, Arnold was for it and he is a Republican right?  (Just kidding.)

What we really need is the redstricting reform that was passed to be implemented so that there are competitive districts. 

 

 

 

52 It may be constitutional, but this just disenfranchises the minority parties by default. 70% of the population leans Democrat vs 30% leaning R in one state for example. It wont matter about party discipline if you simply don't have the numbers to get that person into the run-off, even if the state is nearly completely run by Ds already (into the ground).

53 They also passed a proposition where they must stick their head up their ass before voting. 

54 Let's get all our CA morons on a train, plane, or automobile and let CA rot in hell. It wants to be Detroit. Let's let nature take its course.

55
The founders weren't really fans of them (they called them 'factions').

okay, dunce, that's what they meant in the Federalists papers.

56 The only demand that I would make is that California show the minimal amount of integrity and no longer call the pre-election election a "primary", since it isn't.  There is nothing "primary" about it, as "primary" refers to political parties and their selections for candidates for the real election.  If that no longer exists, as with this asinine California law, then there is no longer any "primary".  It is the first general election of two.

57

If a republican is not on the ballot at all (boohoo!), it's because the goober could not even manage 2nd place in a general ballot against 5 democrats, 2 greens and one communist.

So it's not like he was going to win anyway. Who cares?

Sadly, you have no understanding of the "David Duke effect", better called the Evin Edwards Effect, where an entrenched and corrupt Democrat incumbent discreetly supports a crank in the primary and "chooses" his general election opponent. Entropy, you just don't get it.

58
only the top 2 candidates would advance to a general election, regardless of party.

How on earth is this part constitutional??? If the results are 34/34/32 the populace can't vote on candidate #3?

59 I saw it on the ballot and was like WTF. Of course I voted against it but knew it would pass.

60
Unconstitutional?  See section 4, article 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and (etc.)...

I'd say right there it's clearly not kosher. 

If that's how they do it in Louisiana and Washington then it ought to be voided on the same grounds. 

61 as a guy from Georgia who drove all around that state because i just wanted to see it. it's sad to see such a beautiful place turn out the way it is.

62 Under this scenario, it makes little sense to bother with a primary at all. Let anyone run and winner take all. Oh, oops, it's so the Dems can stack the deck against Democracy. By bad.

63

That is exactly what this proposition would do on a national level.

It's not being proposed on a national level.

I'm not sure it's exactly what it would produce either... but that's moot.

64 Other than the fact that it'll severely limit options in the general election - effectively killing any minor party candidates. I don't really have a huge problem with this.

65 This also keeps republicans from calling out the dems in the general--discussing what they are doing, shining the light. It will be informationally like watching CBS/NBC/ABC in every election. A informational blackout.

It really may back fire in a few years when the election will be between La Raza vs Mexicanas

66 I'm having trouble understanding how this proposition -- or law, I guess, now -- isn't just the majority of the voters deciding to strip the minority of voters of their right to vote for candidates they support.

That's exactly what it is. The majority being the apathetic middle.
That's not how it was sold.
I live in California and prudently voted NO.
California already had laws that if you didn't want to affiliate, you could "decline to state" party, and then participate in whatever primary you wanted come primary time.

I think the ultimate goal of this legislation was to wreck havoc on the party's ability to determine candidates, and, further disenfranchise conservatives by essentially guaranteeing that only one conservative leaning candidate will run, like them or not, run two and sayonara main ticket. This kind of renders useless any party involvement for the non-politicians. (I can't go to functions and sway them conservative, because my vote as a "Republican" is meaningless, their base can be anyone)
The end result will likely be that more candidates are squishes who believe nothing, because they are separated from the vengeance of the base by no longer having the possible retribution that is partisan primaries.  In this way the middle has declared differing incompatible ideologies be damned they are tired of partisan divide, and rather than try and make a center party, they just took away everyone's party.

67

If I recall the stats correctly, CA is actually fairly evenly split between conservatives and leftards.  The lefties are concentrated in the urban Bay Area and Los Angeles, while the hinterlands are pretty thoroughly red.  What gives the Dems their power in the state is their control over the drawing of districts, which are a masterpiece of partisan jerrymandering.

If this is true, the implementation of open primaries could only hurt the Dems.

68
Anything that "passes muster" in Louisiana should be viewed as suspect.

69 61 Let's get all our CA morons on a train, plane, or automobile and let CA rot in hell. It wants to be Detroit. Let's let nature take its course.

A Moron Airlift, Great Escape?  . 

The Dems have had de facto rule in Cali for the past several decades.  This seals the deal.  Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin. 

In the end, there will be only chaos.

70 IMO I think people thought this was to be where you could get a Dem or Eepub ballot no matter how you register.  I'm just guessing here.but at first that is what I thought the Prop was.  You have to read the entire thing.

71

Despite opposition from party leaders, voters approved Proposition 14 by a 54%-46% margin. The measure would allow voters to pick candidates from any political party during a primary; only the top 2 candidates would advance to a general election, regardless of party.

Correct me if i'm wrong maroons but isn't this Brittains election process?

Do the folks in California understand the implications of this prop?

Won't this lead to a shit load more shenannigans?

 

72 Unconstitutional?  See section 4, article 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and (etc.)...

I'd say right there it's clearly not kosher. 

Posted by: dandoz at June 09, 2010 02:49 PM (WULfn)

Sadly, a state can have a Republican form of government that allows for whim-of-the-masses democracy.  It violates the spirit of the federal Constitution, but not the law defined in it.  States are given huge leeway in the federal Constitution to become leftist hellholes, if they so choose.  But that's why the federal government isn't allowed to bail states out when they do that and run themselves into bankruptcy.

73 OOPS  Should be Repub not Eepub.  

74

This is like kids playing baseball and soccer and there are no winners and losers so nobody's self esteem is injured.

I really don't think these people can be salvaged.

75 That has been the case here in Detroit for years.  The general election is between 2 Democrats.  Not that a Republican COULD get elected in Detroit, or a white person for that matter.  As is plain to see this electoral system has worked wonders for the city.  5 terms for Coleman Young, a brief respite and then 2 terms for Kwame Kilpatrick albeit his second term was interrupted by a few "issues".

76

_{*waves at adam*}

77 Schwartezenegger won't sign off on it.

78

isn't just the majority of the voters deciding to strip the minority of voters of their right to vote for candidates they support.

Um... I have a right to vote for candidates I support in a general election!?!?!

Fuck all, who do I sue over '08? DISENFRANCHIZED! It's my money and I want it now!! (Yes, even on a state level).

You know what else has that same effect? A 2 party winner-take-all system. That's what.

but because the two Republicans have the highest vote totals, Democrats are forced to pick a Republican in the general.

Exactly. It's California. Why you bitchin? I'm not saying we adopt this system in Texas. Let the wacko's have their way if this is what they want.

79 It's my party and I'll cry if I want....Wait! Wha!

80 Shouldn't they also then outlaw parties and factions from the process of government, as well, as in caucusing and majority/minority controls?  Every elected official would then become an independent?  Why should they be forced to run without a party then govern as part of one, where the party politics could really corrupt things and make sure there, in effect, are no other parties?

81 I'm not seeing the constitutional problem here. Parties are not mentioned in the constitution. This doesn't outlaw them. People can still freely associate all they want. People can vote for whomever they like in the primary (can they only vote for one person in the primary? That would help ensure greater representation in the general election). Just because some SCOTUS decisions have given parties some type of status doesn't mean they should have it.

82 So the primary becomes its own general election of sorts. I dunno, it's no more insane than the rest of California law. Can we give them back to Mexico yet?

83

2 terms and 2 stints for Kwame Kilpatrick

---------

FIFY

 

84

It violates the spirit of the federal Constitution

How the hell does this violate the spirit of the federal constitution? Back then senators were appointed. And they didn't have quite the 2 party system we have today.

85 I think we need Norah O'Donnell to explain this to us.  She seems to be in tune with gray matter impaired metaphysical thought processes.

86

I read that the CA Repub party will simply caucus before the primary to pick the candidate that they want.  So in the end, probably not much change to electoral politics after all in that the party still will be the gatekeeper to the candidates on the ballot. 

For info, in the 2008 primary, Hillary got 2.6M votes and Barry 2.1M.  John McC took 1.238 and Mitt took 1.013M.

 

 

87 If one of the candidates gets 78.1% of the vote, is there still a run-off?

88 These people are evil, plain and simple.

89

How on earth is this part constitutional??? If the results are 34/34/32 the populace can't vote on candidate #3?

WTF part of the constitution says fuckall about only choosing between two political parties, called Republican and Democrat??

If the results of the primary are 55/45, during the general the populace can't vote on candidate #2?

90

In other news:

Three days after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, the Dutch government offered to help.

It was willing to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms, and it proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands.

The response from the Obama administration and BP, which are coordinating the cleanup: “The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’” said Geert Visser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston.

The Incompetence Never Ends with Obama, the buck doesn't stop either.

91

It violates the spirit of the federal Constitution

I don't know if thats the case, it just sounds like it creates quite the cluster fuck, something Ca. cannot deal with right now. Getting outta Cali might be your best bet...is Snake Biltzken still available for dramatic escapes?

 

92

If I recall the stats correctly, CA is actually fairly evenly split between conservatives and leftards. 

It used to be. And as I have joked before, four small atomic bombs--south central LA, West Hollywood, San Francisco, and Oakland/Berkeley---would make this a patriot state again. Heck, it would make us Arizona West. We'd still have lame RINOs like Maldonado and Ah-nold, but that mimics Juan McLame.

But what did Cali in was (1) The decline of aerospace and defense related industry post Cold War, which led to the loss of the patriots who balanced out the pinkos, (2) The rise of "creative" industries like entertainment and software, (3) the rise of teh gheys, related to (2) aforementioned, and (4) the illegal alien influx, brought on by (a) shortsighted greedheads and Hispandering immigration romantics in the California GOP and (b) clever Demunists, who realized they were getting a new and enlarged welfare state lumpenproletariat.

93

This will end out to be just fine.

When the inevitable chaos grips the country, California will probably be occupied by peacekeeping forces from Chile and Peru because it's on the Pacific. (We in the East ought to prepare to welcome our Estionian and Slovenian betters.)

It'll take awhile, but things'll improve.

94 The founders weren't really fans of them They joined and formed them readily enough. Posted by: [can't write your name, as it comes across as spam] at June 09, 2010 02:50 PM (FkKjr) One of the main differences between the architecture of the US government and all others in the world is that political parties are not Constitutional entities, at all. The Founders generally abhorred the idea of political parties as official parts of governmental structure, which is why the individualism of the US is so ingrained in our nation ... or has been, at least. I think it is a huge mistake to conflate extra-Constitutional parties that serve limited purposes with governmentally sanctioned parties, as the rest of the world has and as their governments are formed, at the core. I can be an individualist but still play a team sport because I enjoy it - which is what you are describing. That said, the Founders would be 1000% against this asinine California manipulation of the electoral process. The state should have as little to do with party primaries as possible. It isn't the state's business, in any way at all.

95 This is no shit ALREADY THE LAW in Washington State. Obviously the results have been Dems running against each other in the Seattle city council and such, but no weird statewide results... yet.

I do NOT think this is good for CA, but everyone should at least take a look at how things have gone in WA as part of the analysis.

96 There's an eazy-peazy way to do this:

Brackets:

The top eight candidates go into a runoff -

, you vote on four races

it's the eight seed against the first seed

until you have a 5th versus a fourth.


The you get the semi-final a month later

winner of each pairing,  highest seed versus lowest seed

Then you're at 2 candidates

The election is in November

-

97 #26

I don't know the proposition you are referring to, but the way it works in SC right now is you can vote in either primary you like. . .Republican or Democrat.  You can choose which party primary you want to vote in literally at the time of your voting. . .but you only get to vote in one primary.

Now, if you want to participate in Limbaugh "Operation Chaos" like games and vote in a primary purely in an attempt to skew the nominee of the political party you dislike, so be it, but it will cost you the ability to vote in your own primary.

98

Why even bother with political parties or elections.

i am with Tom Friedman, lets just turn into a brutal authoritarian dictatorship already.

99

by the way, PA is a closed election. you can only vote for your party in the primaries.

From what i understand most state operate differently

100 Join The Party, comrades! Let us boldly go forward into the Glorious Future!!

101 lets just turn into a brutal authoritarian dictatorship already.

Yessss!

102

 The Founders generally abhorred the idea of political parties as official parts of governmental structure, which is why the individualism of the US is so ingrained in our nation ... or has been, at least.

Thomas Jefferson sleeps with his slaves.

103 I know a liberal dem (the same guy in the Navy who said he would proudly shoot civilians if ordered to) who probably has a huge woody over this law.

He's a big advocate of doing away with the 10th amendment, abolishing all state and local government, and having one huge federal government (run by democrats, of course).

104 So it's now impossible/illegal to have a (literal) third Party on the ballot in CA. Who wants this? Who the fuck goes out of their way to limit our options at the ballot box? Evil.

105
okay, then how will it be fair for, say, the CA State Assembly to elect its leaders?

106 I don't think this will have much effect on top-level races, but given that this is California, it will probably make politics at the local level an all- Democrat-all-the-time game. Which will simply hasten the downfall of the most fucked-up state in the nation. Bring it on.

107

Um... I have a right to vote for candidates I support in a general election!?!?!

Posted by: Entropy at June 09, 2010 02:55 PM (IsLT6)

Our courts have ruled, many, many times over the past two years, that you don't have the right to even know that the candidates in any election are actually eligible to hold the positions they are seeking.  Many "conservatives" have supported that determination with great vigor.  Maybe DrewM or Malor will pop up and explain that reasoning for us, since they think that no voter has the right to know that candidates are actually eligible and they try to make fun of anyone who disagrees with them.

108

How bout pistolis at 40 feet?

Good day Sir!

 

109

There's an eazy-peazy way to do this: Brackets:

First, do away with the parties for Republicans and Democrats. Then, assign people into one of four lifelong political organizations.

We could call them Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff and Slytherin if you'd like. (I prefer Patrick, Adams, Norris and Smythe. I'm a traditionalist that way.)

110 A recent example where such a system would have completely changed the outcome: the Massachusetts Senate race. Democrat Coakley received 311,000 votes; Democrat Capuano received 185,000, and Republican Scott Brown came in third at 145,000 votes. Under a Prop-14-like system, Brown would never have had the opportunity to pull the upset he did. The race would have been between Democrat Coakley and Democrat Capuano. I'd expect similar results in any locality that has lopsided party memberships. I'd expect the totals to be even more extreme. In a situation like that, your only choice if you want to have an effect on the election is to vote for someone in the majority party (in Massachusetts' case, for one of the Democrats).

111 110by the way, PA is a closed election. you can only vote for your party in the primaries.

And I like that.  Limits these type of shenanigans. 

112 Sadly not Ace. Louisiana passes constitutional muster, and what Cali voters have been fooled into voting for (one last parting stab in the back from Ah-nold the traitor) mimics Louisiana. I expect the same level of political chicanery and corruption soon.

Actually, the Supremes ruled that the LA law was unconstitutional as it pertained to the election of Senators and Representatives.  They have switched back to party primaries for those offices.

113 Why can't the parties still control which one of their members are entitled to run as party nominees?

In other words unless I win it nomination, why can't the Republican party stop me from running for office as a Republican?  I'd think it can. . .which means that there can still be only one Republican running at a time on the "primary".

In effect, it just means the Republican party would have to hold its own "pre-primary" to select the nominee for the State primary.

This just turns a one stop election into a two phase election.

114

OT:  Big 10 offers Nebraska membership, Texas rejoices.  Buncha whiney little bitches, don't let the door hit you in the ass, huskers.

115

With this election, independents and people who decline to state a party for primary registration, now have a chance to  participate the primary system.  

I'm sorry but in this case I really have to say Fuck the Independents.  If they want to bitch and moan about not being able to choose which Republican or Democrat they want to see on the general election ballot then they should join one of the parties and vote.  If you want to participate in a political parties selection you should be a member of the part.  The allow Independents to vote in party primaries is about as sensible as allowing foreigners to vote for our president.

Oh and I call bullshit on the "states funding political primaries".  It always seems that a lot of times the primary election is used by the state to put issues up to the public, making it a complete election and not soley a state funded political party election.

116 They should have put Thunderdome up as an initiative.  Two candidates enter, on candidate leaves.

117

Just launch the recall as soon as the election's over...if the state doesn't collapse in on itself within 6 months, suspend the recall movement.  Whatever they practice in California, it sure ain't politics like I'm accustomed to. 

118

Actually, the Supremes ruled that the LA law was unconstitutional as it pertained to the election of Senators and Representatives.  They have switched back to party primaries for those offices.

Ah, I was not precise enough; your point is well taken. See also Term Limits.

119

We have a top two primary here in Washington State - the biggest unintended (?) side effect is destroying political parties by removing any ability to control who the party's candidate is.  With an open primary, anyone can claim any party affiliation. I can appear on the ballot as R or D, and all the party can do is try to get the word out which candidates they feel are actually theirs.  I have a feeling this may devolve into everyone claiming to be whatever party is prevelent in that district

 

120

@52: "Imagine if in November 2008 we had the choice between Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton."

It would have been better than November 2008 actually played out.  Hillary would have at least tried to beat Barack.

121 How's the voting going today in Rio Linda? 

122 It's democracy--mob rule. Not a republic ruled by law.

123

During the campaign, I heard people that were all for it and then complained that there werent's enough third parties on the ballot. This completely kills all of the third parties in CA. There will be only two republicans, democrats or one of each on the ballot for the general election..

We don't need more get-along moderates, we need more hyper-partisan hacks on both sides to make us up some gridlock. The "moderates" in Sacramento are killing the state with taxes and regulations.

124

BumperStickerist at June 09, 2010 03:04 PM (ruzrP)

Sounds like a round robin tournament with the poise and grace of a chinese firedrill on acid.

125 @fiatboomer

Dems were already running against each other for the Seattle City Council.  It's officially non-partisan (yeah, right).  The ballot doesn't mention their parties but I have lived in the Seattle area for almost 15 years now and I can only remember 1 Republican on the council in that time. 

This is also the law in Louisiana, in fact when it was adopted her it was called the Louisiana primary system, and was originally vetoed by Gary Locke who forced the Montana style primary system.  The veto was overturned and this became law.  It was challenged in the US Supreme Court and upheld as constitutional.

126

Imagine if in November 2008 we had the choice between Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton."

Both of these candidates are extremely qualified, intelligent people.  The country would be in good hands with either of them. 

127

OT:  Big 10 offers Nebraska membership, Texas rejoices. 

That would mean the Big Ten would have more than ten teams.

128 I used to say what the fuck is wrong with you people in Cali.

I don't so much anymore, and just wish that chunk of real estate would fall into the ocean.

129 California is positive proof that you can fuck yourself in the ass!

130

let me the first to say that I have always thought that the Louisiana system worked quite well most of the time (the edwin edwards fiasco being a notable exception)   The "regular" system has surely produced many more disasters than the Louisiana system has.   And don't knock La. - this is the system that elected Bobby Jindal, remember. 

(okay, background - Loozyanna politics was traditionally never rep. vs. dem, it was black dem vs. white dem, and this was how the white dem could lose the primary but still win the general when all the Reps jumped in on his side)

But even given that sordid history it's still not any worse than the other way of doing things.

one other quirk that I'm not sure is in California's version - in Loozyanna, if anyone gets more than 50% in the primary, there is no runoff - game over, they win automatically.

131 Another way of looking at this is if CA was subject to title V of the Voting Rights Act they would never be able to do this.

They would have to get "permission" from the DOJ to do it.

That is why Title V of the voting rights act is blatantly unconstitutional.

132

OT: the stock market has tanked since Gibbsy started his daily press spew.

133 one other quirk that I'm not sure is in California's version - in Loozyanna, if anyone gets more than 50% in the primary,

It should be that way in all States and I think it is in already in most. If you get 50% it is impossible for any of the other candidates to have beaten you no matter what happens.

134 Sounds like an old time klan election to me. Wouldn't be anything new about that.

135

122 Democrat Coakley received 311,000 votes; Democrat Capuano received 185,000, and Republican Scott Brown came in third at 145,000 votes. Under a Prop-14-like system, Brown would never have had the opportunity to pull the upset he did. The race would have been between Democrat Coakley and Democrat Capuano.

Now we see the violence inherent in the system.

 

136 OT:  Big 10 offers Nebraska membership, Texas rejoices.  Buncha whiney little bitches, don't let the door hit you in the ass, huskers.

This will totally end the Big 12 conference, 6 of those will now move to the PAC-10.

137 On a related score in SC recall that this morning I said the Republican Gov Association requested Barrett drop out of the race and concede the runoff to Haley; this just in from The State newspaper:

U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett, R-Westminster, said today he has no plans to concede the GOP gubernatorial runoff to state Rep. Nikki Haley of Lexington.

Haley won 49 percent of the vote in TuesdayÂ’s Republican primary, just falling short of the 50 percent-plus-one-vote total that she needed to win the GOP nomination outright.

138

We already have this in Washington and I am not buying that party leaders are against it. What it means is that the parties caucus before the primary and pick who they want to run. They can't stop anyone from running but they can make sure they won't get party support if they don't adhere to the cacous winner.

I think the party leaders love it because it gives them more control and eliminates a costly and embarrassing primary fight.

139 98 If one of the candidates gets 78.1% of the vote, is there still a run-off?

It looks like it. See the text over at ballotpedia.

While we're on the subject, write-ins aren't allowed in the run-off.

Further: Louisiana got rid of their open primary, because it was even better for incumbents than the closed system. That's the real problem -- with an incumbent, few (if any) members of their own party will run against them.

140 139

OT:  Big 10 offers Nebraska membership, Texas rejoices. 

That would mean the Big Ten would have more than ten teams.

Posted by: FireHorse at June 09, 2010 03:16 PM (cQyWA)

They already do  If you ever see the Big Ten logo you'll notice that in the empty spacing of the letters you see an 11.  Supposedly they talked to Texas as well.  I guess the Big 12 is hurting for money and could fall apart.  Kind of biting that commisioner in the ass from when he voted with the Big 10 and Pac 10 in keeping the BCS going and not voting for a Plus One or full blown playoff.  Both would have ended up generating more revenue for the participants.

141 #127, I agree with you.

This whole thing is stupid.  There is absolutely no point to political parties if the parties can't select their own nominees.

There is also no point to parties if any non-member can vote on who the party nominee is.

While anybody should be able to vote for any candidate they choose in an election, only party members should be permitted to vote in party primaries.

Note that if parties want to allow their members to simultaneously be members of other parties as well, I suppose they can do that. . .though I don't see why they would want to permit that.

142 So can anyone recommend a good state to move to that isn't nuts?

143 Here's the article on the Big 12 blowing it from Wetzel at Yahoo Sports.  I consider him a bit of an ass with a major anti-BCS boner, but he is mostly right on that so it is forgivable.

144 Great. Now at election time California gets the choice between the Communist Democrat and the Socialist Democrat.

145

If the results of the primary are 55/45, during the general the populace can't vote on candidate #2?

Posted by: Entropy at June 09, 2010 03:02 PM (IsLT6)

Sure they can, have you been following the FL Senate election? Rubio beat Crist in the primary, but both will appear on the final ballot.

Under this law, only two of the three running would be allowed on the final ballot - either Meeks or Crist. And all those LP, Greenies, etc running would be legally bared also.

Again, I can't see how this passes constitutional muster, especially with how ridiculous the courts have been about term limits.

146 BearFlag, South Carolina offers beaches, golfing, genteel southern living...and awesome political scandals. 

147
With an open primary, anyone can claim any party affiliation.
Exactly. So if a strong conservative appears, unions can run multiple phony conservatives (Reid ran one in Nevada) to dilute the conservative vote and give a win to the left.
It's a leftist cloaking device.

148 Ok, I know the attacks will come for this... but THINK about this. If Democrats have a hotly contested fight by 2 different liberal contenders... the Republicans just need to rally behind ONE of their own. Last night, we saw Brown win easily in his primary. Republicans were split 1mil for Whitty and .3mil for that asshole poizner. Brown and whitman would still go head to head in november if this thing was in effect. The only way this fucks republicans? If BOTH sides have equally contentious splits in votes. Say its Newsom-Villar-Whitman-Poizner. Liberals will vote Newsom, Conservatives vote Poizner. The two "moderates" would be Villar and Whitman, who would each still probably get a million votes. the far ends- newsom and poizner, would get less. or even better... Whitman would still garner a million, newsom 3/4 of a million, villar 3/4 of a million, poizner his piddly 300,000, indies another 500,000. Even though Dems have a huge advantage, they dont have TWICE the number of Republican registered voters. Conservatives need to think smart and exploit this. Another positive is it forces so-called libertarians and independents to PICK A FUCKING SIDE, early. If you want someone libertarianish, you pick one of hte winners. same for indies. It forces their hand. It also makes stupidity like what happened in Minnesota in 2008 impossible- those 20%ers hands would be forced. O/T- FUCK steve poizner, btw. rant all you want about whitman, but this crybaby cared more about winning than Brown LOSING in the fall- which is far more important. He is now waffling on supporting Whitman over Brown. Great. If anyone things a somewhat RINO is bad, or Arnold was bad, they have no CLUE what it will be like under a wholly-owned subsidiary of the unions, like Brown.

149 It looks to me like this is constitutional enough; there's nothing in the constitution about parties, there's nothing inherently destructive to minority opinion in this system that I can see, and the constitution specifically gives states the power to decide how elections will be held there. I don't know if I would prefer such a system over the usual party one, but it seems legal enough and worth a shot given how lousy the parties are.

150

Again, I can't see how this passes constitutional muster, especially with how ridiculous the courts have been about term limits.

Posted by: 18-1 at June 09, 2010 03:32 PM (7BU4a)

This wouldn't pass Constitutional muster for federal positions, but the courts would likely have no problem with it for internal state offices.

151 Let's get all our CA morons on a train, plane, or automobile and let CA rot in hell. It wants to be Detroit. Let's let nature take its course.

I appreciate the sentiment many forget we're even here. In all honesty, the strategic withdrawal from California has been going on for about 15 years (1/2 my family/friends gone), which is why the state is about to morph into full moonbat and crater. There's about 300 of us conservatives propping the state up from collapse giving the rest a chance skeedaddle. I personally estimate I've got 2-5 years left before moving out (2 = minimum Oh SHIT! We really need to go. 5 Maximum Why the fuck am I still here?) If this place goes tits up before that I may need a couch in Utah to sleep on for a while.

152 Worst part is, you can already vote in the primaries for whichever party you want, if you register as 'no party affiliation', as I do.  I was given the choice yesterday to vote with the R or D ballots.

153 btw...people forget that in most elections Democrats are often split North V South- SoCal Dems don't like people like Newsom. NorCal Dems don't care for people like Villar. They are split geographically. Republicans have a moderate-con split, but that can be more easily overcome than the war between the Bay and LA.

154

I live in California and this is dreadful. What it means for people like me who live in a 60% Democrat area is that I will NEVER have a chance to vote for anyone except a Democrat...which means I don't vote.

Where I live is ALWAYS going to have two Dems at the top of the ticket. Under a "normal" primary, I can vote Republican to show my displeasure at what the Dems are doing. Under the new system I don't have that option. I can vote for the Dem or the other Dem. Wonderful.

It's going to work the same way for liberals living in heavily Republican areas of CA like the Sierra foothills and the Inland Empire. They'll never have a voice.

I hope this is thrown out by the courts. The GOP here is already threatening to select candidates via a caucus system to get around this, but I don't know how that will work.

155

O/T- FUCK steve poizner, btw. rant all you want about whitman, but this crybaby cared more about winning than Brown LOSING in the fall- which is far more important. He is now waffling on supporting Whitman over Brown.

Say what? His concession speech was gracious and he reiterated the need to defeat Moonbeam. And he gets it on illegal aliens, something Meg I sense still does not, although I will fully back Meg.

As for your open primary scenario where Demunists split and the GOP picks one candidate and sticks together, you are assuming a GOP establishment that is in touch and doesn't give us a Scuzzyfatass. Fatal error. Come to think of it, the Cali GOP gave us a hunky Scozzyflava in the form of Ah-nold.

156 @88 I think it was Swarzenegger that got it on the ballot in the first place.

157

If the parties really wanted it to be the way it was all they have to do is get their members to vote in the legislatures to force the political parties to pay for the primary elections and change the rules.  The political parties do not want to do that.  Taxpayers have been illegally paying for the parties' elections for years now because the parties are in charge of the state legislatures and make it that way.  They are getting hundreds of millions of dollars of free gifts in the form of elections from the taxpayers.

 

 

158 I cannot believe Californians voted for this RINO-backed horror.  California will never elect conservatives again under this disastrous law.  They'll all be a bunch of mealy-mouthed squishes whom nobody with any brains really wants. 

I think a major part of the problem was that on the ballot, it was misnamed as the "Increase Voter Participation" proposition.  In other words, its title was a lie and millions were fooled.

This would be one time in which I root for the Greens & the Peace & Freedom Party to sue California's ass off, along with Libertarians, the American Independent & Constitution Parties: all of them should be getting their court challenges ready as we speak.  This outrageous initiative has just basically nuked all of these parties in the State of California.

159 I have reviewed the case in which SCOTUS struck down the  LA Blanket Primary. (Foster vs Love). They struck the law down based on congress having the authority to regulate the election of Senators and House members and having set the election day on a specific date in November. 

With the blanket primary style of election it is possible (and happened many time in LA) that the final election was held in October because one of the candidates in the first primary got > 50% of the vote.

The simple fix for that is exactly what I recommended.  The elimination start from the bottom up until you get to the last two and hold that election on Nov 2.

Note that the ruling had NOTHING to do with Parties.

160 i am with Tom Friedman, lets just turn into a brutal authoritarian dictatorship already.
Is that a shot at me?

161 I doubt there is a Constitutional problem with this.  You get to vote for anyone at all in the primary.  If the results of the open primary gave you an elected official, instead of two nominees - don't think there would be a problem (might not be very smart - but it would probably pass constitutional muster). 

Refining it a bit by saying the top two go to a run-off doesn't really change much.

162 For no reason I can understand, Michael Medved*, is in love with this prop. *conservative (?) talk radio guy on a local conservative AM (870) station in Los Angeles.

163 #168 Its now leaking out today that he is waffling. Apparently he's considering running as a third party...he's "waiting to see if Meg sticks to conservative principles". He starts endorsing her and campaigning for her, I'll retract my FU. He leaks out hints of a 3rd run, screw him. For full disclosure I was for him UNTIL he held that ridiculous conference accusing Meg of inside political dealing and forcing him out of the race, AND hinting he may report it to the attorney general. YES... to Brown. Good going Steve. I decided at that point he was starting up the me-or-nobody crazytrain, and jumped to Meg.

164 They should have put Thunderdome up as an initiative.  Two candidates enter, on candidate leaves.
Yeah. And the process would run on pig shit.

165

For no reason I can understand, Michael Medved*, is in love with this prop.

*conservative (?) talk radio guy on a local conservative AM (870) station in Los Angeles.

Medved is a bit of a wuss. This is not surprising.

166 175 Michael Medved is, frankly, out to lunch on this one.

This thing should have been named the "Permit Democrats to Permanently Nominate A Bunch of Lindsay Grahams for Republicans in their Primaries" Proposition.

167

This effectively kills part of Prop 13, which the Dems have hated ever since it passed. The only power the Rs have in the assembly right now is to hold the line on the 2/3 majority needed to stop tax hikes. Since this will officially make us a one party state, the Dems will have their majority and the freedom to hike taxes at will. Because taxes here aren't high enough and everyone knows that to fix the budget the only solution is to raise taxes.

I hate my state.

168

 Because taxes here aren't high enough and everyone knows that to fix the budget the only solution is to raise taxes and increase spending.

Fixed to reflect actual Democrat ideas.

169
I don't see how the new system can be evaluated to be better or worse. 

What looms over this discussion is that California is almost broke.  It's in this situation because of stuff that it did to itself.

California needs to hit rock bottom and people need to suffer because of it before any meaningful recovery can start.

The same can be said for the country as a whole.

170 I'm part of the 46% that voted against this idiocy.  God help California, we're clearly too stupid to take care of ourselves.

171 This is as stupid as all the nonpartisan city elections a lot of places have had for years now, <i>because potholes are not Republican or Democrat!</i>. So, you end up with Democrats running against Democrats in some of the university towns like mine, and city councils move further to the left.     

Only thing worse than political parties is no parties, or one party. People are teh stupid. 

172  Let the Democrats own it, completely. The rest of you, get out while you can.

173 Open primaries are akin to letting the student body at USC pick the starting lineup for UCLA a week before the big game - or letting Rommel decide Patton's formations.  Makes no sense in football, makes no sense on the battlefield - and sure as hell makes no sense in elections.

174 The proponents say it gets rid of the extremes. The LA experience says it makes it worse. But as I said, if you work it from the bottom up it would get rid of that problem as well.

What I like about it (if you do from bottom up) is if you have a lot of candidates as the Republicans did in the last primary is that it gets rid of the spoilers and it helps to eliminate the candidate that most of the people don't support.

175 @121: "First, do away with the parties for Republicans and Democrats. Then, assign people into one of four lifelong political organizations.

We could call them Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff and Slytherin if you'd like. (I prefer Patrick, Adams, Norris and Smythe. I'm a traditionalist that way.)"

If we were gonna aim for accuracy, it would be: Fucked; More Fucked; Really Fucked; and Hopelessly Fucked.

176 Gawd, I can't wait to finish school and GTFO.

177 Well, it sounds like a good idea in theory. A lot of things that come out of California have sounded good in theory. How about we read the fine print a little more and see what the "non-party primary" really adds up to be?

178 No, this is what happens when you fuck a state in the ass!

179 The Founders hated "Parties" so much, they couldn't get them started fast enough after Constitutional ratification.

Google "First Party System"

180 A lot of things that come out of California have sounded good in theory.

Their track record is such that it would be perfectly reasonable to issue a standing order to shoot any messenger hailing from those parts.

181 My husband has been ranting about this for weeks. He said if it passes (and now it has) it's the end of any real opposition. I hope it is found unconstitutional... it interferes with federal elections so I bet it will be. For example, does this apply to the presidential election? Senator?

182

To tell you the truth I don't really have problem with it.

The only change I would make is to give each voter the same number of votes as there are candidates and let the voter split up his votes as he see fits.

183 The proposition is unconstitutional???   Pls someone show me where there is any mention of or reference to political parties in the constitution.

184 What's wrong with that? Well, basically, it outlaws parties, because no candidate now has to win the Republican nomination (or the Democratic one -- Democrats are against it too). The constitution provides no explicit protection for (nor even mention of) political parties. (Of course, I'm only talking about the US constitution - it might be different in the state constitution) No one has to win a primary to get on the ballot - they can gather signatures. And an official "non-partisan"-primary doesn't preclude the existence of non-government-backed partisan primaries. Of course, there is the question of whether the state has an obligation to run them. The right to free association does not give you the right to have the government help you organize.

185 Although the writer of this article says it won't happen, or won't happen often, the new proposition means that it's possible -- and in some years likely -- that there will be no Republican candidate in the general election. The open primary IS a general election - its just a first round. If the Democrats have so many votes that they can win the top two slots (and therefore have more that twice the number of votes as the highest Republican, then it seems likely the Republican would be very unlikely to win. I'm having trouble understanding how this proposition -- or law, I guess, now -- isn't just the majority of the voters deciding to strip the minority of voters of their right to vote for candidates they support. They can vote. They just can't vote for those candidates after they have already lost.

186 And so what if a party decides to have a closed ballot?

Are they excluded from running a candidate, ever? The best way the Republicans can sink this mess is to close their primary, have only dues paying RFepublicans vote in it, and then sponser the winners as "independant" candidates.

This will end up in court.

187 And so what if a party decides to have a closed ballot? Are they excluded from running a candidate, ever? The best way the Republicans can sink this mess is to close their primary, have only dues paying RFepublicans vote in it, and then sponser the winners as "independant" candidates. This will end up in court. They obviously could do that - but it wouldn't necessarily have any legal standing - the state could require the Republicans (or any party that wanted a closed primary) to administer it itself, on its own time/dime. Which, if you think about it, is exactly how things ought to be anyway. The idea that tax dollars should go towards a bunch of private organizations' attempts to pool their votes is pretty repugnant.

188 Louisiana has had this for 20years or more

189  BTW, Louisiana no longer has an open primary. They got rid of it a few years back.

I guess California decided one Louisiana wasn't enough.

190 201 Louisiana has had this for 20years or more

And you're saying that like it's a good thing?

191  BTW, Louisiana no longer has an open primary. They got rid of it a few years back.

This is NOT an "open primary". It is a "blanket primary" and LA still has it for non-federal elections.  The reason they don't have it for federal elections is because the Supremes ruled in unconstitutional because in LA in most cases the final vote and decision was made before the first Tue in Nov which congress has mandated as "election day" (Foster vs Love).

192 This is NOT an "open primary". It is a "blanket primary" and LA still has it for non-federal elections.  The reason they don't have it for federal elections is because the Supremes ruled in unconstitutional because in LA in most cases the final vote and decision was made before the first Tue in Nov which congress has mandated as "election day" (Foster vs Love).

Recently the La. Legislature said "fuck the courts" and pushed through a bill that will restore the "blanket primary", "jungle primary", "total clusterfuck that gave us David Duke", or whatever you might call it to federal elections.  The real kicker is that they want to make it effective for this year's elections, which could potentially throw a big monkey wrench into David Vitter's Senate race.

I don't know why they're doing this since the courts said pretty explicitly that we CAN'T, but mais, we jes' gotta be different, cher.

193 I don't see a difference between this CA proposal, and an open election without a primary followed by a runoff between the top two vote-getters.  So I doubt any court is going to toss this out.

194 I don't know why they're doing this since the courts said pretty explicitly that we CAN'T, but mais, we jes' gotta be different, cher.

Perhaps they have figured out a way to assure that the final election always comes on the second Tue in Nov. That would cancel the SCOTUS ruling.

195 "They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community" George Washington I hate to disagree, but I like the idea of getting rid of the political party system and take votes on PRINCIPLES! What a concept!

196 Perhaps they have figured out a way to assure that the final election always comes on the second Tue in Nov. That would cancel the SCOTUS ruling.

I don't see how, because even if the November Election Day was picked as the day of the final "run-off" election, most congressional candidates (the incumbents) would still be winning their terms of office via outright majority in the "primary" held in October or whenever else they decided to schedule it, which would still violate the SCOTUS ruling that Louisiana cannot hold general elections for federal office on a date other than the congressionally-authorized Election Day.  It would be the same thing that triggered the prior ruling, just in reverse.

Rules?  We don't need no stinkin' rules!

197 What political parties were originally designed for is to give the group a common brand so that the voters would understand what a candidate stood for from the Party he belonged to.

The RINOs have ruined that for the Republicans.

198 It would be the same thing that triggered the prior ruling, just in reverse.

If they did it in reverse order the way I talked about earlier I think they could assure that they would never get down to the last 2 until Nov 2.

199 If they did it in reverse order the way I talked about earlier I think they could assure that they would never get down to the last 2 until Nov 2.

Yes, but I thought the point of the ruling was that La. couldn't be holding general elections (and the December run-offs have always been considered the "general") for federal office on any date but the regular Election Day in November, whether before or after that date.

I could be wrong, because Saxby Chambliss had to get through a December run-off in '08; when that election was happening I said "wait, I thought this couldn't be done..."

200 From reading the court ruling it appeared they would hold the first election in October or September. That election was intended to determine the top two candidates and then they would have a runoff on Nov 2.

The problem was that they had a provision that if any one candidate got > 50.0% on the first election then no runoff was held.  That had the effect of making the Oct election the actual election for office which was in violation of the congressional mandate.

There are two ways to get rid of that. The easiest would be to get rid of the > 50% no runoff provision and always require one. 

And like I said earlier, to use the reverse elimination of the bottom 50% every time.

201 I don't see how incumbency is any more of an advantage in this system than the old one, now how it's unconstitutional per the LA decision. For example say there are three candidates; Chuckles, Giggles, and Numbnuts. Chuckles is the incumbent and fairly popular, Giggles and Numbnuts split the opposition. On Oct. 1 the primary is held and Chuckles gets 55%, Giggles gets 25% and Numbnuts get 20%. The guys who voted for Numbnuts are going to go over to Giggles, and it looks like Chuckles is going to keep his job. On Oct. 15th Chuckles is caught in bed with a dead girl (or a live boy) and his support craters. On the first Tuesday in Nov. Giggles wins with 60% of the vote. This measure is going to reward whatever party can get all their shit in one sock. If the CA Republicans can't do that they have no business holding any power in the state.

202 The problem was that they had a provision that if any one candidate got > 50.0% on the first election then no runoff was held.  That had the effect of making the Oct election the actual election for office which was in violation of the congressional mandate.

Exactly, but from what I've read about the bill that's working its way toward final passage in the Legislature, there's no intention of changing that -- they'll just be taking the "50% + 1" principle that results in outright victories in state elections and reapplying it to federal elections.  And therein lies the problem.

But Louisiana politicians are just corrupt and stupid enough to think they can get away with it.

203 The only election reform that can save California is if they required all their candidates be approved by the population of Texas first.

204 I think RINO has it. Just get SEUI and whatnot to gear up early and drag voters or whoever to the primary, which are low turnout. *poof* no mo conservatives to choose from, and the general is free. game-over?

205 This won't stand. Didn't the Justice Dept force some southern state to keep the letter D on ballots so the black people would know who they were supposed to vote for? Justice claimed it was racial discrimination not to list the party on ballot.

206 At some point california will make it illegal to shit in the state and everyone will have to move out or get fined. It's a $#@$ing nuthouse.

207 Denver, CO has had open elections like this for some time. The last few elections have been D-on-D. No Republican was able to get enough votes to make it past the primary.

208 This system adopted in California IS constitutional.

See Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party et al, handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States in March 2008, currently cited as 06–713.

This system has been in effect in my home state of Louisiana since the 1970s; we call it the "jungle primary".  Rarely EVER are there two members of the same party who advance to the general election, a.k.a., the run-off.  This is despite the fact that La. is a very conservative state.  It gave John McCain his largest if not the largest percentage margin of victory in 2008.

209 Our propositions are regularly overturned in court.   I don't see how this will stand.

210 This actually empowers parties, rather than not.  Parties need to get active and require candidates need to go thru the caucus system to get the party label in an election.  And people need to get involved. 

IMHO, one of the real solutions to many of our political woes is to get rid of the primary system and Congressional districts all together.  If a state has 10 Congresscritters, they run at large, top ten go to Congress; no primaries; Eliminate gerrymandering; Make everyone run a campaign, make more people understand the issues;  No more safe districts -- move Congress to the middle....

If one really wants to be rad, allow candidates to donate a portion of their votes to one candidate of their choice, with a 50% discount.  Make everyone's vote count...

There's nothing in the Constitution that requires districts, representatives can be at large, if a state so chooses.

211 drfredc: No, the Supreme Court has ruled AL elections to be unconstitutional. For one thing, they provide an easy way to shut out a minority from any power. Say a state is 55% Federalist and 45% Whig. In an all-at-large election of 10 seats, the Federalists win all 10. Having a "jungle election" with multiple winners off a single vote gets really messy. If 90% of the Federalists vote for one candidate, that person is elected overwhelmingly, with most of his votes "wasted". When this kind of ballot is used, it's usually in a proportional voting scheme where one votes for a party, and the first N candidates on each party list are seated. Britain's system is one round "first past the post" individual constuencies. Candidates are chosen by a caucus of the local dues-paying (?) party members. France has single-member districts with a runoff when there is no majority. Dunno how candidates are picked.

212

Funny, the MSM isn't mentioning that trial balloon in California.

Instead, tediously, boringly and monotonously hour after hour, day after day and night after night, they're showing the distraction of the same old clouds of oil and mud billowing up from the gulf's floor, presumably in lieu of a circus or a parade.

 Makes you wonder, doesn't it, what other important stories they're concealing and not bothering to report?

It's not even tabloid journalism anymore. It's just garbage. I'm not sure that they have an agenda. I suspect that they're simply genuine, authentic imbeciles,  who are too lazy, too careless, too sloppy and too incompetent to develop worthwhile stories. Without the internet the malais would make this country ripe for a takeover by Liechtenstein.

213

Political parties were seriously weaken by such a system put in place by Hiran Johnson's progressives about 1900.  For decades, we had cross-over voting where one candidate could be on BOTH parties ballot.  That produced a lot of mediocrities in office, guys like Earl Warren.

Only in the late 40's or early 50's were candidates restricted to appearing on a single party's slate.

Also, the Progressives REALLY emasulated the parties by virtually eliminating patronage.  Why bother with working for a party if there was no juicy political, PAYING job awaiting you as part of the victorious parties?

They also made almost all the local elected positions non-partisian, effectively closing the farm club system of politics.

This initiative was put on the ballot by a midnight vote of the legislature and given its title and ballot summary by Attorney General Jerry Brown (D).

Also, it will remove worries about another Ralph Nader-type taking presidential votes away from the national presidental candidates.  Works against Ross Perot types too.

The only good side I see is now we'll have state conventions to nominate candidates.  Can you say "PARTEEEE!"

In total, this will solidify the hold of the Democrat/Liberal/Immigrant faction over political power in the state.

214 I am a hippie and I would have voted NO on this proposition if I was in California. CA is a lot freer than SC, that is for sure. South Carolina is a hellhole and has been since before I was born. South Carolina has a complete dictatorship right now at the state house in Columbia. Not only that, but treasonists are in the majority there as well.

215 ÝÓÇÊíä ÓÍÑ ÇáÔÑÞ 2011 ÓÊÇÑ ÇßÇÏíãí 8 ÃŠÃ¦ÃžÃšÃ‡ÃŠ ÇáÇÈÑÇÌ áÚÇã 2011  ÇáÑæÇíÇÊ ÇáÑæãÇäÓíÉ  ÇáÈæã ßÇÙã ÇáÓÇåÑ 2011 ÑæÇíÇÊ ÇáÑÚÈ happy new year 2011