This is either a way for the public to screw the politicians who screwed them or for the public to get screwed harder once the big money figures out how to make this work for them. Either way, it’s change we can believe in!
The time for tinkering is done.
That was the message Californians sent when they voted Tuesday to radically rejigger elections in the nation’s most populous state. Under Proposition 14, a measure that easily passed, traditional party primaries will be replaced in 2011 with wide-open elections. The top two vote-getters — whatever their party, or if they have no party at all — will face off in the general election.
Supporters argue that without parties picking candidates for the general election, moderates and independents will move to the fore, and voters will pay more attention to the electoral process.
Critics of the measure say it will give a huge advantage to candidates who have the most money or the widest name recognition.
That no one actually knows what the real effect of Proposition 14 will be seems almost beside the point to frustrated voters. What mattered, supporters said, is that something fundamental about politics — anything fundamental — had been changed.
As supporters celebrated, they promised to bring the so-called “top two” system to a state near you, with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger leading the charge — though his second term, plagued by budget meltdowns and plunging popularity, was, analysts said, one of the leading motivators for the measure.
Speaking of primaries, what do you think Obie I will offer Alvin Greene to quit the SC senate race? JCD should start a poll on this question.
#17, Correct me if I am wrong, but that anti-gerrymandering proposition FAILED. California is stuck with the corrupted district borders so as to insure continuation of the dynasties.
Since primaries are made up bullshit by the political parties I don’t see why this matters. Real change would be to acknowledge that these things were made up by the republicans and democrats and eliminate them and reform state election laws to remove all the crap that the two political parties got passed in the first place.
I’m not sure that this solution really tackles the problem. Isn’t the problem with elections and money that each election has too much value? I mean if there are 50 legislators in a house and you can get 10 in your pocket, that’s a lot of power and many will see it as worth the money. So, how could we make legislators worth less?
In the original wording of the constitution the federal house of representatives should be 1 per 30,000 people. That means that when the population hit 300 million there should have been 10,000 representatives in in the house. So to have any real power you’d have to buy 2000 reps instead of 10, a much more onerous task. I realize that this is a cynical way to look at it but I think this is what essentially happens.
This might also solve the gerrymandering problem by making the districts so small that there isn’t any room for a lot of the bizarre mapping there is now.
#21 He will offer Alvin Greene a job. The problem is that Alvin Greene will lose if he can’t answer questions at least as well as Sarah Palin. When asked how he would have voted on TARP, he asked what it was.
Then again maybe William F Buckley had something when he said that he would rather be governed by the first 100 names in the Boston phone directory than by the entire faculty of Harvard University.
I just hope that someone in the Democratic Party of South Carolina grooms him on the issues before he tries to debate De Mint. As of now he is clearly the weaker candidate.
#24 – Not the exact wording but you’re warm. The law capping the # of Reps killed the idea of the House representing “The People” though. Just as the Amend killed the Senate being the Reps of the States. The problem is now each Rep “represents” ~650,000 as opposed to ~35,000 as was the original intent. This has allowed big money to rule these elections. It was a calculated move by the parties in power to consolidate power. Well done for pointing this out. Most people are clueless about this major issue.
First of all, the new law in California does not affect presidential elections. Second, a major result will be loss of ballot status by all the parties except the Democrats and Republicans. Ballot status is determined by at least 1 candidate from a party receiving more than 2% of the vote for a statewide office in the general election.
Since there will be no third party candidates on the general election ballot, they’re screwed. This will, like the last attempt, wind up in the Supreme Court and will most likely be struck down.
Oh, and Faxon, have fun freezing/burning your ass off in whichever of those nasty places you wind up in. There’s a reason California is the most populous state. People like it here. Please leave your water.
“There’s a reason California is the most populous state.”
AND, there is a reason it has had net out migration over the last decade… Enjoy your new 3rd world country…
Cranky,
I agree with you half-way — people generally get the leaders they deserve. (but you should work on your debate skills — “HollyWIERD” is pretty lame)
However…
It takes an educated, literate public to have a good democracy.
And conservatives have been attacking teachers and defunding schools and colleges for decades.
So we are also getting the democracy that conservatives WANTED and WORKED for — ill-informed, fear-driven, easily-manipulated voters.
This is not a
“Critics of the measure say it will give a huge advantage to candidates who have the most money”
How is that any different from letting the Repubs and Dems slug it out?
GregAllen said, “And conservatives have been attacking teachers and defunding schools and colleges for decades.”
Wow! I haven’t seen SO many uninformed posts from a single person in years. The US EDU funding per capita, is amongst the highest in the world. Results aren’t good compared to other 1st world countries. Most of the US K-12 EDU systems are lib/Dem/Union controlled. So, the fact is, funding isn’t the problem. Those who run the schools districts ARE. Try again.
Preferential voting may be a cheaper and more effective implementation of a similar idea.
Faxon #19 “Another excellent reason why I am moving out of the state in which I was born”
Ha! If I could afford it I would be your nearest neighbor 50 miles away.
#31 Anon “Most of the US K-12 EDU systems are lib/Dem/Union controlled. So, the fact is, funding isn’t the problem. Those who run the schools districts ARE.”
Exactly, New Orleans has seen nothing but improvement in it’s schools since it effectively neutered the school board and unions after Katrina and went to charter schools. Now the kids stand a chance.
#31:
“And conservatives have been attacking teachers and defunding schools and colleges for decades.”
The highly-conservative state of Arizona just passed yet another sales tax increase specifically to fund the schools.
It’s an incumbent protection scheme.
#12, Agree completely. Simple majority voting is a dog. I’d much rather have a consensus style voting system, such as borda count, where the most generally acceptable candidate wins instead of just the one who can garner the most support from concentrated pockets in the population.
For what it’s worth, our own experiment (in New Zealand) with proportional representation resulted in some cabinet ministers being hand picked, not elected, by an incumbent leader. This resulted in “lists” of private flunkies being kept ready to fill parliamentary and civil service vacancies. The old two party election, where they sail their fastest candidates in an election, showed the voting electorate exactly “who” was going in “where”.
Change we can believe in? What an empty phrase that has turned out to be. While we were believing the thieves stole our government (again) and this change won’t get it back for us. Politics is a dirty business and it won’t be cleaned up because decent people don’t go into politics. If you think they do, that is part of the problem.
A well organized party will have two guys on the ballot, and get lots of guys on the other party’s side.