Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
California's Prop. 14: A Bad Deal for Democracy
In this state, the Democratic and Republican parties rarely agree on anything -- but both oppose Proposition 14. Although its misleading ballot title promises to increase the "right to participate in primary elections," the measure actually imposes major new limits on voters.
By eliminating party primaries, Proposition 14 would deny all political parties -- and their voters -- the right to choose a nominee to run in a general election.
Instead, the top two vote-getters on a single all-inclusive primary ballot would square off in the general election, regardless of party affiliation.
In the process, the measure -- an amendment to the state constitution -- would exclude small parties from the November ballot.
As debates over Proposition 14 heat up, a stark reality shouldn't get lost in the rhetorical shuffle: This measure is on the June 8 ballot only because the state legislature put it there.
Most notably, Proposition 14 owes its existence to many Democratic lawmakers who are now denouncing it.
This ill-conceived ballot measure was born 15 months ago, when a few top-ranking legislators met in the dark and then laid an egg -- a budget package with draconian cuts. Applauding the deal, Democrats in Sacramento touted it as the best possible outcome under the budget-crisis circumstances.
But it was a lousy deal. Although its boosters were apt to present themselves as savvy political strategists, the electorate had different ideas.
Months later, in the May 2009 statewide balloting, voters rejected most of the budget deal.
But that wasn't the end of it.
In their eagerness to approve the package, lawmakers had signed off on a provision that automatically placed the "top two primary" proposal in front of voters in June 2010.
The Democratic Party is second to none in condemning Proposition 14. Yet it's a proposition that would not be on the ballot if Democrats in the state capital hadn't succumbed to blackmail from a lone Republican state senator, Abel Maldonado (who recently became lieutenant governor).
In the midst of fiscal chaos, Maldonado was able to push the "top two" scheme through the legislature in exchange for his decisive vote in favor of the budget deal. He exercised huge leverage, which existed only due to the undemocratic requirement that revenue and budget laws must gain two-thirds approval in the legislature.
So, we're now confronted with Proposition 14, a highly dubious measure -- with dire implications for democracy -- hotwired onto the statewide ballot via an undemocratic process.
The take-home message should be that a bad process is very likely to result in bad decisions -- especially when there's a terrible shortage of sunlight and an overabundance of hubris.
In Sacramento, we get very negative results when just five legislative leaders hammer out portentous budget deals behind closed doors -- and then get pledges from legislators to rally 'round the party line.
Democracy would be damaged by voter approval of Proposition 14. But the origins of the proposition already make it a grim monument to secretive deal-making in high governmental places.
Days ago, a statewide opinion poll released by the Public Policy Institute of California showed Proposition 14 ahead by a wide margin.
If it becomes part of the state constitution, Democratic lawmakers in Sacramento will have no one to blame but themselves.
26 Comments so far
Show AllConsidering how Republicans are only 20% of the voting public now, I think that this is a fair idea. The 2 Party system is no longer just 2 party. The Libertarians have been marginalized in many States. The Republicans, especially Tea Party types, may scream loudly through their voice box FOX News, but they are not representing even a third of Americans.
If the Democrats and others are 80% of the voting public, why should the Republican 20% be given an advantage in the run offs? Say 1 Democrat got 41%, and another democrat got 39% of the primary votes, and the Republican/Tea Party only 20%. Obviously the run off should be between the 2 top contenders.
Because the un-intentional bad consequense to this lousy piece of proposed legislation will force smaller, minority parties to cough up huge amounts of money during the primary campaign just to come out ahead as one of the top two. This primary election for CA governor is a perfect example. The two Republican candidates are pouring tons of their own money into their campaigns to sling mud at each other, while Democratic candidate, Gerry Brown is sitting idly on the sidelines letting the two Republicans duke it out. He doesn't have a contender so he can save his war chest for the general election. Historically, the Republicans are always the ones with the most money in elections so in the end, it will come down to who has the most money wins. Sound famaliar? The system is already based on who has the most money wins. This legislation will excacerbate that even worse.
The Republicans are not getting 20% of the vote in general elections. They won the NJ and VA statewide elections last year. Even if parties get only 20% of the vote, that doesn't mean that they should be excluded from the general election.
This is indeed a terrible bill. The winner take-all-no-runoff-syatem in the US is bad enough, but this would guarantee winners of election with suppport of far, far less than 50% popular support.
It would be all over for smaller partes.
I dont know what's sadder about these California "propositions"; the cynical political and business-interest motivations beind them, or the stupidity of the California masses in their suburban wastelands who fall for them.
It already is all over for smaller parties.
FPTP, or AV (which is what this system is), both are horrible systems that concentrate power.
If Solomon actually gives a rat's flying ass about democracy, he would be pointing out that FPTP and what is being proposed here both are systems that concentrate power, by pushing voters to vote for the "lesser evil", by pushing voters to vote for him they think is likely to win. Both are bad.
And that voting simply via a yes for one candidate, and no for every other candidate, deliberately gives voters as little power as possible. Voters are not allowed nuance, to express degrees of their support / desires / dislike. Imagine if you go to the supermarket to buy some food. You can only buy bread. And nothing else. Or beer, and nothing else. Or milk, and nothing else.
This proposition is meaningless much ado over nothing.
California is a bankrupted state already. Please let it slide into the ocean.
Uhh, California sends more money into the federal system than it gets back.
Well said Mr. Soloman.
This type of thinking and this type of irresponsibility is what is sinking California.
Seems like other parties ought to be permitted. There isn't enough analysis in the article to actually show what is wrong with it. Is it because it is limited to only some parties, if so which parties? How is it worse than what they have now? Norman, give us some facts and analysis we can work with.
A solution that should satisfy the intent without squelching democracy is to admit that the taxpayers, the plurality of whom don't belong to any political party, pay for the conduct of these affairs of private organizations, in both money and the inconveniences placed on schools and other public places where the primaries are held. Let them all pick candidates, but by their own methods and on their own dimes, and retain a reasonable registration threshold for determining whether a party line is merely small vs. totally frivolous.
The mere simplicity explains why it will never be done this way.
Just so you know, Oregon voters defeated a very simlar ballot measure in 2008. The change is a terrible idea, mainly because it keeps any person or party from accessing the general election without winning a primary. Primaries typically receive very low turnout and the electorate for them is much easier to manipulate and the time frame is shorter, giving major parties and wealthy candidates a considerable advantage. While minor parties rarely have a chance to win, they do often play a very important role in impacting the issues and shaping overall campaign themes, both for the election and the future. Did you know that the first national political party to officially put the right to vote for women in its platform was the Prohibition Party? It also magnifies the "spoiler" problem for 3rd parties, by potentially keeping their more aligned party off the general eletion ballot altogether, robbing the voters of any real debate over issues, as opposed to nasty intraparty rivalry and maneuvering.
Prop. 14 hurts democracy 5 ways:
1. Prop. 14 conflicts with Prop. 15, the public funding measure. IF they both pass, Prop. 14 takes precedence because it amends the Constitution, whereas Prop. 15 is just a statute. The two don't fit together. The League of Women Voters of California web page noted that if they both pass, Prop. 15 can't be implemented without another bill going through the legislature, or another vote of the people, or a court decision.
2. Prop. 14 bans counting write-in votes in November for Congress and state office. Three times, Californians have elected someone to congress in November by write-in votes (1930, 1946, 1982). We do know how to cast write-ins in California. Voters of Long Beach elected a Mayor on write-ins in 2002, and voters of San Diego almost elected Donna Frye Mayor on write-ins in 2004.
3. Prop. 14 changes the requirements for a party to remain ballot-qualified. Now they stay on by polling 2% of the vote for any statewide race in midterm years (they get a free ride in presidential years), but Prop. 14 says parties don't have nominees any longer, so that wouldn't work. The only other way is for parties to have 100,000 registrants. Peace & Freedom, with 58,000, would go off the ballot.
4. We know from the experience of the only 2 states that have used this system, Louisiana and Washington, that it results in only Democrats and Republicans ending up on the 2nd round.
5. Finally, it says that members of unqualified parties can't have their party label on the June ballot. This is because neither the measure nor its implementing legislation amend sec. 8606 of the election code, which defines "party" to be "qualified party."
"Democracy" appears to be dead. Only sincere "down on your knees" prayer can save it.
sincere = sere sin
Unfortunately, all the current system allows is a charade of democracy by allowing third parties to get 1 or 2 percent of the vote (99 percent of the time) over and over and over. People keep spending time and money and getting burned out thinking they'll be the next turn of the last century Socialist Party making a real impact. It's just delusional. They are totally drowned out by money and MSM now. There must be a more effective way for creating progressive change. Isn't doing the same thing over and over with the same bad result a sign of insanity. If we ever get proportional representation and genuine electoral reform(which will be done through a ballot measure - no political party required), then independent and third party candidates might have a chance.
USA becomes more fascist each day.
Not voting is an effective vote for the status quo. Voting against the elite status quo puts the elites on the defensive. When they're fighting merely for their survival, their mischief is terminated. Now THAT's progress.
"If it becomes part of the state constitution, Democratic lawmakers in Sacramento will have no one to blame but themselves."
If it passes, the blame will rest squarely on the voters that voted for it. Like every other bad idea - from Prop 13 to term limits - that has tarnished the Golden State, this will be one more that "the people" did to themselves.
I respect Soloman but he seems to be playing the partisan on this one. While the fallback on all initiatives should be negative, the best argument for 14 is the weakness of the arguments against. What are they afraid of? What are they trying to say? Certainly third party and independent candidates are not harmed by this initiative. They simply have to target the primaries where their chances may be enhanced. Under the status quo independents have virtually no chance.
PROPOSITION 14: Relatively Open Primaries. Enables voters to vote for any candidate in primary elections regardless of party. The top two face a runoff in the general election.
Any measure that lessens the major party stranglehold on the electoral process is a step in the right direction. The opposition is disingenuous in its objection that the candidates would no longer be required to state their party affiliation. They protest that candidates will charade as “independents.” Is that really a problem?
Mark it: If the polls show this one is close, the big money from the major party machines will come in to knock it down.
VOTE YES.
In actuality , Prop 14 could be viewed as a death knell for third party politics in California.
see comment below:
richardwinger June 4th, 2010 5:34 pm
Top Two doesn't work - at least not like Prop 14's sponsors claim it does. It drastically reduces voter choice and favors incumbents and well-funded candidates even more than the current system. Top Two is also unpopular, undemocratic, unconstitutional, and unnecessary.
The top five reasons for Californians to reject Top Two primaries:
http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=5776
For real democracy, vote Proposition 14 down!
AD
It passed.