US POLITICS: underrated supreme court decisions that i have read

xpost right that's what I meant - it allows for the possibility that the top two vote getters are from the same party & run against each other? that is hilarious. besides the unfair-to-third-parties thing it legislates a sort of cartoonish battle-between-two-is-the-best!!! thinking that while popular in Amerian politics is moronic, whereas in CA multiple parties - at debates, on the ballot - have always kept things interesting

it is unfair to third parties in that it shuts them out of the discourse after the primaries; if you believe in the value of a political landscape in which many views are given voice, this basically tells you you're wrong; these two viewpoints (and now, possibly, two variations on the same one) are really all you need to hear or be given the opportunity to vote for.

rather a crying shame. 3rd-party politics in CA have a long and interesting history, and as I say the whole notion of A vs. B as some Final Parliamentary Good is moronic imo

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_14,_Top_Two_Primaries_Act_%28June_2010%29

Specifically, Proposition 14 provides for a "voter-nominated primary election" for each state elective office and congressional office in California. Voters can vote in the primary election for any candidate for a congressional or state elective office without regard to the political party affiliations of either the candidate or the voter. Candidates can choose whether or not to have their political party affiliation displayed on the ballot.

huh. really weird imo. does that mean the primaries are state-wide, even for offices that aren't? like, if i lived in SF i could vote in the LA county primaries even though i couldn't vote in their general? cos that would be nuts.

like there used to be laws on the books out there that meant you had to invite everybody on the ballot to the debate from the primaries on, they had to be allowed to participate. I believe in increased participation, and growing up saw a lot of fringe candidates voicing their views against mainstream candidates. they "didn't have a chance," of course. shutting them out on the grounds that they're already defeated seems like the worst sort of exclusionary impulse - and, let's be honest, this is a further codification of money as the only key to enfranchisement. the top two vote getters will be the ones who have the most money; if you can't raise a whole lot of money, well, who cares, nobody wanted to hear what you had to say anyway, little fellow!

as of today, with our current system - how many people on the street in california could tell you who the green party candidate is? I think you're massively overstating the amount of attention that the third parties get.

you know it's conceivable this throws things open for 3rd party candidates -- the whole state (or constituency?) votes in the primary, rather than it being a private affair of the two major parties and their members

but yes they would have to have a lot of money

If 14 is upheld as constitutional, I foresee myself tactically voting in Republican primaries on occasion.

I think this raises the possibility of a non-dem/republican being elected like 400% - and yes, it would most likely be an arnold/bloomberg$$$$$$$ type, but since you really hate the two-party system, shouldn't the fact that someone can be unaffiliated and theoretically win be considered an improvement?

xp michael -- there are no "republican primaries" anymore. there is A Primary, with everyone running thrown into it, then the general, which is a runoff of the top two. fucking bedlam!! this is gonna be great!!

xp man I don't want to get into it with you dude but I grew up in CA politics & you're mistaken. and the point kind of is, in CA, where previously you could appear on the November ballot as a 3rd-party candidate by either paying a filing fee or by gathering enough signatures to waive the fee, the discourse is enriched. 100,000 people total on the street is, I know, an insignificant number to you - who cares about those people? let them vote one or the other and get on board. I disagree strongly with that and feel that more candidates, not fewer, benefits both the system & the public good.

I think he meant voting for a certain republican in the primary xp

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/schwarzeneggers-win/57891/

The practical effect will be incentivize candidates to avoid the trap of having to run one type of campaign to win base voters and another type of campaign to win the general election. It is conceivable that, with such a system in place, Senate candidate Carly Fiorina wouldn't have felt it necessary to sharply tack to the right. But the same system would have required a lot more energy and expenditure from the incumbent, Barbara Boxer.

Who funded the initiative? Chamber of Commerce types, who know that pragmatic candidates won't want to alienate business interests in the state. It was opposed by activists from both parties, who believe it to be an incumbent protection measure of first order.

they can still vote for whomever they want in the primaries, which will inevitably now play a larger role! and the multitude of candidates will get even more press due to the fact that they have a slightly higher shot at being elected in this system.

I wonder if the primaries will turn into giant free-for-alls like the gubernatorial recall election, where there were like 100 people running and the ballot was a giant 8 x 14 sheet.

but I think you have to know how CA politics have worked, and maybe have experienced it closely (I was personally closely involved with 3rd-party runs for about ten years), to understand that this isn't really bedlam - some of the public (televised!) debates back in the day would have 8 candidates speaking. Some of these candidates wouldn't have even thought about bringing prepared statements to lead off with.

I will say though that I like the idea that party affiliation doesn't play into primary voting now, that's a big plus, but the effect (and, I'd say, intent) of this is to shut out all the gnat-like 3rd party candidates who routinely make things troublesome for the big guys - "wasting their time" is I guess how fans of the big guys would put it.

as I said before, this is a voting system that got le pen to round two in france - there's no way this is 'good' for the two party system and the fact that SF and OC were the only counties that opposed it is pretty telling.

Yes, I meant, for example, that while I generally disagree w/someone like Tom Campbell, he has principles and a forthright and intelligible political philosophy and I would gladly have voted for him yesterday (and then against him in the GE) because he represents a rational and civil faction of the CA Republican party with which I used to cordially disagree, as opposed to the Xtianist, racist, shrill fanatics who have come to dominate it.

they can still vote for whomever they want in the primaries, which will inevitably now play a larger role! and the multitude of candidates will get even more press due to the fact that they have a slightly higher shot at being elected in this system.

I don't believe this at all - what this law means is "you no longer have to be bothered by anybody except representatives of the two major parties after June, and that's a promise"

I can't imagine that this is actually a constitutionally defensible law, but I also can't imagine a Clinton or Bush or Obama SC justice not siding with the proposition

and it's ridiculous that I'm defending this because it's not even something I support! I just think it's absurd to think this is anything but good for third parties in the long-term.

well, I disagree with that, as it guarantees that in the short-term, and therefore for the foreseeable future, that there won't be any third parties 1) in debates 2) running 3) on the ballot after June. You're right; if a third party becomes so powerful and well-funded that they can afford to run a miraculous primary campaign, they'll get ballot status. I think anybody who can collect enough signatures for ballot qualification should appear on the ballot - the more candidates, the better, always.

iatee, it will force candidates toward the center (the Campbell I mentioned above has had to drift increasingly rightward as his party has become more assholic) and while that may represent more my personal style of politics, it will drown out the crazies on the fringes; crazies who just may every once in a while be able to speak truth to power more frankly or come up w/crazy plans that the center will reject as too loony but which might occasionally be of benefit to the State.

and I think this actually creates a situation where in a strange election year a third party could actually WIN, which is more important than having 100 people on the list or whatever

xp

that ambinder bit is interesting, wrapping with these q's:

Will candidates with new ideas be disincentivized from running? Will California only nominate candidates who reflect the median political values expressed by a California voter? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Will candidates have more power to shape their campaigns than political parties?

1) yes 2) yes 3) bad 4) you have to be kidding

Also, let us not forget that Le Pen's second round run was as much about Jospin and Chirac as it was about his own policies.

right, and likewise a third party getting to the second round in this system would require a similar off year for one of the two parties

but it happens

well i guess my standard isn't an "enriched discourse" (not putting that in quotes to denigrate it, just quoting you) but what measurable effect 3rd party runs have had on policies state governments eventually put into place. since non dem, non repub candidates don't have a big enough voter base to win a plurality and take office, have the issues they've run on been salient?

i mean, ensuring ballot access and debate access in the face of mathematical impossibility seems more perverse than this, to me.

the only way to allow 3rd party voices in power is for the CA state assembly to go to statewide proportional representation rather than single-member constituency plurality-winner voting

it's a math problem, not a moral one, but we've been over this over and over

and I think this actually creates a situation where in a strange election year a third party could actually WIN, which is more important than having 100 people on the list or whatever

yeah well as usual we disagree - as I say, the only 3rd party candidates who'll succeed -- or, as I keep saying, be given public voice, which is the actual value of 3rd party candidates: enriched public discourse -- are those who are massively, massively funded. having 100 candidates exercising their right to run for public office is much more important than "well, if suddenly money stops mattering and the supreme court overturns itself on whether campaign donations are protected speech, a 3rd party candidate might pull of a miracle & Mr. Chips will have his say" - the latter is a pipe dream; multiplicity of viewpoints was a reality for years in CA politics

the only way to allow 3rd party voices in power is for the CA state assembly to go to statewide proportional representation rather than single-member constituency plurality-winner voting

ha well yes proportional representation was the rallying cry throughout the seventies though it became clear in the Reagan years that that was best left to an imagined future generation

Won't this just be a system where whichever candidate with the most brand recognition ($$$) wins?

they still have a right to run for public office. they might not get to the 2nd round, but the primary is going to take the place of the election in terms of much of the discourse.

I think what John's alluding to, here, is the fact that while 3rd party candidates generally have little chance of winning, they have a certain, often single-issue, vitality and influence throughout the campaign and that giving that up for a marginally larger chance of winning in a GE isn't a good deal for him. (/putting words in someone else's mouth)

like, the fact that there is a mathematical possibility that some weirdo makes it to the second round - that is going to give them MORE of a spotlight, not less

they might not get to the 2nd round, but the primary is going to take the place of the election in terms of much of the discourse.

Hmm, now I wonder if that frees 3rd parties to spend their money and enthusiasm quicker but brighter, as it were...

i see the major benefit of this as finally sticking a knife into the eye of all those fucking broder/penn/kaus types who insist there's a vast pool of "centrist independents" out there. let's see somebody try and run on that finally, there aren't!

well i guess my standard isn't an "enriched discourse" (not putting that in quotes to denigrate it, just quoting you) but what measurable effect 3rd party runs have had on policies state governments eventually put into place.

given that I don't believe anything outside of their own internal wrangling has any measurable effect on how the parties in power behave, the practical questions don't enter into it for me: this is about an enriched marketplace of ideas, and about not further codifying into public discourse the twin evils of "the two-party system" as some posited public good & of the only real ticket to a public voice being how much money you have. the right to run for office seems more important to democracy than the right of the most successful candidates to be protected from things that make their journey to office annoying to them.

I mean, lol California as usual, and whatever, it's not like the third parties had a chance, but it was nice to hear from them up through November - those of us who don't give a shit what the two major parties have to say could at least see names on the ballot that would make us feel like all home isn't lost. When the November ballot has only D's and R's on it, that means they're telling you at the gate: you're fucked no matter what happens

(all hope)

just off the top of my ignorant head, couldn't this have 1st amendment implications re: "free assembly". like, if i wanted to start a political party in CA and have a primary for my newfound flock to pick its candidate, well, now i can't. i'm in the pot with everybody else.

i see the major benefit of this as finally sticking a knife into the eye of all those fucking broder/penn/kaus types who insist there's a vast pool of "centrist independents" out there. let's see somebody try and run on that finally, there aren't!

ha this is totally true though and makes me like the prop a little better

just off the top of my ignorant head, couldn't this have 1st amendment implications re: "free assembly". like, if i wanted to start a political party in CA and have a primary for my newfound flock to pick its candidate, well, now i can't. i'm in the pot with everybody else.

I think you could? just you'd have to organize your own election and then could prop up your candidate for the state-wide primary.

I wonder if legally the parties could fund their own primaries in this manner?

I think what John's alluding to, here, is the fact that while 3rd party candidates generally have little chance of winning, they have a certain, often single-issue, vitality and influence throughout the campaign and that giving that up for a marginally larger chance of winning in a GE isn't a good deal for him. (/putting words in someone else's mouth)

yeah this is essentially right - I mean I don't even know about "influence," doubt it really (though in debates, 3rd party candidates at least force the major players to address issues they'd rather ignore & to step outside of their script; again, this seems a huge plus to me, now doubtless no longer to be seen after June in CA, when The Big Show style politics will have all the marbles), but that marginally larger chance of winning the GE is actually zero. The hold that the two parties have on this country at federal & state levels amounts to a duopoly; this proposition further solidifies that.

I think you could? just you'd have to organize your own election and then could prop up your candidate for the state-wide primary.

again, ballot qualification used to be achievable under old CA law by filing fee or signatures that waived it. 3rd parties will not be able to scare up the money to win the primary.

The hold that the two parties have on this country at federal & state levels amounts to a duopoly; this proposition further solidifies that.

the parties opposed this proposition ffs!

not further codifying into public discourse the twin evils of "the two-party system" as some posited public good

As I have pointed out before, taking stability for granted is something you can do in the US more than, say, Italy or Israel or Belgium and while the two parties may change more in some countries than they have here, there generally are only two parties really in contention for power in most countries where an opposition party is tolerated.

how much would it cost to mail a X thousand ballots to all the registered green party voters in california? I mean it would cost a bit more than that, and yes it would be a drain of third party resources. I'm just talking theoretically, I wonder if it would be legally possible.

(for the gop and dems too)

the parties opposed this proposition ffs!

Yes, but only because it partly disenfranchises the party bases and complicates the brand, not because it matters to them whether they're more or less powerful wrt 3rd parties.

I know - this isn't a death blow or anything. but it's ridiculous to act like this is "solidifying" the two party system.