US POLITICS: underrated supreme court decisions that i have read

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.

dude, iatee, di I not say in answering your first q that I didn't wanna get into it with you? my opinion is that this shuts out 3rd party candidates in the short term & probably in the longer term. I participated directly in 3rd party CA politics from the time I was 12 until I was 20-ish, and saw an enriched political landscape as a consequence of third party participation that wasn't restricted to the most moneyed candidates. third parties busted ass to be represented on the ballot & to be heard in debates, and this was good for everybody. this prop ends the era of third parties having to bother anybody after June, unless they are extremely well-funded. can we stop now, instead of you just saying "no no no!" every time I express my God damned opinion on the politics thread. I have stopped replying to opinions of yours that I consider toadying to a system that disenfranchises everybody who's not already on board; please don't goad me into arguments with you about how you think I'm just overlooking the eventual good that reducing the number of options available to people might conceivably do. thank you.

keep the condescending scarequotes coming two-party stan!

The potential upside is that we have no more Herschensohns...

Upthread, I alluded to voting for Republicans in the primaries, but would I vote for the better candidate or the on most likely to lose in the GE?

I don't think I've been particularly belligerent in this discussion, but yes, it's clear by now that we see these things from such fundamentally different perspectives that there really isn't any use even going into it.

(still curious if anyone knows if parties could fund their own primaries in this system? I'm looking at the text and still not sure.)

Judging by his remarks on the suburbs thread, I'm not sure I'd want iatee as the leader of any sociopolitical revolution I'd want to be part of.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/06/09/2010-06-09_prescott_city_councilman_steve_blair_loses_radio_host_job_over_bashing_minoritie.html

Prescott City Councilman Steve Blair loses radio host job over bashing minorities in school mural

...

Miller Valley Elementary School Principal Jeff Lane apologized for directing artists to lighten the skin color of the children.

"They [the artists] are going back to the way this was originally," Lane said.

oh man i read some insane stuff on that this morning

R.E. Wall, director of Prescott’s Downtown Mural Project, said he and other artists were subjected to slurs from motorists as they worked on the painting at one of the town’s most prominent intersections.

“We consistently, for two months, had people shouting racial slander from their cars,” Wall said. “We had children painting with us, and here come these yells of (epithet for Blacks) and (epithet for Hispanics).”

http://wonkette.com/415809/arizona-school-demands-black-latino-students-faces-on-mural-be-changed-to-white

Roger Ebert did a good post on that fiasco:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/06/how_would_i_feel_if.html

http://www2.counton2.com/cbd/news/local/article/student_alleges_candidate_showed_pornography/145494/

When something like this happens, you know that the Democrat party isn't even bothering to vet candidates in South Carolina. I guess they figure they don't stand a chance, so why waste time finding someone at least half-way electable.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/06/this_is_real_fishy.php

Back in March he walked into the state Democratic headquarters with a personal check for $10,400. That's the filing fee. The party people said they weren't allowed to take a personal check. It had to come from a campaign account. So a few hours later he came back with a check from a campaign account. And he signed up to run.

And that was it. He held no events. He never campaigned. He didn't go to the convention. He never filed any money filings. He never raised any money. He didn't even have a website. In other words, by every conceivable measure he never actually mounted a campaign. When Mother Jones called him shortly after his victory and asked him what was up, he seemed hard pressed to explain why he had run or really anything about what was going on other than to insist that the ten grand was his money.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/06/more_weirdness_1.php

But there is one point I thought I'd mention. In the video the interviewer is walking around the house with Greene. And Greene is showing him different memorabilia and pictures of himself as a kid. And the interviewer presses Greene, who says he's a veteran, about whether he can show him any pictures of himself in uniform.

Greene sort of dodges the question and hems and haws. And it's pretty clear that the implication of the editing is that maybe the whole military service part of Greene's bio is made up. At this point, there's not much I won't believe with this story. But here's the thing, as long as you're keeping score at home: our Justin Elliott spent the afternoon trying to figure out what the hell was going on with this guy. And one thing Justin was able to confirm is that Greene did serve in the Air Force for three years.

On the consequences of Blanche Lincoln's primary win.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/putney%20swope/The_Playlist/more/swope.gif

man what in the hell

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/clyburn_alvin_greene_not_only_suspicious_candidate.php

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn has called for a U.S. Attorney investigation into the mysterious candidacy of Democratic Senate nominee Alvin Greene because he thinks the mischief goes far beyond one wacky race.

...

This morning Clyburn told radio host Bill Press he considers Greene a "plant" and he called for the U.S. Attorney to look into potential charges as to how an unemployed man paid $10,000 to be placed on the ballot and then came out of nowhere to win.

"All the Democrats I know were pushing for Victor Rawl," Clyburn said in our interview. "No Democrat I know ever heard of Alvin Greene."

x-post Man, it's a shame that when Ebert gets his second Pulitzer people will think it's a sympathy award when, damn, does the dude truly deserve it.

Oh sweet jesus i somehow had no idea how bad things got for him til now arrrrgh!

i don't find that greenwald piece very persuasive