CA: Rancor and gridlock

SFGate.com ^ | 7/25/04 | Debra J. Saunders - SF Chronicle

[NormsRevenge]

CALIFORNIA's election system -- with its exclusionary primaries and gerrymandered districts -- has become the great enabler that sends to Sacramento the most extreme lawmakers on the right and left. If you want a legislator who works for all of California, you don't elect the likes of Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, D-Los Angeles, and Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy, R-Monrovia, and expect them to compromise and work together. You do elect them if you want rancor and gridlock.

And silly bills that focus on narrow issues, while the state's budget festers.

What to do?

In 1996, moderate GOP Congressman Tom Campbell and others put together a measure, Proposition 198, to open the primary elections so that registered voters could vote for candidates from any party for each office. The state Democratic and Republican parties opposed the measure; nearly 60 percent of California voters supported it.

So the political parties went to court. Their challenges failed to overturn the measure, and voter participation improved -- until 2000, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against California voters and overturned Proposition 198.

In a 7-2 ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia warned that the measure forced "political parties to associate with those who do not share their beliefs." The court allowed parties' rights to trump voters' rights.

Enter Proposition 62, a measure put on the ballot by California moderates (including Controller Steve Westly, a Democrat, and education czar Dick Riordan, a Republican) to restore the open primary elections.

[heleny]

I like the current system, but for a more "moderate" result that more people like, perhaps they should consider implementing a version of instant runoff voting instead of Prop 62, which effectively makes the general election a runoff between the top two choices from the primary election.

With the advent of so many computerized voting systems, IRV becomes less complicated to implement, and the results are more pleasing to more people than old-style runoff voting (Prop 62). If two candidates run off against each other for the general election, it would be nice if they were chosen from the entire pack through IRV.

In the end, it seems that each selection method benefits different people, and those people extoll their system. In this case, Steve Westly(D) and Richard Riordan(R) are probably considered "moderates" (or RINO/liberal in the case of Riordan), and they would like Californians to elect "moderates" instead of anyone with conservative spending habits.

lawmakers are up to their old curve-ball tricks. They passed a rival measure that qualified for the November ballot, Proposition 60. Open primary fans consider Proposition 60 to be a "poison pill" measure designed to confuse voters and defeat Proposition 62 in a less than honest manner. (Proposition 60 essentially would mandate that all participating parties find a slot on the general-election ballot.)

Not sure what this Prop 60 is, but apparently the legislature wrote 60 to confuse voters about 62. Generally I don't support our legislature's opinions, so I'd say No on 60 in addition to No on 62.

[heleny]

The current system isn't completely exclusive, either. Voters not affiliated with any party can choose to vote in a partisan primary, so long as that party gives permission (beforehand) to unaffiliated voters -- generally the D and R do, as well as some of the 3rd parties.

If someone feels strongly enough for one party to join it, he shouldn't be voting in the other parties' primaries.