Posted on 09/13/2010 8:36:38 PM PDT by SmithL
A San Francisco Superior Court judge today issued a tentative ruling denying a request to block the state from implementing the top two primary system created under Proposition 14.
A group of candidates and voters have filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill 6, legislation detailing the mechanics of the state's new "top two" primary. Under Proposition 14, approved by voters in the June primary, the two candidates who receive the most votes in an all-party primary will advance to a general election run-off.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.sacbee.com ...
We have that here in Washington State for the first time. I don't understand voters approving Propositions/initiatives that would give either two Democrats, or two Republicans (unlikely 2 repubs in WA or CA) possibly it would be a Democrat and Republican that has the top two votes names placed on the General ballot. If two Dems or 2 Repubs is all that gets on the general ballot for us to vote on would seem unconstitutional to me.
Here in WA we ended up with Dino Rossi (R) and incumbent Patty Murray (D), but it could have been Dino Rossi (R) and Clint Didier (R) (tea party pick)
It figures that a San Francisco judge would protect “Democrats only” ballots.
That's because you don't understand the only legitimate reason for a tax-funded primary election....to assure that the results of the later general election will be an office-holder who represents a majority of voters rather than a plurality.
A tax-dollar funded election should have ZERO to do with political parties. If the parties want to select candidates, there are many mechanisms they can use that do NOT involve taxpayer funding....conventions, caucuses, mail ballots, online voting, etc. etc. etc.
Which could be easily vitiated if a large enough number of voters do not want either candidate.
Irrelevant. The "majority" is of votes cast. If a potential voter chooses not to exercise his franchise, that's "his" problem. A "none of the above" choice might have interesting electoral results, but right now, I'm not aware of any political entity (state, city, county, etc.) that allows such a choice. If such exists, I'd LOVE to see how that affected the politics in that locale.
Quite relevant, in fact hits your objection right on the nose. Voters casting ballots in which they choose none of the candidates for a particular office can easily allow the situation where the ultimate winner only has a plurality and not a majority among those who cast ballots. Remember that ballots generally cover multiple contests.
But all of that misses the bad point of "party primaries", which is the dis-enfranchisement of people who choose NOT to be a member of a specific political party. They are PREVENTED from exercising their franchise in elections that their taxes are paying for. That is called "taxation without representation", a phrase you might recall from history class. Tax dollars should not be used for the purposes of political parties. Said parties should pay for their own selection processes.
I wouldn't be opposed to a primary election in which only registered Republicans can vote for Republican candidates, only Democrats can vote for Democrat candidates, and "no party" folks can vote for either. I'm not aware that that has ever been proposed as an alternative, but it would remove "my" objection to "party primaries", which is the dis-enfranchisment of independent voters.
Why are you opposed to the right of people to associate with others of their own free will. You decry the "disenfranchisement" of non-affiliated voters, but you proclaim that affiliated voters should cede their ability to choose their own candidate from within their own ranks.
Logically, your position is nonsensical.
I see this as quite the opposite. The right of free association of the parties is being violated. Should Elks be allowed to vote on the leadership at the Moose Lodge?
Your view does make some sense. However, the logical conclusion is that primary elections should be abolished altogether.
Stick your democracy crap up your ass!
I am arguing that any system in which the parties are required to let anyone outside their own boundaries vote for the party candidate is a violation of free association. From your remark, it appears that you agree, SoCal.
Wonder Warthog is promoting a system where a party must allow voters outside of themselves to determine the outcome of the party's primary. Barring that, WW is promoting a non-partisan primary from which the top 2 vote getters will move on to the general election.
I disagree with Wonder Warthog. I think you agree with me, but I'm not sure, based on reading your remarks.
Yeah, I do agree with you! I had a feeling I was screwing this up. Kind of a yes vote means no kind of thing.
Actually, that's incorrect. Both Lincoln and Clinton won elections with less than a majority.
Pubbies and Dems can pal around with each other all they like, just don't ask me to pay for it. If they feel so strongly, then they should spend their own money. There plenty of alternatives that don't involve taxpayer financing.
"Logically, your position is nonsensical."
Not "nonsensical" at all. What is nonsensical is the idea the the desire of 'Pubbies and Dems to buddy up with each other is more important than my right to vote for candidates for office. The "top two" fixes the problem quite nicely....by removing "party" entirely from the picture.
Nope. Primaries serve a legitimate non-party purpose....assuring that the final winner of the office has a majority of the votes cast rather than a plurality.
Might I suggest that you remove your head from yours???
If the parties want to have a "party primary" on their own dime, I'm fine with it. Let'em reimburse the state for the costs of running the primary. What I object to is having to pay for it when I'm not allowed to participate. That's called "slavery".
This isn’t a democracy you communist!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.