Editor's Pick
JULY 8, 2010 6:36AM
Rate: 12
Hasta la vista, baby California! Sincerely, The Terminator (AP)
Without much fanfare or debate, California voters, weary, frustrated and apparently getting more passive by the proposition, approved Prop 14 this past June.
Proposition 14, the Legislative Referred Initiative (read: blame the lawmakers for this one) squeaked through by a relatively safe, but slim margin: 54% to 46%. The biggest supporter of Prop 14 was Governor Schwarzenegger and his Dream Team. Even with his job approval rating somewhere in the low 20's, Governor Terminator helped finance and push through the Prop calling it the hallmark of his term in office. Schwarzenegger, the agent of change, as he likes to be called, was so excited; he uttered this um, noteworthy statement:
It might be helpful to illuminate how Prop 14 is designed to change the election landscape in 2012, before it gets wrung through the wringer in the court systems.
Every registered voter (including the undecided 20% who don’t declare a party) will get an identical primary ballot. No need for the undecideds to temporarily declare a party to vote in the primary as they’ve had to do in the past. No separate party ballots; republican or democrat.
All eligible candidates will be listed on that single ballot without regard to party affiliation. It includes the name of every single person who filed on time and paid their fee. Party affiliation may or may not be printed, as each candidate wishes. Affiliation can be designated with or without the support of the party. That certainly could lead to some interesting conundrums for the tranditional and familiar big dogs.The top two vote-getters in each category win the right to run in the general election. That could mean two democrats, or two republicans, or one of each, or none of each; or Orly Taitz should we ever lose our minds and she finds her forged birth certificate (thank you to Salon’s Andrew Leonard for that vision).
In November on the general election ballot there will be several familiar entries missing. Because only those top two primary vote-getters per category are listed, the familiar list of candidates-minor will not grace the ballot (Progressive, Green, et al) The candidate who wins the general election is crowned head of state, homecoming king or queen, or in Meg Whitman's case, CEO of CA, Inc.
And there you have it. The same, only different. Like an electoral system after Slim-Fast; hungry and cranky, yet temporarily svelte and uber popular.
The supporters of this convoluted Prop 14 think that it will do away with the partisan Bickerson-family moments within the Legislature and prevent long time career politicians in bed with special interests from ignoring their constituents. They claim it gives government back to the people.
It is also intended to chop off the appendage that brought us the ever entertaining, yet often annoying third, fourth and fifth party candidates like Ross Perot and Ralph Nader who draw votes away from the usual suspects and sometimes, once in a lifetime, actually help derail the election (the Bush selection in 2000).
They believe that it will lead to all candidates having to appeal to all voters – which following that logic means that every candidate will have to appease every voter regardless of party affiliation and beliefs, eventually creating a homogeneous political forum. And you think those infomercials annoy us now?
Anti-Prop 14 thinkers claim it will leave out the smaller, fringe political groups and thus mess with a system intended to represent all the people. It also marginalizes the basic republican and democratic parties because candidates will have to appeal to both groups in order to win the primary and run in the general election. Claiming exclusion, and confusion, convinced that Prop 14 will only serve those with the largest bankrolls, the ACLU is already on the case. They’ve got some precedent on their side: back in 1996 a similar measure, Prop 198 was overturned by SCOTUS. The theory is that an open primary is not open, but suppresses voter choices.
Even conservative George Will doesn’t like Governor Schwarzenegger’s pet project, saying it will weaken and marginalize parties. In theory, Prop 14 is supposed to bring back the simple and fair to the election process. Think of it more as a homogenized popularity contest; a popularity contest that Schwarzenegger wishes he could have won for himself, but did not.
Perhaps that is what we get for electing The Terminator. Twice.
Comments
Sigh. Don't we have bigger fish to fry? There are still fish, right?
Very interesting. Sounds like there is significant opposition from the Right and Left. Finally, I understand Prop 14. I was still unclear about it after reading Will's piece. Thanks, L&P!
I voted against it. Terrible idea. Great post.
Maybe California needs to be divvied up into smaller states?
Ya just gots to love democricy!
Nothing else is working very well in California. Why not give it a shot:):)
If this is in force next time we try to elect a Governor (Phew! no more Governator), we will have an even more awful mix of infomercials than this time around. But here's the scary part. If it was in place now, Jerry Brown would have had to campaign against both Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner, and we could be facing the choice between those two in November, with Brown already out of the picture. This goofy proposition is clearly a ploy to get two well-funded Republicans on the November ballot next time. What crock of shit.
I voted against him, and I voted against the proposition. *sigh* I'm moving to France.
I can safely say I didn't vote for him or Bush, like it mattered. Thanks for explaining this a might better than those brown magazines we receive!
Yeah, I hate what Prop 14 does to the third parties. (I'm a registered Green.) I suspect that it will get voted down. Hopefully Prop 8 will get voted down, too. The masses aren't constitutional scholars, they are easily misled by millions of dollars' worth of misleading ads, and yes, they fuck shit up; therefore the concept of the "tyranny of the majority"...
it shouldn't who be who you elect, what should count is getting things done in accordance with the will of the majority. [kindly don't interject about majoritarian despotism at this moment. i've seen minority rule and politician rule, let's try for rule by the people]
this means, use citizen initiative, and demand open government. best of all, stop voting for people. vote for policies, vote for plans, vote for laws. then hire people to carry out the plans, etc.
this means, use citizen initiative, and demand open government. best of all, stop voting for people. vote for policies, vote for plans, vote for laws. then hire people to carry out the plans, etc.
An interesting development. We'll see what happens...still, it must suck for Californians to hand over their political process as a social experiment.
The only way to have a reasonable hope of having third parties is to have a run-off. Most countries have run-offs of the top two candidates. They have differing means of choosing a party candidate.
I think it is too early to predict how such a system will change elections. If you look around the democratic world, you see differing electoral systems with differing advantages and disadvantages. The presidential election of 2000 is a perfect example of the flaws in our system. The latest UK election with a coalition of Lib-Dem and Tories is an example of the flaws in theirs. Neither case is typical.
Our existing system tends towards much weaker party discipline than many other countries. However, I don't see that many Americans think this is a flaw.
I'm all for new experiments in democracy.
I think it is too early to predict how such a system will change elections. If you look around the democratic world, you see differing electoral systems with differing advantages and disadvantages. The presidential election of 2000 is a perfect example of the flaws in our system. The latest UK election with a coalition of Lib-Dem and Tories is an example of the flaws in theirs. Neither case is typical.
Our existing system tends towards much weaker party discipline than many other countries. However, I don't see that many Americans think this is a flaw.
I'm all for new experiments in democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment