Monday, August 25, 2008

TODAY'S NEWS HEADLINES for INDEPENDENT VOTERS

REFORM
  • OREGON REPUBLICANS & DEMOCRATS TEAM UP TO END THIRD PARTY COMPETITION (NewsWithViews.com) "Try to imagine the sheer horror of having both Democrat and Republican Parties under the control of the liberal-left. It'll be the downfall of the United States and will open the door to the Internationalists who believe America is simply a cash-cow for the world," said Baker. [NOTE: This publication should be called News With Right Wing Hysteria]
  • Arriving Michigan Delegates to Democratic Party National Convention Finally Freed From 'Half Of One Vote' Punishment Mandate (Marketwatch) Without any public hearings, the majority of 110 State Representatives, and 38 State Senators were co-conspirators in the popup of Public Act 52 of 2007 ("Closed Early Michigan Presidential Primary") signed by Gov. Granholm on September 4, 2007.
  • Early voting kicks off in parish (The Natchez Democrat) This is the first election cycle in which closed primaries are being used in Louisiana, Ensminger said.“We have always had open primaries, and a lot of people crossed party lines to vote in an election, but hopefully there won’t be too much confusion,” she said.

CAMPAIGN
  • Poll: Obama leads by 5 points in Colorado (Washington Times) Among independent voters, Mr. Obama took 43 percent, Mr. McCain 34 percent, Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney 2 percent, with 31 percent undecided.
  • Poll: McCain leads Obama in Colorado (The Denver Post) In the poll Independent voters split between the two candidates, with 46 percent favoring McCain to Obama's 44 percent.
  • PRESIDENTIAL RACE: Nevadans give McCain edge-But undecided voters hold key to election (Las Vegas Review Journal) Obama had a lead among Nevada independent voters, 40 percent to 34 percent, with 26 percent still undecided.
  • Wild West No Longer a Lock for GOP (CQ Politics)

1 comment:

Steve Rankin said...

Under "Reform," the headline on the piece about the Oregon ballot measure is misleading. NO political party supports M65, since it takes away the parties' ability to officially nominate candidates.

Under this monstrosity, the top two candidates, regardless of party, advance to the runoff; this makes it nearly impossible for independents or small party candidates to reach the runoff and thus have a chance to be elected. The two final candidates are almost always a Democrat and a Republican, two Democrats, OR two Republicans.

In a system of party primaries, there is no limit to the number of independents who can run for each office in the general election, and that's the only campaign that an independent has to wage. In the "top two" system, in contrast: if lightning strikes and an independent makes the runoff, s/he then must wage a SECOND general election campaign.

That's another downside of the "top two" monstrosity: the top two vote-getters are forced to wage TWO general election campaigns; this discourages candidates from running.

M65 hardly qualifies as "reform." In California (which has had nonpartisan county and municipal elections for nearly 100 years now), the voters rejected the "top two" for state offices in 1915 and for state AND congressional offices in 2004.

When a small party's message is kept out of the final election, the party loses its main reason for existing.

Why should the voters be limited to only two choices in the final, deciding election?

Free Citizen