Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Firestorm over California Proposition 14 open primary initiative continues

Unfortunately IPR has joined other short-sighted third party forces like the Libertarians and Greens (and Ralph Nader) who oppose Prop 14, a referendum that would give rights to independent (decline-to-state) voters in California and provide an open field for all candidates in the first round of voting. Read independent attorney Harry Kresky's HuffPo response to Nader "Why Independents are Right and Ralph Nader is Wrong about Proposition 14."

OPEN PRIMARIES
PROP 14
  • Editorial: IPR Opposes Proposition 14 in California (Independent Political Report)
  • Why Independents are Right and Ralph Nader is Wrong about Proposition 14 (Harry Kresky, Huffington Post)
  • The Great Voter Silencer: Prop 14 (Tom Del Beccaro, CA Repub Vice Chair)
  • Reclaiming Our State Government (By Roger Clark, Fox & Hounds Daily) Californians are angry because we recognize the winds of partisan self-interest have eroded Citizen Power.  Not since the days of Governor Hiram Johnson, who in 1911 successfully championed Citizen Power through enactment of referendum, recall and initiative to overcome the power of the special-interests of the day -- the railroads - have the people been as angry. Our frustration with partisan politics is evident as the ranks of "Decline-to-State" registered voters have swelled to almost twenty-one percent of all voters.
  • Editorial: Effort to shrink state government stalls (THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER) Meanwhile, another initiative approved for the ballot by full-time legislators would make it easier to pass more laws and impose higher taxes. Backers of Proposition 14 on the June ballot would change election laws to create open primaries...
  • RIP part-time Legislature. And danger looms (posted by Mark Landsbaum, Orange County Register/Orange Punch/Freedomblogging - a Libertarian blog) Meanwhile, there’s another initiative the full-time legislators  themselves approved for the ballot: Proposition 14. It  would provide open primaries. The argument for it is that it will remove  the gridlock  that  comes from polarized ideologues in Sacramento. And that means, the  Legislature will find more votes in the mushy middle to do things  like  expand  government even more and impose even more taxes.
  • California NAACP Opposes Proposition 14 (Ballot Access News)
  • Catching up on California Referenda, etc. (William P. Meyers, California Democracy blog) In particular I think that "third" parties will be able to attract more voters in the primaries under Proposition 14, and that should help them build their cores of regular voters.
  • Netflix CEO Puts Cash Down "Open Primary" Rathole (Steve Rankin, Free Citizen blog) I am continually amazed that some independents and small party members support the “top two open primary.” I guess they don’t give a damn about having a chance to elect independents and small party candidates to office, since the final choice in the “top two” is almost always one Democrat and one Republican, two Democrats, OR two Republicans.
TEA PARTY
  • Obama takes care in sizing up tea party movement (By JENNIFER LOVEN (AP) The president said on NBC's "Today" show that the movement is built around a "core group" of people who question whether he is a U.S. citizen and believe he is a socialist. Beyond that, however, he said he recognizes that the movement involves people with "mainstream, legitimate concerns" about the national debt, government expansion and big spending.
EDUCATION
GEORGIA
  • Senate bill 'no party' for merger (J.D. Sumner, Albany GA Herald) In the wake of Monday’s discovery of a Georgia House rule that may threaten the passage of a bill calling for consolidation of Albany and Dougherty County based on a clause that would affect the partisanship of those seeking office, The Herald has examined the bill and city records to see how and why partisanship found its way into the bill.
NEW YORK

2 comments:

Vigilante said...

Thanks for linking on Open Primaries. It's an idea whose time came a decade ago!

Daniel Ferris said...

Both sides have legitimate points. There is also a possible middle ground. Smaller parties have a legitimate fear of having their identity hijacked by others, making it difficult, if not impossible, to have a more principled party. Independents are tired of having to choose between the lesser of two evils designated by the party committees. A simple answer, to me, is to force open primaries only when there are a few dominate parties in power. The smaller parties can still protect their "brand name", unless they too become dominant,