[GPSCC-chat] Fwd: Prop 14 (Top Two) forum in Santa Clara on Tuesday, Marc...

[Cameron L. Spitzer]

I suspect Spencer was looking for some history to complement
our already plausible conclusions about the intent and
effect of top-two.  Not dismissing our reasoning.

We now have per-party-primaries, which the parties can open if
they choose, followed by a general election.

Top-two replaces that system.  The new system has no
per-party-primaries, a mid-year general election, and a runoff
in the fall.  Without per-party-primaries, party affiliation
has no legal meaning.

It's easy to be confused by funny terms like "open primary."
When candidates from all parties run against one another, that's
not a primary, it's a general election.

Several states already do that, all that's different is the
schedule.  So the "evidence" Spencer wants can be found in
the experience in those states.  Georgia, Virginia, 
Washington.  Washington had a sort of Nader campaign club
in 2000, which disappeared shortly after that election,
but never got a Green Party together.  Georgia was one of
the first US states that organized a Green political club,
and it even formed locals in the larger counties, but never
reached a thousand members, despite two decades of relatively
competent organizing effort.  Virginia got started later
but the story's the same.  You could run down the chart
in _Ballot Access News_ and catch the rest.  States with
"open primaries" or no party-voter affiliation
don't grow Green Parties.  The correlation is just
about absolute.  The only thing missing is an experiment
where a state takes away party-voter affiliation that it
used to have.


-Cameron