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

[Gerry Gras]

Can you be more specific about the general / runoff system
you refer to?

I know a little bit about systems in other countries, but
I have not heard of any runoff part.

What I do know is that some countries have some kind of
proportional representation system.  In those cases, as
long as a party gets more than some minimum threshold,
2%? 5%?, then the party gets seats in proportion to the
percentage.  So the threshold to get some power is small,
which does encourage "third parties", (I don't know if
they are called "third parties").

I lived in Germany for a year, and a general election
happened during that time.  There were 5 parties, CDU,
SDP, die Grune, and two others.  One of the others
usually aligned itself with the CDU, the other usually
aligned itself with the SDP.  Die Grune often got between
5 and 10%.  To the best of my knowledge, the best that
die Grune got was around 10%.  And at least once it was
part of the coalition government, and the foreign
minister was Grune (Green).

Gerry





spencerg wrote:

> Hi, Cameron:
> 
> 
>       Yes, that was what I was looking for.  Thanks.
> 
> 
>       That raises another question:  What's the difference between this 
> Prop 14 system and the general / runoff system used in many other 
> countries where third parties thrive?
> 
> 
>       Best Wishes,
>       Spencer
> 
> 
> On 3/23/2010 5:02 PM, Cameron L. Spitzer wrote:
> 
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sosfbay-discuss mailing list
>> sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
>> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss
>>    
>