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

[Tian Harter]

I can say a few words about the New Zealand system, which I've been
watching as a hobby for many years. Their system is what's refered to
as a "mixed member system", meaning half are elected proportionally,
and half are elected by districts. When a voter goes to vote there,
they get two votes. The first is a district vote, and the second is a
Party vote. When someone decides to run for office there, the first
question is probably: do I want to go for party votes or district votes?

Each Party is responsible for coming up with ways to earn party votes.
They also give the vote officials a list of party members in the order
the would get elected if enough voters voted for them. The New Zealand
Greens turn in a list with something like a dozen names on it, but as
a practical matter usually the top four to six get seated.

District vote elections are handled much like our Congressional or
Assembly elections. It's winner take all. Jeanette Fitzsimons, who
recently retired as co-leader of the NZ Greens was elected that way
many times, because she was well known enough in the district for that.

Most of the Greens in the Govt. were elected on the party list though,
because they weren't well enough known to take a district. Also, the
Greens are one of the few international parties, and we benefit from
being on the front lines of issues like climate change. For a long time
I was carrying around the flier they gave out to earn Party votes.
I wish I could show it to you, but I've given it away now.

Tian

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
>>    

-- 
Tian
http://tian.greens.org
Latest addition: Pictures and words about the Green Party of California.