<font color='black' size='2' face='arial'>Dear Friends,
<br>
<br>
Dave Schwab's definitive analysis of Prop 14, originally posted
on Green Change has been reposted to Wes Rolley's "California Greening"
web site. This should be copied, re-linked, and circulated widely to
defeat this "independent killer" so-called reform.
<br>
<br>
Alex Walker<br>
Los Angeles Greens
<br>
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
<br>
<br>
<strong>Leave a Comment at:</strong><br>
<a href="http://cagreening.blogspot.com/2010/05/5-reasons-to-vote-no-on-prop-14-top-2.html">
http://cagreening.blogspot.com/2010/05/5-reasons-to-vote-no-on-prop-14-top-2.html</a>
<br>
<br>
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
<br>
<br>
<em>[Editor's Note: This commentary was originally posted on Green
Change]</em>
<br>
<img src="http://alexcathy.com/images_greening/stop14.jpg"><br>
<strong>Published by Green Change, April 27, 2010<br>
<a href="http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=5776">The top five
reasons for Californians to reject Top Two Primaries</a><br>
by Dave
Schwab</strong>
<br>
<br>
On 8 June 2010, voters in California will decide the fate of Proposition
14, the Top Two Primaries Act. If Top Two primaries are adopted, all
candidates for Congress and state office in California will run in the
June primary on a single ballot used by all voters. Then, only the two
candidates who receive the two highest vote totals will be allowed to
run in the general election.
<br>
<br>
Proponents of Top Two, aware that California voters rejected the idea in
2004, have been claiming that Top Two will fix California's government
by reducing partisan gridlock. There is nothing from the experience of
the states that use Top Two to support their claims. However, there is
ample evidence that Top Two further entrenches incumbents and reduces
voter choice. In fact, it's more than likely that Top Two would
reinforce gridlock and entrench the same politicians who created it.
<br>
<br>
<ol><li>Top Two won't work.</li><li>Top Two is unpopular.</li><li>Two is
undemocratic.</li><li>Top Two is unconstitutional.</li><li>Two is
unecessary.</li></ol>
<br>
<br>
Close consideration shows not only that Top Two won't work, but also
that it is unpopular, undemocratic, unconstitutional, and unnecessary.
There are many good election reforms that deserve support, but
Proposition 14 is not one of them. Let's explore the top five reasons
for California voters to reject Top Two:
<br>
<br>
<strong>1. Top Two won't work.</strong>
<br>
<br>
Proponents claim that Top Two will reduce partisanship in elections, the
supposed cause of dysfunction in California state government. There is
nothing in the experience of the states that have used Top Two,
Louisiana and Washington, to suggest that it reduces partisanship. To be
honest, backers of Proposition 14 should be saying that Top Two
entrenches incumbents. When Washington used Top Two for the first time
in 2008, out of 123 state legislative races, 8 Congressional races, and 8
statewide races, only a single incumbent was defeated in the primary - a
state legislator who had a personal scandal and would almost certainly
have been defeated under any system.
<br>
<br>
The claim that Top Two will reduce gridlock in California's legislature
is baseless. In the words of election law expert Richard Winger, "The
real cause of gridlock in the California legislature is the rule that
budgets can only be passed by a two-thirds vote of each house of the
legislature… The real solution to solve California's budget gridlock is
to eliminate the rule that the budget can only be passed with two-thirds
of the legislators in each house… We should let the majority party in
the legislature govern. If the voters elect a majority party, let that
majority party pass its budget. If we don't like that budget, we not
only have recall, initiative or referendum, we can defeat the majority
party in the next election and replace it."
<br>
<br>
Top Two would front-load the election season with an early,
make-or-break primary. In the short season before the primary, the
advantage to candidates with the money to bombard voters with
advertising would be multiplied many times over. In an era where special
interests and their front groups can funnel billions of dollars into
political campaigns, independent candidates who run on good ideas and
grassroots organizing will find it virtually impossible to compete with
well-funded political insiders.
<br>
<br>
It's unrealistic, too, to expect that the press will counter this
imbalance by providing the voters with fair and balanced coverage. The
media already pays more attention to political horse races than to
candidates' positions on the issues. If Top Two is passed, it's
improbable that the media will suddenly make the extra effort to fully
inform the voters about all their choices before the primary. More
likely, media outlets will simply try to pick the likely Top Two winners
based on how well known and well-funded they are, and largely ignore
the other candidates.
<br>
<br>
The claim that Top Two will solve California's political problems has no
factual basis. In fact, the evidence suggests that it could make
existing problems worse. Perhaps most unrealistic is the idea that
limiting voters' choices in the general election will somehow make
politics better. Aside from incumbent politicians, who honestly believes
that giving voters less choice in elections will improve anything?
<br>
<br>
<strong>2. Top Two is unpopular.</strong>
<br>
<br>
In 2004, California voters rejected Top Two by voting 54% against
Proposition 62. In 2008, voters in nearby Oregon rejected Ballot Measure
65, which would have established a Top Two system, in a landslide of
66%.
<br>
<br>
On the other hand, instant runoff voting, an improved voting system that
protects voter choice, has won approval from voters in San Francisco,
Berkeley, Davis, and Oakland by margins of 56%, 72%, 55%, and 69%,
respectively. Charter amendments authorizing use of instant runoff
voting, or IRV, have passed in San Leandro and Santa Clara counties.
After using IRV for the first time, 82% of San Francisco voters said
they preferred IRV to the city's previous election system.
<br>
<br>
The numbers don't lie: instant runoff voting is as popular as Top Two is
unpopular. So why are political insiders pushing for Top Two, which has
recently been rejected by Californians and a full two-thirds of voters
in Oregon?
<br>
<br>
<strong>3. Top Two is undemocratic.</strong>
<br>
<br>
By design, Top Two restricts voter choice. By cutting down the field of
candidates in primary season, which is notoriously dominated by
big-spending special interests and party bosses, Top Two guarantees that
most independent and third-party candidates, as well as grassroots
candidates in the major parties, will be out of the race before most
voters and journalists are even paying attention. Opposition to Top Two
from numerous election reform groups, as well as voices from across the
political spectrum, demonstrates Americans' basic understanding that
limiting voter choice runs counter to the idea of democracy. Voters
should have the right to vote for the candidates and parties they agree
with, and the public discourse suffers when independent voices are cut
out of the debate.
<br>
<br>
Proponents of Top Two often claim that it won't hurt third parties and
independents. Richard Winger of Ballot Access News, America's leading
expert on ballot access laws, explains why this is false: "In practice,
[Top Two] would eliminate minor party and independent candidates from
the November ballot. We know this is true because Washington State tried
the system for the first time in 2008, and that's what happened.
Washington, for the first time since it became a state in 1889, had no
minor party or independent candidates in November for any statewide
state race or for any congressional race."
<br>
<br>
Top Two would effectively restrict voter choice to two parties - or one
party in many districts. Although the Constitution makes no mention of
political parties, the practical effect of Top Two would be to give the
Democratic and Republican parties a monopoly on power. Which leads to
the next problem with Top Two:
<br>
<br>
<strong>4. Top Two is unconstitutional.</strong>
<br>
<br>
Americans' First Amendment right to association gives us the right to
support any political party we choose. The right of political parties to
run candidates for office is violated when the electoral system is set
up to make it easy for dominant parties to push everyone else off the
ballot. If the Democratic and Whig parties had passed laws to protect
incumbent politicians and ruling parties in the 19th century, we would
probably never have had a President Abraham Lincoln or a Republican
Party.
<br>
<br>
Proposition 14 would immediately disqualify the Libertarian and Peace
and Freedom parties, further violating their members' First Amendment
right to free association. America's founders warned that political
parties could try to use their power to further their own narrow
self-interest. What would they think about a proposed law that would
give two parties a virtual stranglehold on elections?
<br>
<br>
<strong>5. Top Two is unnecessary.</strong>
<br>
<br>
Instant runoff voting, an improved voting system used in San Francisco
and other California cities, actually delivers the benefits that Top Two
is supposed to, without the drawbacks that make Top Two worse than the
status quo. Even with more than two candidates on the ballot, instant
runoff voting, or IRV, ensures that the candidate with the broadest
support will be the winner.
<br>
<br>
Under IRV, voters rank the candidates in their order of preference - as
election reform advocates say, "IRV is as easy as 1, 2, 3." If no
candidate receives a majority of first-place votes, the candidate with
the least votes is eliminated, and votes for the eliminated candidate
are transferred to voters' next choices. This process continues until
one candidate has a majority.
<br>
<br>
Instant runoff voting has several clear advantages. It eliminates the
common problem of "spoiled elections", in which one candidate wins
without majority support. In the same way, it eliminates the problem of
similar candidates "splitting the vote", and actually encourages
positive campaigning, since it creates an incentive for candidates to
appeal to their rivals' supporters. Finally, since IRV produces a
majority winner no matter how many candidates are on the ballot, it
allows for an informative and broad debate during election season, with
voters exposed to a range of views before making their decision.
<br>
<br>
Top Two is a deeply flawed system in comparison with instant runoff
voting. With Top Two, vote-splitting will still be a problem in
multi-candidate races. Negative campaigning will become the norm under
Top Two: like a game of king of the mountain, candidates will throw each
other in the mud in hopes of coming out on top.
<br>
<br>
Realistically, Top Two will not accomplish what its proponents claim,
aside from producing false "majority winners" selected by a plurality of
a minority of voters. In other words, when 10% of voters turn out for
the Top Two primary and vote 40% for Candidate A and 35% for Candidate
B, that doesn't mean that the other 92.5% of voters are going to feel
that they have a satisfactory choice in either Candidate A or B.
<br>
<br>
If Top Two passes, the political discourse will suffer, because the
period between June primaries and November elections, currently the most
active time for public debate, will be purged of the independent, third
party, and grassroots candidates who so often bring fresh, innovative
ideas to politics. Instead, the range of opinions voters hear will be
restricted to two, often coming from candidates in the same party.
<br>
<br>
Instead of front-loading the election cycle with a make-or-break Top Two
primary, instant runoff voting would allow all candidates to compete in
the general election, when the vast majority of voters actually turn
out. Voters would get to hear and consider viewpoints from a wider range
of candidates in the general election, not just two candidates who may
well belong to the same party. After considering what all the candidates
have to say, voters could get out their instant runoff ballots and
support the candidates they agree with most, without fear of
inadvertently helping the candidates they agree with least. Maybe that's
why voters prefer IRV: instead of feeling pressured to support the
lesser of two evils, they can support their favorite candidates -
whether liberal, conservative, moderate, Republican, Democrat, Green,
Libertarian, Peace and Freedom, American Independent, or just plain
independent - and know that their vote won't be wasted.
<br>
<br>
Instant runoff voting produces winners with broad majority support more
reliably than Top Two, and without the problems that make Top Two worse
than no reform. Why should voters accept an unnecessary and flawed
system, when a better system is already gaining ground throughout
California?
<br>
<br>
<strong>The top five reasons to reject Top Two - plus one</strong>
<br>
<br>
To recapitulate, Top Two won't work - at least not like proponents claim
it will. Top Two is unpopular - voters recently rejected it in
California and Oregon. Top Two is undemocratic - it restricts voter
choice and suppresses independent voices outside the two-party political
establishment. Top Two is unconstitutional - it violates our civil
rights by giving two parties an effective monopoly on power. Finally,
Top Two is unnecessary, when instant runoff voting is better on all
counts.
<br>
<br>
One last reason to vote against Proposition 14: Top Two is a top-down
proposal. Ballot measures like Proposition 14 always seem to come from
political insiders, usually with the backing of wealthy special
interests to help advertise the alleged benefits of Top Two to a
skeptical public. Indeed, Proposition 14 was placed on the ballot as
part of a vote-trading deal by State Senator Abel Maldonado, who felt
Top Two could help his ambitions for higher office. Governor
Schwarzenegger has funneled $500,000 from his personal PAC into the
campaign for Top Two, including money from corporations like Chevron,
PG&E, and Wal-Mart. Corporations that have donated directly to the
Proposition 14 effort include Hewlett Packard, Blue Shield of
California, and Pacific Life Insurance Company. In the words of election
reformer Christina Tobin, who is running as the Libertarian candidate
for California Secretary of State, "It is safe to assume that large
corporations regulated by the state want to have government in their
pockets. They want to maintain the two-party status quo."
<br>
<br>
Instant runoff voting, on the other hand, always comes from the
grassroots. Campaigns for IRV are led by active citizens, community
organizers and voters' rights groups like FairVote, Californians for
Electoral Reform, and the Coalition for Free and Open Elections (all of
which are opposing Proposition 14). Referendum victories show that
voters like the idea of IRV, and exit polls show that voters like how it
works in practice. If the goal is to fix California's election system
so that it will produce winners with majority support, why are
Proposition 14's backers pushing the flawed, unpopular Top Two system
instead of instant runoff voting?
<br>
<br>
All Californians who value democratic freedoms and sincerely want better
elections should vote no on Proposition 14. Even members of the
Republican and Democratic parties, if they heed the founders' warnings
about political factions, should recognize the danger of cementing the
Democratic-Republican monopoly on power and vote no. You don't have to
be a libertarian to value the civil and political liberties of your
fellow Americans. For supporters of electoral reform, Top Two is just a
distraction from the real goals of instant runoff voting and other
worthy reforms like proportional representation. We have better options
than Top Two - options that we might not know about today, if Top Two
had been in place earlier to stifle independent voices in the public
arena.
<br>
<br>
<strong>Here's what you can do to help stop Top Two:</strong>
<ul><li>Share this article with your friends and family.</li><li>Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper explaining why
you oppose Proposition 14.</li><li>Volunteer with Green Change to help stop Top Two.</li></ul>
Learn more about the campaign to save independent politics in California
at <a href="http://StopTopTwo.org">StopTopTwo.org</a>
<br>
<br>
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
<br>
<br>
<strong>Leave a Comment at:</strong><br>
<a href="http://cagreening.blogspot.com/2010/05/5-reasons-to-vote-no-on-prop-14-top-2.html">
http://cagreening.blogspot.com/2010/05/5-reasons-to-vote-no-on-prop-14-top-2.html</a>
<br>
<br>
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
<div> <br>
</div>
<div style="clear: both;"></div>
</font>