The Great Voter Silencer: CA’s Prop 14
by Thomas Del BeccaroCalifornia’s June primary features one of the most undemocratic initiatives ever foisted upon voters by politicians. Falsely called an “Open Primary,” when actually it is a Top 2 Primary, the initiative actually reduces voter choices, effectively silences third parties and will harm our democratic process.

Our current system features a primary process in which various partys, Green and otherwise, participate. The nominees of those partys then square off in November throughout the state along with “write in” candidates. Prop 14, which is opposed by The California Republican Party, and is pushed by some of the proponents of the failed 2009 Prop 1A tax increase, would end that system in favor of a Top 2 Primary. Under Prop 14, all of the parties and candidates are forced into a single primary in June and then only the Top 2 vote getters square off in the Fall – no one else has a voice.
1. The End of 3rd Parties in California. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Prop 14 would put a literal an end to third parties. Third parties already have a difficult challenge to be heard under our present system. Lack of money makes it very hard for them to compete with the major parties. Even so, over time, third parties have made an enormous contribution to our system in their minority role. For instance, it was the Reform Party of the 1990’s that focused America on the perils of deficit spending while the two major parties failed to lead on the issue.
Their candidates ran throughout the country and throughout California in the Fall elections. In doing so, their message against runaway spending and deficits was heard throughout the election process all the way to Election Day. Their contributions had an obvious impact on the candidates of the major parties.
Under Prop 14, however, future Reform Partys will be no more. The voice of any such challengers to the establishment will be silenced as of June primary. Likely unable to bankroll a candidate to finish in the Top 2, all of the third partys, and their “unwanted” challenges to the establishment, will be silenced because they will not be able to participate in November election. Keep in mind, that overall voter participation, in California primaries, is less than half of that in November. Voters simply pay more attention in November than June. As a result, the voice of minority party candidates will effectively silenced long before November when precious few are focused on the great issues of the day.
2. No More Write-In Candidates. Adding insult to the injury of our system, write-in candidates will no longer exist under the Prop 14 system. Imagine that: certain politicians want to end your right to mount a write-in campaign – they want to end our right to challenge them in the November election. On its face, that alone should be reason to vote against this measure.
According to Jefferson, “When wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality.” The well-funded proponents of Prop 14 want to silence third party voters and write-in candidates. They want to take away your rights. It is up to all voters to resist that take-over and defeat Prop 14 for the sake of Liberty.
** Join the California Republican Party’s Effort to STOP Prop 14 @ The CRP Wants You to FIGHT FOR FREEDOM






Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
56 Comments
The Liberals say "we will have to kill somebody"! Here is a look back at Leftist hate of Bush and the Right – the rhetoric they condemn now!
http://www.youtube.com/user/taylorlcx#p/a/f/0/z6b...
Are you attempting to make a parallel between William Randolph Hearst and Andrew Bretibart? I know Hearst had his little slice of opera singer on the side, but I'm pretty sure Breitbart's extracurricular activites don't swing that way.
It's "parties," not "partys." I'm a conservative and generally love this site, but all the typos and lack of proofreading are really getting embarrassing.
What could be more "democratic" than having a one-party state of Democrats? /sarc
Who has time to proofread? Leave that for term papers. Content. COntent.
Did we expect an initiative to recognize and support third parties? Maybe ask Nancy if the Tea Party can use her house for fund raising. CA voters will shut this one down.
WA state has a similar system — and, yes, third parties are dead.
It's "party's" not "parties" you fool!
Looks liek its time to get your behind out of ScoiaIist California!
Everything California does is to empower Democrats and destroy the free-market. This Proposition 14 is just another assault on a free-market system.
They are beginning to notice that The Tea Party movement is actually becoming less of a movement of voter discontent to ascending to a Political Party. They are scared their Liberal bastions are going to be overrun & they want to put the cap on that attempt. As long as they can keep an (R) by a candidate they can demonize him to be evil. A third party of True America gives them no one to blame. If they come out against the citizens & the new party then they will really piss us off.
I have been noticing that.
I think the California thing is seriously nutso and even in today's environment could be successfully challenged in the courts. I would expect the parties could change to methods used in other states and that the candidates selected would have to be put on the ballots.
But I digressed–on the issue of "third parties" I think the folks that are against them are right, for the reasons they give.
What the RNC does not realize is that it is becoming the third party.
Or have become and are now being recognized. (Think: who stayed home in droves?)
Remember…as goes California so goes the rest of the nation. Totalitarianism on the installment plan!!
it has already been done in most places. Suppose you believe you can influence people to vote for you as a write-in. In Texas, if you don't file all the same signature petitions as the major parties or pay the same filing fee, even though your name won't be printed on the ballot, the votes of those you influenced are NOT counted…just thrown on the ground. A write-in in Texas is somebody that must meet the same standards or be a ghost. Of course, this assumes that precinct level people actually check the list of valid write-ins and don't just happen to throw it on the ground anyway. How many believe believe that a write-in counts? Probably most. Probably doesn't. The major parties have ALREADY decided that small challengers cannot participate.
Well said. I love watching the progressives bow up thinking that we'll back down. It doesn't happen anymore.
Who is behind the bill?
Actually, I see it differently. Remember who is in support of this nonsense. It is the democrats. And democrats in California don't mind running against Republicans, UNLESS one of those other "democrat-like" parties are on the ticket. You know, like the green party, socialist party, communist party, militant islamic party, union thug party, etc.
Even the California democrats can't afford that kind of split in their voter base.
This article is correct. Also we may end up with two candidates from the same party to chose from making things worse out here.
http://www.PoliticalCentrist.com News and views for independent voters
Ann I have to agree with you. I can ignore a typo here or there, but I have seen way too many here lately. Having said that, I do love this site and the perspective the authors have to bring.
But, just like Hearst (Welles) had his image reflected ad infinitum in his mirrored halls at "Xanadu"…
…Breitbart's image is being multiplied and reflected thru cyber-infinity by his many and growing number of media blogs/newssites…
I guess california plans to feed off the teet of the federal government. Hey, golden state! Welcome to the plantation.
Nothing is EVER going to change until conservatives show they mean business. Nothing.
She wasn't an opera singer dope, she was an actress -
Whoa…I thought it was par-tay….
My high school English teacher was fond of saying , "Never trust anyone who uses "party" as a verb.
Aren't we all taught from a young age that the greatest virtue of a great society and all it's people is based in principle on truth and honesty. What does that say about the United States of America today where the two controlling political parties, the republicans and the democrats, lied to the American people when they put forth Barak Obama as a candidate for the Office of President knowing that he was never eligible to ever become a presidential candidate because of his father never ever being a citizen of the United Sates. Why is it so important for the democrats and the republicans and practically all of the main stream media that the United States and it's great people should suddenly rely upon deceit and malfeasance as the new principle for which a great society and it's people is based upon? Why do they want us to go throughout our lives knowing that life in America is nothing but a lie? Deceit and malfeasance prevails in America while truth and honesty has passed away! So much for providing for our POSTERITY!
We never learned to write properly in school, because our main curriculum was putting a Rubber on a Cucumber.
Pepsi or coke? Coors or Budweiser? Burger King or McDonalds…Blue colored Socialists, or Red colored socialists…They are trying to rig the game and still give the illusion that you have a choice. Even if a 3rd party cannot win an election, they can still have a mojor impact on an election. Perhaps if folks will break out of the whole party mindset, we might actually see some real decent people get elected.
I have no issues with this system… except when the "primary" is 5 months before the real election.
In Louisiana, the "primary" IS the election; if one of the candidates receives 50%+1 votes, they're elected, otherwise it's a top-2 run off. This CA initiative sounds very similar. But in Louisiana, the "primary" is in November, and the run off in December. 5 months between is nuts!
Absolutely!!
Right in spirit but wrong on the mechanics.
A top two system helps third parties. With a top two runoff system Doug Hoffman would now be in the House of Representatives. It encourages voters to choose third parties. For example a vote for the Libertarian, instead of the Republican, does not give the race to the Democrat.
The flaw in the proposition is it denies the parties the opportunity to select their own candidates first. Regardless, if you want healthier, stronger third parties, this proposition would be a huge boost.
In the movie "Citizen Kane" the character was an aspiring opera singer…
….Movies…Reality…what's the difference ?…
Third parties are dead, dead. Dead! in Washington State. Voting feels a like brainwashing. We have a 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice ballots. Why? I don't know, it feels like a trick question. It has to take more time to count and verify. It is beyond my reasoning why. I suspect they want to be able to play with the numbers so we can have endless re-counts until the count is what the Democrats WANT. That's how we got Gregoire!
Sure, your vote counts…. It's becoming harder and harder to believe.
This sucks!!!
California is a great place to be from……….far from.
This is the system currently in place in Louisiana. It was created under the circumstance that for nearly 80 years there was only ONE party active within the state. From the end of Reconstruction until the 1980s every governor of the state was a Democrat. The result being that in many elections the final 2 candidates are in fact of the same party, depending on the demographics of the district and how many people ran for the office. But it sounds like this proposition is far more insidious than Louisiana system.
I surely agree. I think that the difference is the growing voter discontent. I know how wacky people from Ca. can be. Look at what they have been indoctrinated with for long enough. I believe even they have a shred of common sense or are beginning to have the Liberal toxic fog lifted. I wouldn't be surprised to see a huge backlash in that state soon.
1st, 2nd and 3rd Choices as in, "If my #1 guy is losing, count me in for #2 and if #2 is failing, then count me in for #3"? Holy Criminey!
If they are calling it“Open Primary,” you know it is double speak for "Closed Primary"
Have so few learned the lesson yet?
Problem is, here in California, the GOP just plain sucks. Many conservatives want to register as Independent voters due to that fact alone. There is absolutely no conservative education taking place here by the GOP. It supports it's safe districts, and most of the time never even puts up a challenger to the liberals. Really what this state needs is a conservative grass roots door to door campaign ala Scott Brown, and until more education takes place here, California will be doomed. The California GOP also has a tendency to capitulate and support RINO's.
BTW…as an Independent here in California you do not get to vote in the primaries unless their is an independent running. So if you are Independent and want to vote Republican, or Democrat for that matter, you are screwed in the primaries.
Primaries are for parties. If you don't belong to one, you don't vote in one. If you are unaffiliated with a party, then sit down, shut up, and wait for the rest of us to pick your leaders for you. (Sarcasm added for free)
"it was the Reform Party of the 1990’s that focused America on the perils of deficit spending while the two major parties failed to lead on the issue."
I'm not sure which election you are talking about. The Reform party made sure Clinton would be elected twice. The Republican party did not fail to lead on this issue, throughout the 90s. A large number of the leadership campaigned and won on this issue. The Reform party had nothing to do with the fact the Republican party erased the deficit in the 90s. In fact, because of the Reform party, the Republicans still had to compromise to get anything through the Democrat president.
Are you kidding me? This would be wonderful for 3rd parties. Right now, anyone who actually wants their vote to count for something votes either R or D. Sure, a few % vote 3rd party. Those people usually end up siphoning votes away from their 2nd choice in the process. They get to feel good that they made a "statement" but didn't accomplish anything. I suspect that 3rd party support is much higher that the voting numbers show, because most people don't want to "throw their vote away". If the primary were completely open, that gives 3rd parties a chance to grow, slowly at first, but as they push past 10%, they would get more and more support. This would never happen under the current system.
So who doesn't get a voice in this? That would be people who don't vote in the primaries. You can't please everybody, I guess.
Third parties in the US are clown shows that can only play the role of spoiler. Perot was taken seriously because he was both a billionaire and a popular hero due to his Iran rescue mission.
Third parties can only get off the ground in the US when some jurisdictions adopt a form of proportional representation. See Ireland, Netherlands and Israel for examples.
STFU! I do belong to a party…THE REPUBLICAN PARTY YOU IDIOT! What I am telling you is the GOP in California is a good ol' boys club that needs to reform and take on the liberals head on. One of the ways you reform a party is a mass exodus. They will have to work for your attention and vote that way. Due to the primary system your affiliation is a given, which to the parties is a gimme.
If you are a member of a party, then this message isn't for you. I was addressing the statement you made about independents. Of course they can't and shouldn't vote in a party primary! The statement is for those independents who strut around like they are 'holier than thou' because they don't get involved in parties, but vote for the 'best candidate.' Of course they miss the point that the candidates they get to choose from were already chosen by the parties.
I never saw the movie all the way thru, I admit, it bored me. But I did visit the Hearst Mansion in San Simeon (sp) many times and always understood her (can't think of her name) to be an actress – but I do agree with you, movies…reality – lol
Marion Davies – and you are correct she was an actress…
P.S. You also (sp) San Simeon correctly…AND you're closing in on "100p"…what's it like to be darn near perfect…?!?… ; )
Marion Davies, thank you! I can picture the face and I couldn't remember the name!
After getting slammed for typos I have to make my disclaimer when I'm unsure
2 for 2 tonight, that's some kind of record, lol
No wonder the progressives want this in CA, you have a very high likelihood of having 2 candidates from the same party going into the general election!
I am from California, but I moved to Florida as soon as I was 18! My recommendation to you and all other Republicans there is this: move to a red state, let the liberals tax and spend themselves into oblivion and don't let it affect you! California has the highest marginal tax rate and the highest debt load of all of the states, now they want to legalize drugs to bail themselves out! Instead of slashing spending and embracing fiscal responsibility, they are sacrificing morals to pay their bills, I expect prostitution and gambling to follow for legalization there. Truth be known, I have no problem with gambling, I do not see it as a harmful industry.
So what you are saying is that if you do not have one of two "pre-approved views", you do not deserve a voice? Are you sure you wouldn't rather live in China, Venezuela or Cuba?
If New York had a top-two system, Hoffman probably still wouldn't have been elected. The people who voted for Dede Scozzafava are more likely to have voted for the Democrat in the final round than for Hoffman. Dede endorsed the Democrat. Some diehards still voted for Dede. In a top-two system, Dede hadn't been on the ballot in the 2nd round, and probably most of her diehard supporters would have taken her advice and voted against Hoffman. Hoffman had a better chance in a 3-person race.
[...] 14 on California’s June primary ballot proposes an election system that would have open primaries, after which the top two vote-getters would face each other in the general election. At first blush, it [...]
In our last county election, 23 elected offices were awarded by appointment because only one candidate signed up to contest the seat. We need to find ways to engage more people, not fewer people.
We need the ability to run write in candidates when there are no suitable options on the ballot. For so many years I just settled for voting for the lesser of two evils. This year it all changed for me. This year, seeing no one I could vote for, I decided to run for office rather than throw my vote away by not voting.
This year I am a write in candidate. This year I will become the difference I have been waiting for someone else to bring. Go to mdparker4congress.com and join the fight. Let's take our government back. Let's defeat Prop 14!
It is not true that independents cannot vote in the primaries in CA. Any 'Decline To State' [CA's version of independent since the formation of the American Indpendent Party] can request and vote a Democrat or Republican ballot in the Primary. Of course, few voters know this so creating an open ballot is easier than educating voters to their choices.
The article neglects the Independent candidate who must file after the primary and will not be able to do so at all under this new Top Two system.
I don't have a dog in this fight. I am just hitting sites to try and get some straight talk on Prop. 14. My initial thought when reading the bill was a bit negative, but just from a queasy, uneasy feeling in my gut, and not from any research. I believe what is being said here sounds reasonable. It claims to be a conservative site. I also believe what a site claiming to be liberal has to say negatively about Prop. 14.
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1867...
The author raises very cogent points. I think many here might find the link interesting. Prop 14 may be working some magic I haven't seen in California since I arrived 20 years ago. It might be uniting the Left and the Right on voting against Prop. 14. One can only hope….
You must be logged in to post a comment.