CA Prop 14 Passes

[Al_Simmons]

LA Times:

This was voted on twice before, passed, and then overturned by either the courts or by ANOTHER initiative in 2004.

I view this as the "Democrat/RINO Reelection Initiative", given the Dem registration edge in CA. How many races will now have two Demo(n)crats running in the General? May not be an issue in the 'Big races' for Gov/Sen, but it will have an effect of smaller state races for sure.

The GOP opposed it, of course I voted "No", but predictably it passed (you ought to have read how they worded it on the ballot - shall we say the only thing they could have done more to promote it would have been to leave a chocolate bar for "Yes" voters.)

This depresses me. Hopefully the courts will strike it down again, but this is decades later and the "state of the law" might have changed.

All in all, it is the one really depressing outcome from yesterday.

Any thoughts on the possible ramifications of this differing from my "gloom and doom"?

[saveliberty]

Al_Simmons! You are right that there are other ways to include registered voters who do not belong to any party.

 

In Massachusetts, the biggest party is unenrolled. What used to happen was that an unenrolled registered voter could go to the polls on primary day, choose a ballot and vote. The act of choosing a ballot was taken as a party registration. However, there used to be a table on the other side of the polls in which the voter could change back to unenrolled. I don't know if this is still true and if so, how far ahead a person who is enrolled in a party would be able to switch parties before a primary.

 

Updated to correct my language.

Edited June 9, 2010 by saveliberty

[SrWoodchuck]

Al_Simmons!

 

We're one more election away from a socialist state, and possible anarchy; the Dems are certainly scared that their actions will ruin their goal of permanent domination and control.

 

As this disenfranchises independent & write-in candidates, it should be litigated immediately. Having voted Republican in past elections, I'm carried on their roles and still get their literature; but I consider myself an Independent voter, and have sent the literature back to indicate my choice [ Even though I still voted Republican.]

 

I have never voted in a primary election & think a large segment of the voting population [30%-40%] do not vote primary, either. This seems a good basis for looking at having it stricken down, since 1 in 3 voters will now be denied their ultimate choice [ May be higher in Cali., since illegals don't usually register party affiliation.]

 

Prop 14 seems to add to partisanship & push voters to choose one camp over the other [ making identifying for party fund-raising easier.]

 

It works both ways....hopefully, people will realize that Democrats need to go.....unless they live in San Francisco or Detroit.

[Argyle58]

It never ceases to amaze me. Dims are constantly trying new ways to fix elections, but always accuse the Republicans of "dirty tricks". I can't think of many things as harmful to the democratic process than Prop. 14. However, as SrWoodchuck points out, this one cuts both ways. The problem is, as it does work against both sides, this means we will end up with weaker candidates on both sides of the ballot. Instead of better government with strong leaders, we will end up with people in office that won their primaries because the other side thought that they would be the easiest to beat.

 

As if we don't already have enough problems.

[Ghost]

I wonder how many of the general population REALLY have a handle on any issues they vote on/for/against. I think they listen too often to "leaders" .. be they union bosses, political party pundits or (HORRORS) the media to make their decisions. Most of the info passed on by the "experts here mentioned" is either bold faced lies or half truths..

 

I know in our area for most issues the folks I know that are well educated & thing of themselves as savvy usually dont take the time to find out the facts - will either not vote on issue or ask someone they know what they think or how they will vote

 

We had this recently on smoking votes, casino/gambling votes, some property rights issues.

[SrWoodchuck]

I wonder how many of the general population REALLY have a handle on any issues they vote on/for/against. I think they listen too often to "leaders" .. be they union bosses, political party pundits or (HORRORS) the media to make their decisions. Most of the info passed on by the "experts here mentioned" is either bold faced lies or half truths..

 

I know in our area for most issues the folks I know that are well educated & thing of themselves as savvy usually dont take the time to find out the facts - will either not vote on issue or ask someone they know what they think or how they will vote

 

We had this recently on smoking votes, casino/gambling votes, some property rights issues.

Ghost!

 

Jefferson County, Colorado.....the county in which I reside, distributes non-partisan information booklets, at least a month before polling day. It lists all judges [incl. reviews by lawyers] for retention, all local,state & federal tax measures, ordinances & candidates [incl. background & sponsorship] and gives a synopsis of both pass & fail, along with projected costs. I receive my write-in [absentee] ballot about the same time & I'm able to relax, research & study before voting & mailing it in. No crowds, no cheat sheets, no standing in line. Once registered, you will be sent the ballot each year [first year you have to provide documentation.]

[Valin]

Under the new measure, only the top two vote-getters in a primary election -- regardless of their political party -- will advance to a November runoff. Currently, the top vote-getter in each party advances to the fall campaign.

 

Excuse me!

[Sabre86]

The whole point of this is so the Democrats can finally get the majority needed in the state legislature to go ballistic on taxes. The super-majority rule is the only thing holding them back.

[SrWoodchuck]

Under the new measure, only the top two vote-getters in a primary election -- regardless of their political party -- will advance to a November runoff. Currently, the top vote-getter in each party advances to the fall campaign.

 

Excuse me!

Valin!

 

The vote on this was 54% to 46%, and described as a way to "enfranchise 3.5 million independent" Cali voters, that are frustrated in not having a voice. I can see that it may have sprung from a tea party mindset of "neither party is responsive to our needs."

 

Some suggest that it will "balkanize" segments of Cali voting districts. It certainly increases the payoff & threat of vote buying, and other Acorn style voter frauds. As Sabre86 suggests, it's most pernicious for packing local & state offices, since it's not valid during Presidential races. I think it means the forced disappearance of all minor parties, including libertarians, greens & independents, and as such, can be stricken down.

[Valin]

Under the new measure, only the top two vote-getters in a primary election -- regardless of their political party -- will advance to a November runoff. Currently, the top vote-getter in each party advances to the fall campaign.

 

Excuse me!

Valin!

 

The vote on this was 54% to 46%, and described as a way to "enfranchise 3.5 million independent" Cali voters, that are frustrated in not having a voice. I can see that it may have sprung from a tea party mindset of "neither party is responsive to our needs."

 

A position I've held for many many years. What business is it of a non party member who a party nominates? That is what general elections are for.

 

Cali voters, that are frustrated in not having a voice.

 

Thinking...thinking...thinking....Then join a party.

 

"neither party is responsive to our needs."

 

Ponder...Ponder...Ponder....Then join a party....and change it, Start your own.

 

 

Question: is there anything to stop a party that came in 3rd...4th....running a write-in campaign?

[SrWoodchuck]

A position I've held for many many years. What business is it of a non party member who a party nominates? That is what general elections are for.

 

 

Affecting only State & Local legislative office: In a voting district that has a dominant percentage of one party, it encourages same party members from splitting & diluting a party vote; but more importantly, it encourages parties to attempt to gain crossover votes, in order to prevail.[Their thinking-not mine]

 

Therefor, it matters what non party members think & do on election day; as they could be your push to be in the top two.

 

 

Cali voters, that are frustrated in not having a voice.

 

Thinking...thinking...thinking....Then join a party.

 

"neither party is responsive to our needs."

 

Ponder...Ponder...Ponder....Then join a party....and change it, Start your own.

 

 

They've joined parties: La raza, eco-weenie, libtard, Californians for Nude gardening, libertarian & independent...& they still have no political power in state & local elections, so this will prevent [what might ordinarily be some term limited Rep./Dem.] from just walking into another state office, in a political version of nepotic musical chairs.

 

 

Question: is there anything to stop a party that came in 3rd...4th....running a writ-in campaign?

 

 

All candidates can be on the ballot......the electorate chooses two.....and they compete in the final election.

 

It could be two Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, Transgender, Eunuch Party candidates, running for dog catcher of Podunk Heights, California, and if they split the top vote.....they're in the big race. They just have to get the votes, which means Move.on & Acorn tactics could deliver victory.....if they aren't caught.

 

Pelosi & Boxer fought this proposition by the way.