Proposition 14, falsely dubbed an “open” primary, has found support among some prominent California newspapers. The Sacramento Bee says it will be a “win for democracy.” The San Francisco Chronicle says it will “create real competition.” The San Jose Mercury News says it will result in “a broader electorate choosing more results-oriented representatives.” Those papers could not be more wrong – and that is why the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Peace and Freedom Party, the Democrat Party and the Republican Party all strongly oppose Prop. 14.
Our current system features a primary process in which all political parties, major and minor, participate. The nominees of those parties then square off in November throughout the state along with write-in candidates. Prop 14, which is being pushed by some of the proponents of the failed 2009 Prop. 1A tax increase, would end that system in favor of a “Top Two” primary. Under Prop. 14, all of the parties and candidates are forced into a single primary in June (when far less voters participate as opposed to the fall) and then only the top two vote-getters square off in the fall – where no one else would have a voice, write-in or otherwise.
1. Equality of Opportunity Not Outcome. At the outset, it is worth noting that Prop. 14 proponents openly hope it will produce a certain kind of candidates – so-called “moderates” – without any accurate, historical proof or data that it will. In other words, they openly are attempting to socially engineer election outcomes. Quite frankly, our Founding Fathers believed in equality of opportunities, not outcomes. They would have never sanctioned a election system designed to produce a certain type of thinker or politician – however fashionable it may be to claim they are necessary at any moment in time. No person who believes in the American experiment with liberty could possibly back a scheme whose purpose is to produce a specific type of candidate or politician.
2. A Loss for Democracy. The Sacramento Bee believes Prop. 14 will be a “win for democracy.” To support that comment, it states, “In some parts of the state, third-party candidates might also benefit. In San Francisco or Mendocino County, Green Party candidates might prevail in legislative contests, just as a Libertarian might win in Placer or Orange county.” Concentrating solely on an unsupported, hypothetical outcome, the Bee neglects to point out the Green and Libertarian Parties’ strong opposition to Prop. 14. Beyond that, how is it a “win for democracy” for the Green or Libertarian Party to go from actually being on the ballot in every corner of the state in the fall (a sure thing based on equality of opportunity) to a mere potential of being on the ballot in only two places (a hypothetical outcome)?
Further, hypotheticals aside, keep this in mind: not one single minor party member ever qualified for the second round in Louisiana in 35 years of that state’s use of the top-two system. In other words, Prop. 14 is a death knell for 3rd parties – and that is bad for democracy.
Finally, how can the San Jose Mercury News serious claim that Prop. 14 will allow for “a broader electorate” at the same time it literally outlaws write-in candidates in the fall? Keep in mind that California voters elected a write-in candidate to Congress in November 1982 in San Diego County, Ron Packard. Long Beach voters elected a write-in candidate Mayor in 2002 and, in 2005, San Diego city voters nearly elected a write-in candidate for Mayor — Donna Frye. Under Prop. 14, direct voter access to the ballot box in the Fall would be forever cut off – and that too is bad for democracy.
Whyare those predetermined outcomes bad for democracy? Quite frankly, the key to any democracy or republic is the free flow of ideas. Third parties are often the incubator of those ideas – effectively denying them access toballots and voters in November would represent a devastating loss for democracy.
For instance, during the 1850’s a small third party insistently pushed a rather controversial idea – the end of slavery. Eventually, their idea became law. Under Prop. 14, however, that party likely never would have seen a fall election because they probably would never have been able to crack Prop. 14’s “Top Two” system. That high hurdle also would have discouraged prominent Whig Party members from leaving the Whig Party in favor of that new third party. Of course, the third party I am referring to was the Republican Party and prominent Whig Party members, Lincoln among them, left that party knowing their third party had equality of opportunity and access to voters so they could be heard in the fall elections.
More recently, the Reform Party, made a huge contribution to our political dialogue in the 1990’s. That party focused the nation’s attention on federal deficits – something the major parties failed to do. Today, the deficit issue polls at the top of voters’ concerns. Under the “Top Two” primary system of Prop. 14, the Reform Party never would have gotten off the ground because it never would have had its candidates on the fall ballot, as it did in 1992, 1994 and 1996.
Those important outcomes would not have occurred but for the equality of opportunity and access to the fall ballot. Prop. 14 would end that equality of opportunity and access in California in favor of attempting to socially engineer an outcome desired mostly by newspaper editors.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.