>Every sensible political reform minded person should support any
>political initiative (e.g. Prop 62) to establish a run off system.
Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan are the most prominent supporters of Proposition 62. Because they are "sensible political reform minded" persons? :->
As for funding for Proposition 62:
<blockquote>[T]he campaign behind the proposition, Californians for an Open Primary, is being bankrolled with millions of dollars from many of the same friends, political patrons and corporate interests that helped put him [Arnold Schwarzenegger] in office last year.
Riordan, an honorary co-chairman of the committee, has given the campaign $100,000. One of the campaign's chief strategists is Mike Murphy, a veteran GOP operative who is in Schwarzenegger's inner circle of political advisers.
Eli Broad, a co-founder of builder KB Home and a member of the governor's transition team, has funneled $166,500 to the committee. (Michael R. Blood/Associated Press, "Primary Reform on Ballot," Los Angeles Daily News, October 7, 2004, <http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~25406~2453010,00.html>)
Altogether, "Californians for an Open Primary raised $4.1 million since beginning its campaign last year" (Alex Dobuzinskis, "Prop. 62 Base Stays Close to Grass Roots: Statewide Campaign Home Is Right Here in Burbank," Los Angeles Daily News, October 6, 2004, <http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20946~2450934,00.html>). "Mortgage, retail and development companies" are the main supporters, according to the Sacramento Bee (Dan Smith, "Prop. 62 Puts Party Lines on the Line," October 3, 2004, <http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/10963811p-11881150c.html>).
Alan writes:
>I agree with Wojtek-this would get California much closer to IRV
>implementation
Proposition 62 has nothing whatsoever to do with Instant Runoff Voting.
The question is whether the elections in California will be even more candidate-centered than today. All US elections are already far more candidate-centered than party-centered elections in comparable rich democratic nations -- the difference that Proposition 62 will make even more pronounced, by making it even more likely than it is today that only the two richest candidates (from the same party in many districts) will be on the general election ballot in each election (except the presidential election and the election of the party central committee).
>I thought that there was some ruling or some such that banned new
>blanket primaries, involving Washington state I think. Does anybody
>know what I am talking about?
In 2000, the US Supreme Court struck down Proposition 198, a 1996 ballot initiative that established the blanket primary in California:
<blockquote>from the June 27, 2000 edition California-style primaries banned Warren Richey, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor <http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/2000/06/27/p1s1.htm>
WASHINGTON - Should Democrats participate in the selection of a Republican nominee for public office? Or Republicans help pick the Democratic Party's candidate in a primary election?
The US Supreme Court has now answered both questions with a resounding "no."
In striking down California's "blanket" primary system, which lists all candidates on one ballot and allows citizens of all political stripes to vote for any party's candidate, the high court ruled that political parties in California have a constitutional right to exclude nonparty members in primary elections. . . .
California established the blanket primary after 60 percent of state voters approved Proposition 198, a 1996 ballot initiative. The three other states that hold blanket primaries - Alaska, Louisiana, and Washington - presumably will also now have to revise their systems.</blockquote>
The major difference between Proposition 198 and Proposition 62 is that, unlike Proposition 198, Proposition 62 doesn't guarantee that each party has a candidate on the general election ballot (cf. <http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov04/prop_62_entire.pdf>).
<blockquote>AN OPPOSING VIEW PROP. 62: Bayou State 'reform' would limit voter choice in California Jim Hartman <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/10/20/EDGP59C0M91.DTL> Wednesday, October 20, 2004
. . . Voters must understand that this ballot proposition is not a real "open primary" or even the "blanket primary" proposal adopted by Californians as Proposition 198 in March 1996. If this initiative is adopted, there will no longer be party-nominated candidates for statewide or legislative races at the primary election.
Rather, candidates' names would appear on a primary ballot randomly placed. All voters, including those not affiliated with a political party, would receive the same ballot and would be allowed to vote for any candidate, no matter what the candidate's party affiliation. The two candidates receiving the highest number of votes, regardless of their political party, would appear on the November election ballot.
To a large extent, the two candidates qualifying for the November election will depend on the number of candidates from each party running in the primary. Multiple candidates from one party will split their party's voters and will give advantage to the party with fewer primary candidates. In statewide races, if the primary field consists of three or more Republicans and two Democrats, the November general election would likely be between two Democrats. Similarly, if the field consisted of three or more Democrats and two Republicans, the runoff would likely be between two Republicans. These whimsical outcomes are anti-democratic.
Former U.S. Rep. Tom Campbell, a Republican and past sponsor of Prop. 198, observes that in his 1992 Senate race, with a separation of only a few thousand votes, the two candidates qualifying for the November runoff would have been Democrats if this form of primary had been in effect.
Adoption of the Prop. 62 plan will have a devastating effect on small parties. With runoff elections involving only the two top vote-getters, it will be a rare instance when a Green Party candidate's name would appear on the November ballot. California voters will have fewer choices on their November ballot because minor party candidates would no longer appear.
Moreover, in strong Republican areas in the state, legislative races would often result in no Democratic candidate in November. In many urban counties, Republicans would be totally eliminated from November legislative races. . . .</blockquote> -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * OSU-GESO: <http://www.osu-geso.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>