Someone please enlighten me on "Open Primaries"

[drmom]

I'm going over my California voters guide, and trying to figure out how to vote on Prop 62, which would allow open primary elections. Is this good from a liberal viewpoint or not?

[Dookus]

1. I plan to vote No

I don't like open primaries. Too much room for mischief. I want Democrats to pick their candidates, and Republicans to pick theirs.

[Gelliebeans]

2. people keep saying

that if you support 62 you could end up with 2 republican candidates on the ballot...is that the major concern or am I way off base?

[Selatius]

3. Vote NO on 62

It allows the Republican Party to jam up the Democratic primary. If the Republicans fear a certain Democratic candidate getting the nomination, for instance, then what they can do is enter the primary and vote as a bloc for a weak Democratic candidate and thus potentially thwart the favored candidate of the Democrats. Of course, this goes both ways. Democrats can do the same to Republicans. However, given that the Dems are traditionally stronger in California, they stand more to lose than the Republicans would under such a system.

Personally, I don't condone such tactics in any direction. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

[TahitiNut]

4. It means you can vote in any single primary without being registered ...

... as a 'member' of that party. It's really the only way party affiliation could be kept off the voter registration records.

[Luminous Animal]

5. Not an "open primary"...

(Reposted from the California forum)

This proposition is wrong on so many fronts. As I posted on another board...

I am against prop 62. As stated, it would be a disadvantage to the party that ran more candidates than the other. For instance, if 5 Democrats ran and only 2 Republicans, the Democratic vote would be spread too thin to win any spot AT ALL in the general election. Also, third parties would be locked out of the November election, and in some state legislative districts Democrats would be completely locked out of the race, in others Republicans would be completely locked out.

Those that support it claim that it will increase competition and accountability. Where have we heard that kind of language before... no surprise that corporations have bankrolled the initiative. They claim that candidates would have to appeal to a larger number of voters. How would that be a good thing? Aren't we already saddled with a system in which the major parties pander to a mythical center while serving corporations? Also claimed, is that it would deflate partisan vitriol. What is wrong with partisan politics? Isn't that why we have political parties to begin with? Aren't are candidates supposed to have platforms and agendas that differ?

Those voters who are interested in non-partisan voting can simply simply re-register to vote as an independent or decline-to-state voter. Then they can vote for whomever they want in the primary.

The more I think about this proposition, the more it stinks. This perverts the whole idea of an open primary which should still allow the top vote getter from each party to run in the general election. What Prop 62 will do is lock up the candidates in March. Without a doubt the candidates will be 1 Democrat and 1 Republican or 2 Democrats or 2 Republicans. Third party candidates would no longer appear on the California ballot in the general election in the fall. It also puts the ability of progressive democrats or third party candidates to raise money and mount a campaign at a distinct disadvantage because the primary is held in March. The RNC Republicans and DNC Democrats already have a flow of cash but third party and progressive campaigns would be trying to fundraise during a tight money time of year... after the holidays and before tax day.

From The San Francisco Bay Guardian
The Prop. 62 scam
By Richard Winger

PROPOSITION 62 WAS placed on the November state ballot by big-business interests. It would require that all candidates for Congress and state office run on a single primary ballot. Voters would choose from that primary ballot, and the top two vote getters would then compete in November. There would be no other route onto the November ballot except by coming in first or second in the March primary.
The money that paid for the signature-collecting firm to get Prop. 62 on the ballot came from the following: Countrywide Home Loans, $350,000; Charles Munger, CEO of Wesco Financial, $200,000; and Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, $100,000. Other individuals who gave $100,000 are Elizabeth Rogers, Otis Booth, Stewart Resnick, Jerry Perenchio, and Richard Riordan. Individuals who gave $50,000 are Eli Broad, Haim Saban, Robert Day, and Donald Fisher.

Our California legislature is very diverse, not only ethnically and by gender and sexual orientation, but also in ideology. Yes, there are wild-eyed conservatives in our state legislature, but there also are solid, principled liberals. And yes, sometimes our legislators fight bitterly with each other, and it does take a while to get our budget passed. But that very diversity guarantees that every significant group in California has a spokesperson in the legislature.

Big business doesn't like our legislature. It would prefer a bland mix of "moderates," who would pass the budget on time and see to it that California's "business climate" took primacy over other concerns.

[Luminous Animal]

6. Here's a list of the top donors

FOR prop 62...

http://www.yeson60.com/update0909.html
Insurance Co and Financial Institutions
Countrywide Home Loans
$350,000
American Insurance Assoc.
$ 50,000
Mercury General
$ 50,000
American International Group
$ 25,000
Zenith Insurance Company
$ 25,000
Pacific Life
$ 15,000
Blue Cross of California
$ 10,000
Blue Shield of California
$ 10,000
Total
$535,000

Others
Dole Food Company
$100,000
John T. Walton (Walmart)
$250,000
Eli Broad (AIG Retirement)
$100,000
Haim Saban
$ 50,000
Total
$500,000
Political Players
Becky Morgan (former State Senator)
$250,000
Richard Riordan
$100,000
Total
$350,000
 
Real Estate and Development
Castle & Cooke
$100,000
KB Homes
$ 25,000
Irvine Company
$ 10,000
Granite Construction
$ 5,000
Newhall Land and Farming Co.
$ 5,000
Total
$145,000

[genius]

9. Note that these are Repub backing organizations

[mark414]

7. we have them here in wisconsin

sort of, but only because we don't have party registration in wisconsin.

but basically, the deal is this:

let's say there are 2 dem candidates, a real strong one and a real weak one.

in a closed primary, obviously only the dems can vote, and the strong candidate wins.

but in an open primary, the republicans could encourage republicans to go out and vote for the weak candidate so it's an easier general election for them.

and vice versa.

[genius]

8. VOTE NO. It means the Republicans will choose our candidate

Been there before. Done that. Turned out badly.

[Luminous Animal]

10. Phrase "open primary" ruled misleading...

Judge rules YES on 62 ballot arguments to be "objectively untrue and misleading" —

Orders term "Open Primary" stricken from official ballot pamphlet argument

(SACRAMENTO, CA) In a major victory for opponents of Proposition 62, a superior court judge today ruled that ballot arguments submitted by the sponsors Prop. 62 are “objectively untrue and misleading” and ordered the term “open primary” to be deleted from the arguments.

http://www.noon62.com/news/20040809/

[RedEagle]

11. Interesting information for Washington State, too

The Secretary of State, Sam Reed, is pushing hard for a "Cajun" primary in Washington. Same thing, top two.

Even more scary with Reeds ties to the voting industry.

[drmom]

12. Thanks DUer's! I will vote NO on this one

I knew I could count on you all!