Voters favor bringing back open primary

[bemildred]

Rival measure also winning, but with half undecided

Sacramento -- Voters favor bringing back a primary system that allows them to vote for any candidate they wish, giving Proposition 62 a double-digit lead, according to a Field Poll released today.

Voters also back Proposition 60, a rival measure that would reaffirm the way legislators, members of Congress and statewide officials are elected now, but a huge 50 percent of voters say they remain undecided.

---

Nonpartisan voters overwhelmingly favored Prop. 62 -- 56 percent to 21 percent. Republicans were almost evenly divided, while Democrats backed the idea 43 percent to 32 percent.

---

Prop. 60 was hurriedly approved by the Legislature and placed on the ballot to counter Prop. 62.

SFgate

[lazarus]

1. 62 is horrible

what it states is, the primaries are open, and the TOP TWO vote getters move on to the general election, regardless of party.

So you could, conceivably, have two Republicans running for an office, and that's it.

[bemildred]

2. Yeah, it sucks, I agree.

But they iced the previous open primary, which was popular,
so they got this instead. Maybe they should have left the other
one in place?

FWIW, I find the idea of NO Repubs on the ballot much more likely
in California, in most cases, and THAT would allow us to push the
party to the left. No more "throwing your vote away" by voting for
a real progressive.

[lazarus]

3. that's true

but it's so far from what I consider a democracy. It ensures that a third party is marginalised even more than it currently is.

[bemildred]

4. It is hard to predict how this will work out.

As I said I don't like this one much, but I think it
leads in the direction of a no-party system. Parties thrive
and survive on the ability to control who gets nominated and
who gets elected, or most especially who does not get a
credible shot at office. This seems to me to allow "big-man"
politics, independent operators who have their own following and
can tell the party to shove off and still win. The combination
of this with internet based politics appears particularly volatile,
but for people who are disgusted with things as they are, this
offers change. I dunno whether it is good change or bad change.

[lazarus]

5. the best way to eliminate party politics

would be to reform the legislature into something more like a parliament.

[bemildred]

6. Parliamentary systems do seem to work better (in a general way).

The identity of head of state and chief executive seems to be
a bad idea, IMHO.

[demosincebirth]

9. People don't really know the inplications of this proposition.

[bemildred]

10. People don't really know the implications of most propositions.

Most of the propositions that we see are deliberately misleading
about their intent, or else they just don't mention what they are
really FOR at all. I vote against all propostions that appear
opaque or misleading as a matter of principle, the last thing we
need is more incomprehensible blather in the state code and
Constitution.

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. That is exactly how they do it in Louisiana

[bemildred]

7. So I finally read the voters pamphlet on this,

and I offer a bit of exegisis on these propositions, all stricitly
my own interpretation.

Prop 62 is a direct attack on party power in state politics and
especially the two big parties, Dem and Repub. It takes power
away from the two big parties, is mixed for the smaller parties
and gives a lot more power to unaffiliated voters, who would have
a say much earlier in the selection process for state political
leaders.

I am, for instance, registered as a Democrat so that I can vote in
and influence Democratic choices for state office. I will no longer
have to do that, I can register as independent or with some minor
party and still have a full say in who the "mainstream" candidates
are.

It makes the primary much more important than it is now, and should
result in increased turnout in primary elections, where now a lot of
the "independents" don't show up because they have no choices to make.

It will likely result in less of the tweedledum and tweedledee and
suit-droid candidates that we have become used to from the major
parties, because polarities in the electorate will be manifest in
the primaries.

It's very much a roll of the dice, one cannot predict what will
replace the party political system we have now, it will result in
a political system that is much less "controlled", whether that will
be good or not is unpredicatble.

It is somewhat ironic that the current primary system was a reform
or the old "smoke-filled room" method of picking candidates, and
this can seen as a further devolution of electoral power downward
into the electorate, or an attempt at that.

[MaryBear]

11. If a third party had a truly viable candidate,

that person could early on become one of the two that face off. Although it could be misused by someone throwing their vote away to nominate a weak opposition candidate, I think that would happen no more than now. The primaries could be more important if this passes, and the field could be open.

ON EDIT: How would this affect national elections?

[davidinalameda]

12. no effect on national elections

[MaryBear]

13. It could, then,

support groups like greens develop a larger base. I'm thinking consequences would be more favorable than not.

[bemildred]

14. The effect on national elections is more subtle.

The Presidency stays like it is, theoretically. But if third
parties and the unaffiliated both rise, that will affect party
politics at the national level too. California's turn from a
Repub to a Democratic state is already having a large effect,
even if it is little discussed, because the state is so large.
And if it actually manages to break the political "deadlock"
in Sacramento that will have effects too. It's just hard to
predict where it will go.