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 GuardianThe 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.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
