Posted on 12/29/2010 5:35:04 PM PST by JoeA
When the founders considered the form of government to replace the English monarchy, two examples of government led the lists: democracy and republicanism. Reasoning a representative republic led by informed citizens would be more stable than a direct democracy subject to volatile emotions of a public fired up over issues du jour, they opted for the republican form of government.
California, in its state constitution, allows for changes to its constitution via the ballot process, allowing propositions to be placed before the public for approval in a general election. California flirts with direct democracy, and, as the founders feared, finds itself continuously engaged in debate over issues du jour.
One such measure is Proposition 14, recently voted into law in the November elections. Pitched as a so-called open primary plan, it has withstood lawsuits to block its enactment, and been applauded by outgoing and nominally Republican Governor Schwarzenegger as a means of bringing more moderate officials into office. In fact, Proposition 14 would move California closer to a one party state by eliminating opposition candidates during the state’s primary. Under a new system (for all races except the presidency) candidates will appear on one ballot without party affiliation, and only two candidates who receive the most votes would appear on the November ballot, even if they are of the same party.
The most immediate effect of this disastrous measure is to effectively create a one party state in many areas of the state, and the elimination of third party and write in candidates in the general election.
A careful look at the results from this past June’s primary shows that if Proposition 14 were in effect six races would have allowed only Democrats to run in the general election, while two would have been solely Republican (see chart).
(Excerpt) Read more at exm.nr ...
When I read stuff like this I relish the fact that I am approaching 70. It will get ugly; the later the time, the worse the consequences.
I wonder what the country would be like if candidates were not allowed to put a “D” or and “R” next to their name and people voted for the candidate and not the party.
Maybe CA should be divided into 7 new states so we can get to that magical number of 57 states.
california is a lost cause. what we need is the flip side of secession; the rest of the country should drop california, and let it collapse on itself.
the only thing I will miss will be the dodgers. and the hot blondes.
So, Joe - A lot of us are interested in what you’ve got to say, but we really don’t like visiting The Examiner. It’s kinda crawling with cookies, trackers, beacons and ads.
So why don’t you post the whole thing here, so we can all read it?
Just imagine if both parties were bad.
Oh wait, Kalipornia is pretty close to that too.
Everyone should just move out!
Well that’s part of this change. But results in Louisiana and Oregon, where they have had open primaries, show it doesn’t make a difference.
I am not sure this would be a disaster. In San Francisco and Berkely, there is zero chance a Republican will be elected to anything, and the primary process insures that the most left-leaning Democrat will win. Now, the November election will be between a moderate Dem and a far-left Dem, and R’s can join with moderate Dem’s and actually affect the outcome.
They might as well not be on the ballot anyway.
Let the dems OWN that state as they have been. It has been the perfect test case for failure.
It’s a shame it had to be with such a large, once great and productive state....
However, it has been obvious to me for some time that the parties exist as mechanisms whereby money from gullible idealists can be converted into cold hard cash for slick opportunists.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. What if the final candidates in an election are both from the same party? If one is more moderate than the other, then that candidate may win over the extremist. Democrats will still win in Democrat districts, but maybe they won't be quite so loony. Of course, RINO's being elected in Republican districts is also more likely, but you got to take the bad with the good.
In the end I think redistricting will have more of an effect. I wish that California had either lost or gained a seat in order to spawn large scale changes in the districts, but if the new commission is even moderately fair, we should get fewer overtly one-party districts in the future.
This should accelerate its descent to full Third World hell hole status.
When the founders considered the form of government that would replace the English monarchy, two examples of representative government led the lists: democracy and republicanism. Reasoning that a representative republic led by informed citizens with a stake in the nation’s well being would be more stable than a direct democracy subject to volatile emotions of a public fired up over the issue du jour, they opted for the republican form of government.
California, in its state constitution, allows for changes to its constitution via the ballot process, allowing propositions to be placed before the public for approval in a general election. In that sense, California flirts with direct democracy, and, as the founders feared, finds itself continuously engaged in debate over issues du jour such as global warming, gay marriage, and the like. The process substitutes feel-good-politics for representative governance, and creates a climate of volatility in public policy. Potentially disastrous policies may be proposed and enacted under the banner of reform, and play to voters’ passions rather than reason. While voting into office a demagogue playing electoral emotions is not unheard of in America (and in the eyes of cynics may be the norm), those results can be and often are corrected in the next election. Not so changes to the state’s constitution, which become permanent, unless replaced by another measure or ruled unconstitutional by the courts.
One such potentially disastrous measure, masking as electoral reform, is Proposition 14, recently voted into law in the November elections. Pitched as a so-called open primary plan, it has so far withstood lawsuits to block its enactment, and been applauded by outgoing and nominally Republicans Governor Schwarzenegger and Lt. Governor Abel Maldonado as a means of bringing more moderate officials into office. But a careful reading of the measure, and an examination of voting history, shows that the law will do anything but that. In fact, Proposition 14 would move California closer to a one party state by eliminating opposition candidates during the state’s June primary. Under a new primary system (effective for all races except for the presidency) all candidates will appear on one ballot without party affiliation, and only the two candidates who receive the most votes would appear on the November ballot, even if they are some of the same party. Separate ballots for Democrat and Republican candidates would be eliminated: a single list of candidates would include all major and minor party candidates.
The most immediate effect of this disastrous measure is to effectively create a one party state in many areas of the state, and the elimination of third party and write in candidates in the general election. By requiring that only the top two vote-getters be placed on the November general election polls, many areas of the state would find only Democrats running in the general election. In eleven California counties, registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than 2 to 1 majorities, in San Francisco by a margin of 5 to 1, in Alameda (Oakland/Berkeley) 4 to 1. Only in three rural and lightly populated counties, Lassen, Modoc, and Placer, do Republicans hold a 2 to 1 majority. A careful look at the results from this past June’s primary shows that if Proposition 14 were in effect six races would have allowed only Democrats to run in the general election, while two would have been solely Republican (see chart).
Three more races were very close, and could have eliminated the Republican contender. In no case did a third party candidate –or even an aggregate of votes for third party candidates– come close to qualifying under Proposition 14’s rules. Third party candidates, because they are a third party, have less visibility and their campaigns require more time to attract public interest. Setting a June rather than November time line to achieve recognition effectively eliminates that possibility. In removing that choice from voters, Proposition 14 robs Californians of our right to vote for the candidate of our choice in a general election, forcing us to choose between A and B.
In a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than two million voters, and in 2011 will control all statewide offices, the effect could be the effective elimination –by constitutional means—of any electoral opposition to Democrats in office. California Democrats will have instituted dictatorial control via the ballot box, with the support of mis-guided Republican officials, while its citizens congratulate themselves on having achieved reform.
Until they run out of other people’s money, California’s socialists, parasites, and illegals will, for all practical purposes, eliminate Republican candidates from their ballots.
sounds easy... but i'm not yet willing to let go of this beautiful land... i know it's an uphill battle... but i would feel like that anywhere in this world... honestly, our family is swimming up stream no matter where we go...
Thanks!
It actually may help Republicans. Since most dems in the state just vote for the D on the ballot
Now they will have to actually read about the candidates and choose the person, not the party
What CA voters do to themselves is none of my business...but the idiots they elect that effect the rest of us is sickening. They’re crazy!
Ah the Jungle Primary. Louisiana used this back in the day to foster democrat control but that has changed now to where Republicans win. It was assumed that the democrats would be the top two voter getters and oppose each other in the runoff if one was needed. Edwin Edwards was the promoter.
The Californian Republican party has a huge share of the blame. We get rolled, but the inability of the party to support good people, and the poor campaigning, hand the Democrats quite a few victories that needn’t occur. Parts of California are rock-ribbed solid common sense conservative, in the very best sense of that word. Tom Mcclintock is a good example. Hell, even the crooks like Cunningham are good for something (the Predator drone); but instead we give the world Arnold (don’t think you’re done with him, he’s going to be the RINO that Democrats invite to the party for the next 30 years).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.