Tag Archives: nonpartisan blanket primary

Presidential Election 2016: Voting Democrat to Vote Socialist

16 Wed Mar 2016

Posted by in Democracy Deferred, Democratic Party (USA), Political Science, Presidential Election 2016, Prison Abolition

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BernieSanders-Caricature by Flikr user DonkeyHoteyLUMPENPROLETARIAT—Gonzo:  On Monday, I did what I never thought I’d do again.  I registered (online) to vote, as a Democrat.  Gasp.  Like many progressives across the nation, I abandoned an alternative political party—in my case, the socialist Peace and Freedom Party—and registered as a Democrat. [1]

I admit that I voted for Bill Clinton in the first presidential election, in which I was old enough to vote.  But free speech radio and alternative media soon shed light on the many problems with the Clinton administration’s foreign and domestic policies, including laying the foundations for the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2008.  So, some of us have voted (and campaigned for) Ralph Nader‘s presidential campaigns since then, until Nader’s retirement from running.

But, momentously, Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, has an opportunity to win the Democratic presidential nomination.  But something tells me the Democrat Party bosses, whoever they are, will not allow that to happen.

Although the rules and laws vary from state to state, in California, for example, it seems that so-called independent voters, or closeted voters, those who “Decline to state” a political party, it seems those non-affiliated voters can vote in the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination election, or primary. [2]  At least, that’s what some colleagues tell me.  But, then, the Democratic Party can be anti-democratic, if it so chooses, and break its own rules, as it pleases.  So, voters, such as your author, who are strategically re-registering as Democrat to throw their weight behind the Bernie Sanders campaign and against Hillary Clinton, may simply be discounted by the Democratic Party’s bosses at the last minute.

Lumpenproletariat is a non-partisan website, open to all perspectives, but transparency seems key to understanding.  And, in the interest of transparency, we’ll admit that securing one’s right to vote for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party’s 2016 primary appears to be the most effective strategy working class voters can take at this moment.  We just don’t see the candidates being proposed by any of the alternative political parties as being more progressive or competent than Bernie Sanders.  Of course, we’ll also admit, should Bernie Sanders fail to be nominated by the Democratic Party, we’re immediately going back to building alternative political parties for a more democratic society.

Often, we can rely on free speech radio to be informed about the world around us to be effective and engaged citizens affirming our own political autonomy.  But in the case of electoral politics, at least the free speech radio broadcasts I’ve caught, the public has been given flimsy information.  For example, Democracy Now!‘s Amy Goodman decided to interview a former Republican congressperson, who was arguing that blanket primaries, were the most democratic form of primaries.  And, sadly, the usually bright Amy Goodman, didn’t question the anti-democratic nature of blanket primaries. [3]  To give a second example, Uprising‘s Sonali Kolhatkar provided a useful broadcast on explaining particular rules and laws of voting processes.  Unfortunately, she decided to interview the author of an antidemocratic Top Two primary law without being particularly critical.  Granted, Sonali Kolhatkar did question the voting system, her questions didn’t seem to have any teeth. [4]

Celebrated, and lionised, Mumia Abu Jamal has also recently contributed to the literature a new commentary on the USA’s electoral process, or lack thereof.  Basically, voting sucks within a corrupt system.

MUMIA ABU JAMAL: [5]  “Voting for your pain.  An election is occurring tonight.  It’s a primary, one of many dozens to come.  It matters not where or, for the most part, even who.  Elections are public expressions of emotion, as in, who do you like?  Who do you feel like voting for?

“Millions of dollars are spent on massive advertising campaigns built to bend your emotions, play to your fears, or evoke your deepest hatreds.  Few have plans for your hopes.  Fewer still have a handle on your dreams.

“We have become accustomed to voting for lesser evils, forgetting the obvious truth that the lesser evil is still evil.

“So, we end up voting for wars we don’t want, policies we don’t support, and people who you don’t like.  Essentially, we settle and wonder why things go from bad to worse.

“Each candidate promises the moon and barely delivers dust.  And that is the nature of the beast.  The U.S. political system wasn’t designed to represent the people.  It was constructed to represent the propertied, the well-to-do, elites.

“A system was built to protect the interests of a wealthy minority.  The people, in the words of one of the so-called founders, Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, were seen as a riotous mob, which filled him with fear and trembling.

“Do you really think that founders like these ever wanted the mob to vote, ever?  That spirit, the fear of the mob may be seen today in the increasing efforts to deprive more and more people of a so-called right to vote, not to mention giving them someone to vote for.

“For over 70 years, it allowed primarily southern states to develop practices, that demanded that blacks pass literacy test, bean-counting tests, and noxious grandfather clauses, which allowed one to vote only if one’s grandfather voted, which, if one’s grandfather was a slave, their grandchildren were barred from voting forever.

“Today, voting itself has become a lesser evil, a process, that preserves the power of the propertied and the economic privileges of the elites.

“From imprisoned nation, this is Mumia Abu Jamal.”

Messina

***

[Partial transcript by Messina for Lumpenproletariat and Uprising.]

UPRISING—[14 MAR 2016]  “From Los Angeles, California, this is Uprising.  And I’m Sonali Kolhatkar.  It’s Monday, March 14th, 2016.  With anti-establishment candidates running in the presidential primaries, we’ll explore, today, the question of:  Who can vote in which primary?  And we’ll hear a commentary by Mumia Abu Jamal on voting and elections.  Plus, organiser and activist Rosa Clemente is one of seven people with Black Lives Matter [BLM] facing charges in Los Angeles.  We’ll speak to her about it.  And we’ll hear the voice of Jasmine Richards, a young BLM activist, who may be facing the harshest criminal charges in the nation for her activism.  That’s coming up after the news.” (c. 1:08)

[News Headlines omitted by scribe]

SONALI KOLHATKAR:  “Welcome back to Uprising.  I’m Sonali Kolhatkar.  According to Gallup, more than a third of all eligible voters in the United States are not affiliated with, either, the Democratic or the Republican party.  While they can, also, choose who they want as president in a general election, in the primaries, it becomes more complicated.

“Depending on the state where you live in, independent or Decline–to–state voters may, or may not, be allowed to vote for a candidate, that they like, if that candidate is running with a major party.

“The case of Bernie Sanders is especially telling.  The Democratic-leaning Senator spent most of his career identifying as an independent, but is now running as a Democrat.  And he’s attracting plenty of independent progressives.  But can they all vote for him?  (c. 9:11)

“Similarly, there may be some independent voters who back Hillary Clinton simply because they yearn for a woman in the White House.

“Joining me now to shed some light on these questions is Chad Peace.  He is president of Independent Voter Media.  Welcome to Uprising, Chad.” (c. 9:25)

CHAD PEACE:  “Thanks for having me.”

SONALI KOLHATKAR:  “Well, let’s start with California, whose primary is in early June.  It’s a huge state.  Or, as Sanders would say:  a ‘uge state.  Lots of delegates at stake.  If independents can vote in the Democratic Primary, you might have a very different dynamic, than in a closed primary.  So, can they in California?

“Can independent or Decline-to-state or even people registered with other parties, can they vote in the Democratic Primary, if they choose?” (c. 9:54)

CHAD PEACE:  “Well, in California, we have what’s called a semi–closed primary.

“Now, if you wanna get technical about it, our Constitution actually says we’re supposed to have an open primary.  But the Democrats have opened their primary to non-member voters or non-partisan voters.  So, if you’re an independent, you can vote in the Democratic primary, but not if you’re a member of a third-party or the Republican Party.” (c. 10:20)

SONALI KOLHATKAR:  “I see.  So, if you’re like me, who’s Decline to state, I could vote in the Democratic primary.  But if I was with, say, the Green Party, or the Peace and Freedom Party, or the Libertarian Party, I would not be allowed to vote in the Democratic Primary in California.”

CHAD PEACE:  “That’s correct.  You’re Decline-to-state, you have to request a Democratic Party ballot; and they’ll allow you to vote.”

SONALI KOLHATKAR:  “Now, this is something, that the Democratic Party has made as an exception to this year’s election?  Or is this how it always is?”

CHAD PEACE:  “Well, if you go back in—California, actually, used to have what was called an open blanket primary. [3]  And it was the choice of the voters to participate.

“In the year 2000, ironically, it was the Democratic Party, that sued the State of California, saying you can’t force us to allow non-members to participate in our primary.

“Now, they won that case.  And I say irony because now the Democrats, on their own volition, allowed non-members to participate.  In the Republican Party, actually, on their own volition, chooses not to allow them to participate.” (c. 11:21)

SONALI KOLHATKAR:  “And I wanna get to the Republicans in a minute.

“So, just to clarify, for our California listeners, who are eligible voters, if you are registered with a party, that is not the Democratic Party, but you would like to vote in the Democratic Primary, you would have to, either, change your party affiliation to Democrat or Decline to state.

“If you are already Decline-to-state, then you can vote in the Democratic Primary, or you could vote in the primary of, I believe two other parties, that have opened up this year, the Libertarian among them, and one other party.  Right?”

CHAD PEACE:  “The American Independent.”

SONALI KOLHATKAR:  “The American Independent Party.

“So, if you want to vote in the Democratic Party, those are the ways, in a Democratic Party primary, those are the ways, in which you can do so. (c. 12:14)

[SNIP] (c. 59:59)

Learn more at UPRISING.

[This transcript will be expanded as time constraints and/or demand or resources allow.]

***

[1]  Here’s a recent article from the Peace and Freedom Party, the only socialist political party in California, critiquing and citing Bernie Sanders:

*

We Can’t Tail After the Democrats  by Bernie Sanders

Posted on September 2, 2015 by the Communications Committee

This article is the first to appear in The Sanders Campaign: A Symposium. To download in Adobe Acrobat format for printing and distribution, click here.

Introduction by the PFP Communications Committee

We find much of what presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is currently saying about wealth inequality and by implication about the failures of a capitalist economy in the U.S. to be consistent with our platform.

But we think that Bernie Sanders should be running outside the two-party system. Instead, he is running as a Democrat and will likely support the winner of the Democratic primary (he did with Obama), which almost without a doubt will be the “corporate liberal” Hillary Clinton.

While raising important issues for the electorate to consider, the Sanders candidacy also has the function of giving an undeserved left-liberal legitimacy to the Democratic Party. His campaign, which does not directly criticize the record of the Democratic Party or of Ms. Clinton, serves to draw back into the fold otherwise disaffected voters who had been disappointed when the progressive hopes generated by candidate Obama turned out to be largely hopes without substance.

The Peace and Freedom Party considers that one of the first steps toward progressive change in the U.S. is to have an organized left party that is independent of the two corporate parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. Ironically, this argument is masterfully made by Bernie Sanders himself in the following article that is reproduced from The Guardian of September 27, 1989 (we have added the subtitles). Written 26 years ago, Sanders’ prescient analysis applies to his current campaign.

Bernie Sanders says the following …

Democratic and Republican Parties Are Indistinguishable

We need a new, progressive political party in the U.S. because on almost every important issue the Democratic and Republican Parties, both controlled by Big Money, are indistinguishable. The “Reagan Revolution” of the 1980s was not created solely by Ronald Reagan and the Republicans. It was brought about with the active and strong support of the Democratic Party which controlled the U.S. House of Representatives for eight out of Reagan’s eight years and the U.S. Senate for two out of Reagan’s eight years.

During the Reagan era both parties supported huge tax breaks for the rich – and major cutbacks for working people and the poor. Both parties supported a huge increase in military spending – and cutbacks in education, housing and environmental protection. Both parties supported the illegal and immoral wars against Nicaragua – and efforts to weaken the trade union movement.

We need a new, progressive political movement in this country because the Democrats and Republicans are not only incapable of solving any of the major problems facing this country, they are not even prepared to discuss them. On the most important issues facing this country the Democrats and Republicans have nothing to say.

Mass Media Is Heavily Censored

The mass media in this country is heavily censored by the corporate ownership and the companies that advertise. “News” is increasingly presented as entertainment with exciting video of plane crashes, terrorists in action and other 30-second “news briefs.”

Analysis of why things are the way they are–the unfair distribution of wealth and power, starvation and poverty, war, ecological destruction, racism, sexism, etc. – is not considered “news.” Serious writers and cultural workers who wish to address the problems that most affect the U.S. public are completely out of the “public” broadcasting system. The simple truth is that ideas that are in conflict with the ruling-class ideology are almost never allowed on the mass media.

Has the Democratic Party ever once raised the issue of corporate control over the media, and the need to provide for a national media that will address the reality of U.S. life and allow for a diversity of opinion?

For over 150 years, under Democratic and Republican administrations, the U.S. government and U.S. corporations have overthrown, or attempted to overthrow, every government that has come to power in Latin or Central America or the Caribbean that has defended the interests of its workers and peasants.

Compromised and Corrupt Democratic Party Dominated by Big Money

The U.S. people, as almost never before, are rejecting the “2-party” system and are crying out for a political alternative. Half the people no longer vote for President, and fewer vote in state and local elections. Poor people are almost completely boycotting the current election system.

We need a new political movement in this country because our citizens desperately need to see and hear a radical alternative to the tired old status-quo politics of the Democrats and Republicans. Everyone instinctively knows that the current system is failing, but the progressive movement is not getting out an alternative vision of society or an alternative program of immediate demands.

It is my strong opinion that the boldness and clarity that we need to articulate can never be done through the compromised and corrupt Democratic Party – dominated by Big Money.

We Can Create a Third Party

We need a new political movement in this country, one that must put an end to the ineffective single-issue syndrome that currently exists – where unions, environmentalists, women, people of color, farmers, tax reformers, and senior citizen groups fight their separate battles against a hostile establishment.

We must begin to have the courage to fight for power – not handouts. We are the majority of people and must act accordingly. Clearly, there will be differences within the progressive movement that will have to be worked out. We can do it.

I am not naive, and I understand the enormous difficulties that confront us when we take on the Democratic and Republican Parties and the economic oligarchy that controls this country. I believe, however, that if we stop thinking about all the reasons as to why it can’t be done, and go out in the streets and do it, we can succeed.

We can create a third party. We can raise the important issues which the Democrats and Republicans ignore. We can make politics relevant to working people and the poor. We can win.

Bernie Sanders represents Vermont in the U.S. Senate and is a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for President.

*

[2]  Fact-check pending.

[3]  For more on the anti-democratic nature of the heinous California Proposition 14 (2010) and blanket primaries, see:

[4]  See free speech radio’s Uprising broadcast for Monday, 14 MAR 2016, 08:00 PDT.

[5]  See free speech radio’s Uprising broadcast for Monday, 14 MAR 2016, 08:00 PDT (c. 24:50).  Transcript by Messina for Lumpenproletariat, Mumia Abu Jamal, Prison Radio, and Uprising.

***

[Image entitled “Bernie Sanders – Caricature” by Flikr user DonkeyHotey used under Fair Use via Creative Commons.]

[16 MAR 2016]

[Last modified 01:38 PDT  17 MAR 2016]

Historical Archives: Third-Party Challenge to Unconstitutional Prop 14

02 Wed Mar 2016

Posted by in Democracy Deferred, Historical Archives, Presidential Election 2016

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

media rootsLUMPENPROLETARIAT—As we’ve emphasised at Lumpenproletariat previously, the problem with our electoral system, and its failure to meet the needs of working class people, is not so much a lack of politicians to vote for who are sincere or speak for working class people so much as it is the cartelisation of the USA’s political process by two corporate political parties—the Democrat and Republican parties.

Their ability to shut out political alternatives begins with shutting out alternative political parties from public discourse and, thereby, from public consciousness, and, especially, from presidential debates and ballots.  Being able to keep alternative political parties from debating the two ruling parties, which represent the American ruling class, on a national stage is the only way their flimsy political arguments remain remotely tenable to the roughly one-third of USA’s eligible voters who engage with this rigged process, as the other two-thirds consign themselves to the politics of resignation and distract themselves with entertainment (and/or infotainment), as their incomes and living standards worsen over time. [1]

A legal death-knell to political diversity in the USA seems to have been ushered in with the rash of anti-democratic Top Two Primary legislation infecting states across the nation this past decade, such as California Proposition 14 (2010). [2]  Toward a better understanding of our electoral process, we revisit an important article from the historical record published by Messina at Media Roots.org on 12 APR 2012. [3]

Lumpenproletariat

‘The Two-Party Dictatorship’ by The Simpsons

***

MEDIA ROOTS—[12 APR 2012] On Monday, KPFA Radio’s The Morning Mix spoke with representatives from California’s third-parties about their legal challenge to Proposition 14, Rubin v. Bowen, which created the new statewide ‘Top Two’ electoral system.  Under this system, the rigged de facto two-party system has now been virtually codified in California.  Given the obscene amounts of corporate funding expended by the pro-1% Democrat and Republican parties, third-party voters are now, essentially, disenfranchised under this clearly unconstitutional legislation.

“After two months of delays,” wrote RestoreVoterChoice.org prior to the hearing, “a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California’s new ‘Top Two’ election scheme will be heard in Alameda County Superior Court on Tuesday, 10 April [2012].

“The plaintiffs encourage supporters in the [S.F.] Bay Area to attend this important court hearing.

“The hearing is scheduled for 9:00am on April 10 in Department 16 of the court, located at 1221 Oak Street in Oakland, before Judge Lawrence John Appel. If there are last minute changes in the schedule, they will be posted here.”

Messina

***

THE MORNING MIX — “Today, we are talking to California’s third-parties about their challenge to Proposition 14.  This is the proposition that created the new statewide ‘Top Two’ electoral system.  People as different on the political spectrum as Ralph Nader and Meg Whitman oppose this system.  And we’ll be telling you why.

“We’re also going to tackle something most of us don’t think about until we, literally, have no choice—end of life issues.  Long-time hospice nurse Elaine McGee will be in and taking your calls.

“And, last week, the Center for Biological Diversity challenged the Obama Administration to save the oceans before it’s too late.  We’ll talk to wildlife biologist and attorney Emily Jeffers about why the Center believes this crisis demands immediate attention and the international strategy that could lead us back from the brink.

“But we begin with the third-party challenge to California’s ‘Top Two’ law.

Adrienne Lauby (c. 9:07):  “Now, our [2012 California] Primary Election will be held on June 5th, less than two months from now.  And this year’s election will be very different than in the previous years.  Owing to Proposition 14, a ballot measure that was passed two years ago, California is scheduled to deploy a new system where all candidates for a given office will appear on one ballot.  However, representatives from several third-parties are going to court to challenge the law.”

Anthony Fest:  “Under the new system, instead of a separate primary ballot for each party, all candidates for state and congressional office will be listed on the same ballot and every voter can choose from among all those candidates.  The top two finishers in the June election, regardless of their party affiliation will then appear on the November General Election ballot, essentially, making November a run-off election.  This is due to Prop 14, the measure that passed in June of 2010.  It’s informally called the ‘Top Two’ law.

“The Green, Peace and Freedom, and Libertarian parties say the measure is unconstitutional.  Last November, they filed a suit to block it and there will be a hearing on the case tomorrow morning in Alameda County Superior Court, 1221 Oak Street in Oakland.  Joining us this morning to discuss the ‘Top Two’ law and the challenges to it are representatives of the three parties that filed suit.

“Marsha Feinland is with the Peace and Freedom Party.  She’s run for the U.S. Senate, representing Peace and Freedom and plans to do so again.  Welcome, Marsha.”

Marsha Feinland (c. 10:32):  “Good morning.”

Anthony Fest:  “Mike Rubin is with the Green Party.  And, along with Marsha, he’s also an individual plaintiff in the lawsuit.  Thanks for joining us, Mike.”

Michael Rubin:  “Thank you for having me.”

Anthony Fest:  “And with us on the phone is Richard Winger.  Richard is with the Libertarian Party.  He’s also the editor of the website Ballot Access News.  Good to have you with us, Richard.”

Richard Winger:  “Thank you very much.”

Anthony Fest:  “Now, let’s begin with Marsha.  Tell us, in nutshell, why you’re challenging this measure and what legal grounds.”

Marsha Feinland (c. 10:56):  “Well, this measure is very anti-democratic.  And we feel it doesn’t give voters a real choice.  Now, the open primary ‘Top Two’ initiative was put forward as being something that gives voters more choices.  But, actually, in November when most people vote, they’ll have very little choice because only the top-two vote getters in the primary will be able to make the ballot.  And those top two vote-getters might not be even from two different parties; they might be very, very similar.

“It’s also possible that neither of the top two vote-getters get anywhere close to a majority.  So, it’s not even both of them put together.  For instance, in the coming [California] Senate race there are 24 candidates.  So, it’s very possible for each of the top two to get a very low percentage, although that’s very doubtful, since Dianne Feinstein is one of them.  But if we’re going to have a challenge to the powers that be, we’ve got to be able to make real choices.  And we can’t do that with this election.”

Anthony Fest (c. 12:08):  “So, whether or not it’s good policy, on what grounds do you say it’s unconstitutional?”

Marsha Feinland:  “It’s unconstitutional because the parties do not get to pick their candidates.  And it’s not just the parties; it’s the voters in the parties that don’t get to pick their candidates.  In fact, we’re forced into a position in which the parties pick their candidates.  The parties are able to make endorsements in the primary instead of leaving it up to the voters.  There are supposed to be primaries in which the voters in the parties pick their candidates; those candidates go to the election.  That’s not what’s happening.”

Anthony Fest:  “Okay, let’s turn now to Mike Rubin with the Green Party.  Now, Prop 14 passed two years ago with just under 54% statewide, not an overwhelming mandate, but a majority.  And it also won a majority in all but three of the state’s 58 counties.  So, why contest the decision of the voters?  And do you think the court might be reluctant to set aside something, which the voters passed?”

Michael Rubin (c. 13:07):  “Well, it’s possible that the courts might be reluctant.  But I will tell you that the people, Proposition 14 passed because people are disgusted with the legislature, particularly the [California] State legislature.  And, unfortunately, the remedy that was proposed by Proposition 14 for the problems of the state legislature are not responsive to the actual problems in the [two-party monopolised] state legislature, which is that the state legislature is responsive to the 1% and not the 99%.

“So, Proposition 14 was presented as a false solution to the two-partisan gridlock and all that kind of stuff.  But the reality is that it’s going to do nothing about the problems in the legislature.”

Anthony Fest:  “Let’s turn now to Richard Winger.  As a Libertarian, Richard, do you concur with Marsha’s and Mike’s points or is your reasoning somewhat different?”

Richard Winger (c. 14:00):  “It’s the same.  And you asked about constitutionality.  The U.S. Supreme Court said in 1986 in a case called Munro vs. Socialist Workers Party, that was from Washington State, that there is no Constitutional distinction between a petition method to show a modicum of support worthy of getting a candidate on the November ballot versus a prior vote test.  Now, the U.S. Supreme Court had already said that petition requirements for a candidate to get on the General Election ballot cannot exceed 5%.  Applying the logic of that decision, this system is unconstitutional because it requires a candidate who wants to get on the [California] Election Ballot itself, which is November, a showing of approximately 30%.  Typically, if you look back at primaries in California and many states where all the voters could choose from all the candidates, the second-place person typically gets 30%.  That’s what you need to be in the top two, on the average.  So, that’s the basis for the claim.

“It’s about voting rights.  The Supreme Court has said every voter has a right to vote for the candidate he or she desires.”

Anthony Fest (c. 15:32):  “So, you’ll be citing that case when you make your arguments before the Superior Court down the road.”

Richard Winger:  “Yes.  And I gotta say when this topic was introduced just now the introducer mentioned the [California] November Election as a run-off.  That is not accurate.  It sounds pedantic, but it’s important.  Since the 19th century, Congress has told the states to have their Congressional and Presidential elections in November.  And, if they want to insure that the winner got 50%, they have to hold a run-off after that.  There’s two states that do that:  Georgia and Louisiana, they have it in December.

“So, by federal law, whatever California does in June is not the election because that would be illegal.”

Anthony Fest (c. 16:22):  “Now, as well as being active in the Libertarian Party you’re also Editor of Ballot Access News.  So, tell us, as someone who follows voting laws around the U.S., are their counterparts to Prop 14 in effect elsewhere in the U.S.?  And what’s the outcome then from those?”

Richard Winger:  “That’s a very good question.  Louisiana has used the system for 35 years.  And Washington State has used it for four years.

“There was just a study that came out in the California Journal of Politics and Policy called ‘The Top Two Primary: What Can California Learn From Washington?’  And the author was the witness for the State of Washington, in fact, in court in a Washington state case.  He was on the state side.  But he was a political scientist.  He wrote a fair report.  The abstract says:  ‘The partisan structure of Washington’s legislature appears unaltered by the new primary system.’

“In other words, the whole reason this thing was sold to us is that, supposedly, it would make the [California] legislature behave better.  And this study says after four years it hasn’t worked.  It says:  ‘The aggregate of all this did not add up to a legislature that looked different or functioned differently from the legislature elected under a partisan primary.’  He’s not the only political scientist that said that.  Boris Shor and Seth Masket looked at partisanship and polarisation in state legislatures and they agreed California had the most polarised legislature, but—and the study goes back 15 years—they said Washington State had the second-most polarised legislature.  And, during most of those 15 years, Washington had, either, a ‘Top Two’ primary, or a blanket primary.”

Adrienne Lauby (c. 18:22):  “So, Marsha—this is Adrienne Lauby—when I’m up in the North Bay, which is pretty Democrat[-dominated], what I’ve seen over and over again is in the general election we’ve got a Democrat who’s gonna win and a Republican who doesn’t have a chance.  So, to me, this sounded pretty good.  You’re gonna have two Democrats who have different points of view; one may be more to the Left than the other.  And I’ll get a chance to maybe put my guy or my gal in.  What’s wrong with this thinking?”

Marsha Feinland:  “Well, you’re making the assumption that the two Democrats might have two different points of view.  In fact, if you’d looked at the primary results in the last Presidential Election, if we had had the ‘Top Two’ primary, we would’ve had Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  And we are now finding out that they don’t have two different points of view.  So, therefore, the voters have no choice at all.  I think it’s really important to open the debate and open the process to people who can really pose an alternative.

“And when Richard said that this Proposition was sold to us I wanna emphasise sold.  The elections are pretty much sold.  They’re not really chosen.  There’s so much advertising; and there’s so much money in the elections.  And what happens with Proposition 14 and this type of primary is that there is even more money required because people need to raise the money, both, for the primary and for the general election.

“So, the appearance might be sold to you that you have two different candidates.  But, actually, you may end up with two very-the-same candidates.”

Anthony Fest (c. 19:54):  “It’s 8:20am on The KPFA Morning Mix.  We’re talking about Proposition 14, the ‘Top Two’ primary law and the upcoming court challenge to it.  I’m Anthony Fest with Adrienne Lauby.

“Let’s turn to Mike Rubin now, as we begin to wrap up this segment.  By the way, Prop 14 applies to [California] statewide office and the U.S. House and Senate seats.  It does not apply to the presidential race.  But, Mike Rubin from the Green Party, let’s go back and take a look at the history of Prop 14.  It was placed on the ballot, not by the voter petition process, but by a vote of the legislature.  The bill, that placed it on the ballot, was written by Republican [State] Senator Abel Maldonado.  It passed both houses by a better than two-to-one margin and also had the support of [then-]Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“For a measure that was promoted as taking power away from the party apparatus, it had wide support from Democrat and Republican politicians.  But what’s the motivation, do you think?  If it was all about excluding third-parties, third-parties haven’t really made much of a dent in state politics anyway, as far as winning office.  So, what’s going on behind this?”

Michael Rubin (c. 21:01):  “Well, I think there’s a couple of things to say.  One is that the fact that the [California] Legislature passed this was a pay-off to Abel Maldonado for his vote on the budget.  It was his price to pass the budget.  They needed a few Republican votes for the budget and his price was Proposition 14.  That’s the first thing to say.

“The second thing is that the purpose of Proposition 14 was not really to harm third-parties.  I don’t know that.  That’s not the primary thing.  The primary thing was, it was sold as a way of getting more quote ‘more moderate’ candidates.  That was the so-called selling point.  And it goes back to this thing about partisanship and gridlock and all that stuff.  And I think that the problem that we have in California is that we have too many ‘moderate’ candidates, not enough ‘moderate’ candidates.”

Anthony Fest (c. 22:01):  “And that should be the decision of the voters not the politicians already in office.”

Michael Rubin:  “Absolutely.”

Anthony Fest:  “Okay,  Marsha Feinland, with the Peace and Freedom Party;  Mike Rubin, with the Green Party; Richard Winger, with the Libertarian Party, thanks for joining us.

“And, Marsha, you have an announcement?”

Marsha Feinland:  “Yeah.  I think it’s really important for people to go to the court tomorrow morning at 9am at 1221 Oak Street.  But, also, the case has been continued twice.  So, it’s very important to go to the website to make sure that it’s still on schedule.  The website is RestoreVoterChoice.org.”

Anthony Fest:  “Thanks for joining us this morning.”

Michael Rubin:  “Thank you for having us.”

Richard Winger:  “Thank you.”

Marsha Feinland:  “Okay.”

AUDIO OF THE SIMPSONS VIDEO CLIP

Homer Simpson:  “America, take a good look at your beloved candidates.  They are nothing but hideous space reptiles!”

Crowd:  “[Gasps] Ahh!!  [Shrieks]”

Two-Party Candidate A:  “It’s true.  We are aliens!  But what are you going to do about it?  It’s a two-party system.  You have to vote for one of us!”

Passive Voters:  “He’s right.  It’s a two-party system.”

Assertive Voter:  “Well, I believe I’ll vote for a third-party candidate.”

Two-Party Candidate B:  “Go ahead.  Throw your vote away!”

Two-Party Candidates A and B:  “Ha-ha-ha, ha-ha!!”

Transcript by Felipe Messina for Media Roots

Image by Flickr user ryenski (above) and Flickr user bkrealtist (feature)

***

[1]  Also see Capitalism and the Politics of Resignation by Peter Benson and Stuart Kirsch, Current Anthropology, Vol. 51, No. 4 (August 2010), pp. 459-486, published by The University of Chicago Press.  Download for a fee, or Google for free.

[2]  Prop 14 applies to California statewide office and the U.S. House and Senate seats.  Prop 14 does not apply to the presidential race. Blanket primary elections in other states function similarly.  However, once statewide offices and congressional seats across the nation are dominated by Top Two candidates, we invariably end up with some permutation of Democrat and Republican duopoly, or two-party dictatorship, at the level of presidential elections because by then alternative political parties have been so grossly marginalised in every other sphere of electoral politics.  An alternative voting system would be one involving proportional representation.  A more accurate way to describe our current so-called two-party system is a two-party political cartel.  In such a political climate, applying a Top Two blanket primary election process to the presidential election becomes ominously feasible.

[3]  We will continue to archive past articles published at MediaRoots.org (and elsewhere) by Lumpenproletariat.org founder, Messina.

***

[Last modified 01:05 PDT  3 MAR 2016]