Santa Cruz Sentinel, Which Supported California's Proposition 14 in 2010, Now says Proposition 14 Increases Stranglehold of Two Major Parties

The Santa Cruz Sentinel of June 6 has this editorial. It concludes, “Voters who approved the open primary in 2010 probably weren’t intending a message they support the ever more dysfunctional stranglehold the two major parties have on government. But that’s what happened. Third parties nationally and minor parties in California have a purpose: to bring independent ideas and candidates to public attention. Their presence has been severely diminished, and it’s a loss.”

The Santa Cruz Sentinel had endorsed Proposition 14 back in June 2010.


  1. Jim Riley · · Reply

    It is odd that it refers to “independent parties” and “independent ideas”

  2. Odd to you, maybe.

  3. Demo Rep · · Reply

    Top 2 primary = IRV single offices = NPV = ALL JUNK *reforms* — due to math MORONS.
    P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. — pending Condorcet head to head math.

  4. Thanks Ballot Access News, for supporting IRV for all these years.

    Thanks for spending money and time engaging in fights with “top two” lawyers so they can make over-time.

    Thanks for deleting and throwing in the trash bin, many of my free speech messages about the 1000-member USA Parliament – including one I wrote today.

    Thanks for supporting candidates that favor perpetuating the two-party system at the expense of the few that are working together on the USA Parliament’s team, especially the female candidates – which you don’t even understand anyway.

  5. Lee Mortimer · · Reply

    One possible benefit would be if Top-two could be moved to late September or October, it might evolve to something like the French two-round election system. In the last two French presidential elections, voters could choose from a wide variety of parties and candidates in the first-round vote, then settle on one of the two finalists in the second round. In 2007 and 2012, turnout was virtually unchanged from the first to the second round of voting, indicating that all French voters found something to like about one of the two finalist candidates. The French system is a good model for the U.S. to emulate. Top-two could be a way to get us there.

  6. Demo Rep · · Reply

    Will ANY of the top 2 folks be requesting the endorsements from losing candidates – i.e. from losing third party and independent candidates ???

    Stay tuned. Will Desperate candidates do Desperate things – to get a majority of the votes in each gerrymander area ???

  7. Derek · · Reply

    An ideal runoff voting system would require all voters to vote for as many candidates in the first round. Then, a second round would have voters choose either both, one or none of the candidates. Should NOTA win a race, let all candidates spend time in that office for the same amount of time.

  8. Richard Winger · · Reply

    #7, in France, the first round is an election. Someone can be elected in the first round if he or she gets 50% of the vote. By contrast, in California and Washington state, the first round is not an election. No one can be elected in California in June. The June event is not an election; it is just a popularity contest that determines who the two most popular candidates are and says only they can run in the election itself.

    The founding fathers gave Congress the authority to set uniform election dates in the U.S. for federal office, and in the 19th century, Congress exercised its authority to do that. Election day, for federal office, is in November.

  9. Lee Mortimer · · Reply

    Richard, You make a valid point, but it doesn’t have to be an obstacle to a French-style two-round system for federal elections in the U.S. All candidates could compete in the first round, but the top two would be required to face off in a November second round regardless of first-round results.

    As in France’s multiparty competition, it’s highly unlikely that one candidate would win a majority in the first round. A two-round system would foster growth of viable third, fourth and fifth parties in the U.S. The Libertarians and Greens would likely garner 10%-15% in first-round voting, whereas their current 1%-2% showing results from the spoiler effect of plurality elections.

    Think how different the 2000 election would have been if Ralph Nader could have competed in an October first-round vote. He would have had four weeks to reflect and would probably have given Al Gore some sort of qualified endorsement for the November second round. It would not only have changed the outcome, it would have changed history.

  10. Demo Rep · · Reply

    Will the top 2 stuff suffer the fate of the 18th Prohibition Amdt — repealed by the 21st Amdt ???

    i.e. one political disaster to be repealed and replaced by —

    P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.

    Stay tuned.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: