Proposition 62
My take on Proposition 62 -
NO
This is part of my ongoing series of posts on
each of the Propositions we'll be voting on. Here is the
original post, with my ground rules for evaluating propositions, my
scorecard and links to each of my
arguments.
Proposition 62 - No
Some of the first elections I voted in were open primaries (I turned 18 in 1994, and the 1998 and 2000 elections were open primaries). This meant that you could vote for anyone, from any political party in the primaries. Normally, for instance, only Republicans decide the Republican nominee. I actually was a little fond of this system, as it allowed me to register Libertarian yet still cast a vote in an important primary without changing my affiliation. I will admit, however, that I actually have grown out of liking this system, as I think it encourages voters to try and sabotage other party's primaries.
Prop 62 purports to return to this system, but it has more than a few tricks up its sleeve. The most alarming one is that only the 2 candidates who receive the most votes in the primary will be listed on the general ballot, and it does not require these two candidates to be from different political parties. This is a de facto removal of third parties from the ballot.
Why? Well, running in an election is a very expensive endeavor. It already favors an incumbent, because the incumbent is known to people and doesn't need to spend money to convince people he's the right man for the job. Under Prop 62, a third party candidate would have to spend a lot of money twice - because he would first need to fight for the privilege of a ballot spot, and then second he would have to run in the general election. Third parties do not have the large fund raising capacity that the main parties have, and would most likely not be able to gain the votes needed to appear on the general election ballot.
It's not just third parties that should be concerned either. Since the two major candidates can be from the same party, we could end up with elections where the only two choices are from the same party. There simply is no good reason to restrict anyone from a viable political party from being on the ballot.
Bottom line: Prop 62 gives voters more choices in a primary, when your vote doesn't effect as much, and less choices in the general election, when your vote means everything. Their is simply no excuse for restricting voter's ability to choose.
Proposition 62 - No
Some of the first elections I voted in were open primaries (I turned 18 in 1994, and the 1998 and 2000 elections were open primaries). This meant that you could vote for anyone, from any political party in the primaries. Normally, for instance, only Republicans decide the Republican nominee. I actually was a little fond of this system, as it allowed me to register Libertarian yet still cast a vote in an important primary without changing my affiliation. I will admit, however, that I actually have grown out of liking this system, as I think it encourages voters to try and sabotage other party's primaries.
Prop 62 purports to return to this system, but it has more than a few tricks up its sleeve. The most alarming one is that only the 2 candidates who receive the most votes in the primary will be listed on the general ballot, and it does not require these two candidates to be from different political parties. This is a de facto removal of third parties from the ballot.
Why? Well, running in an election is a very expensive endeavor. It already favors an incumbent, because the incumbent is known to people and doesn't need to spend money to convince people he's the right man for the job. Under Prop 62, a third party candidate would have to spend a lot of money twice - because he would first need to fight for the privilege of a ballot spot, and then second he would have to run in the general election. Third parties do not have the large fund raising capacity that the main parties have, and would most likely not be able to gain the votes needed to appear on the general election ballot.
It's not just third parties that should be concerned either. Since the two major candidates can be from the same party, we could end up with elections where the only two choices are from the same party. There simply is no good reason to restrict anyone from a viable political party from being on the ballot.
Bottom line: Prop 62 gives voters more choices in a primary, when your vote doesn't effect as much, and less choices in the general election, when your vote means everything. Their is simply no excuse for restricting voter's ability to choose.
Posted: Sun - October 31, 2004 at 06:44 PM | | | | | | |
Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Highlighted posts
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Mar 22, 2005 08:27 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Mar 22, 2005 08:27 PM
Search
The Tip Jar
Counter provided by
Brought to you by
