PPIC's numbers on Prop 14

I have been interested in California's prop 14 which would switch California to a top 2 primary system (which I like). Looks like it is posed to pass.

Yes 56%
No 27%
Don't Know 17%

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

---

by: MinnesotaMike @ Fri May 21, 2010 at 22:50:03 PM UTC

Would this be like the old Louisiana system?

Where, if someone clears 50% in the primary, there's no need for a general?

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

---

by: MassGOP @ Fri May 21, 2010 at 23:32:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

More like Washington State

I think there may be some minimal standard that the 2nd place finisher need to reach, like 1% of the vote, but otherwise the top 2 finishers in the primary go to the general no matter if the primary winner gets 50% or not.

BTW Louisiana is on the verge of bringing back their old system. Slightly different versions of a bill to re-instate the old system have passed both houses and Gov Jindel has said he would sign the bill. The only thing that needs to be worked out is if it takes effect in 2011 or this year.

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

---

by: MinnesotaMike @ Fri May 21, 2010 at 23:57:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pretty Much

 It is like a jungle primary and I am not for it. It really takes away the influence of third parties and makes it hard for candidates of other parties to compete in districts that do not favor them.  

for more election analysis, visit  http://frogandturtle.blogspot....

17, CA-06,  

---

by: Alibguy @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 02:00:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Prop 14 doesn't just take away the influence of

  political parties, it would destroy all the smaller parties because they would almost never get their candidates in the top two. Then there would be less choice in the general election because often the final two would be from the same party. It is unusual but not too surprising that all six of California's political parties have opposed it (Dem, Rep, Grn, Lib, P&F, and AIP). This is an extreme restructuring of the election process with limited benefits and added costs.  I am voting NO on 14 and against its main proponent Abel Maldonado in the Lt Gov race in November (if he even makes it out of the GOP primary)!

52, male, disgruntled Democrat, CA-28

---

by: Zack from the SFV @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 04:05:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

All the political parties opposing Prop 14....

... is all the more reason to support it :)

Like I said a Top 2 primary has it flaws but so does the current system. The current system fosters hyper partisanship, candidates have to move so far right/left to win their party's primary the general election is usually a choice between the extremes of the political spectrum.

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

---

by: MinnesotaMike @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 04:47:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A positive of it is it helps prevent spoilers

Final elections would be two people, no what's his name who torpedoed Cazayoux, no Crist and Meek splitting the vote to allow Rubio to win, etc.

---

by: tommypaine @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:39:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ugh

Top-two is awful for democracy. It basically forces the parties to strongarm all but two candidates out of races so they don't split the vote and cause two candidates from the other party to advance to the runoff. Not to mention it basically makes independent and minor party candidates completely irrelevant.

---

by: Johnny Longtorso @ Fri May 21, 2010 at 23:54:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pros are greater than Cons IMO

I know there are flaws in the Top 2 system but IMHO it will lead to more competitive general election races in Districts that lean heavily one way or another and it will also hopefully lead to more moderates from both parties getting elected. Both of which I think are good things.

Minor parties and Independents still can have their 15 minutes of fame in the Primary, their chances of actually  getting elected may actually improve IMO if they can get into the general in a head to head race.  

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

---

by: MinnesotaMike @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 00:10:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How do you like the way it's working in Hawaii?

Yeah, really great. Right. I don't think so.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 03:01:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hawaii is the opposite

A top two would prevent sitautions like Hawaii.

---

by: tommypaine @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 03:02:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

---

by: MinnesotaMike @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 04:36:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, you're right. n/t

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 04:54:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I disagree

...on the balance of pro vs. con. But I agree on your point about minor parties: if there's one thing that goes hand-in-hand with electoral reform, it's unintended consequences. Because California has some communities that are extremely liberal (and a few extremely conservative ones) I think the top-two system might actually HELP third parties in some places.

A seat in San Francisco proper, for example, will almost inevitably be a Dem clusterfark (good luck clearing THAT primary) that might just allow a Green Party candidate to make it to the runoff, with say, 20-25% of the primary vote. And if the other candidate is a Republican (hey, it could happen, also with 20-25%) then I would guess San Franciscans would opt for the Green Party candidate.

Honestly, though, the thing that worries me the most about this whole proposition is how much it incentivizes backroom deal-making, primary-clearing, supporting spoiler candidates to siphon your opponents' votes, and putting moderates into districts that aren't really moderate at all. I have nothing against moderates, and wouldn't mind seeing more elected, but I am against an electoral system that's stacked in their favor such that it deprives people of proper representation in terms of viewpoints and ideology.

Furthermore, I'm hoping that I, as a member of the Citizens Redistricting Commission, can help straighten out this mess with better-drawn districts. That would go a long way toward reviving moderates, I think. But in that case, it would revive them in competitive, ideologically-split districts, not across the board everywhere.  

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.

---

by: arealmlc @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 03:07:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's because of godawful redistricting

that 14 makes sense for California.  It would be better to have better redistricting, but if you do have a situation where almost all districts are 60/40 for one party or another, what will happen is often two members of the same party will be in the general, which will lead to better people as politicians, and also almost no flukes since it will almost never be possible for two people from the 40% party compete in the end.

---

by: tommypaine @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:55:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well

It could actually allow for situations in the most liberal or most conservative districts in which third parties have a better chance.  

---

by: Progressive America @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:35:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's a voters guide that lists the

positions of nine different progressive/Democratic CA organizations on next month's 5 CA ballot propositions (with good quick summaries of each).
http://www.calitics.com/diary/... and the link (to a pdf file) is: http://www.couragecampaign.org...
Quick Summary:
13 is mixed, but generally yes
14 no
15 yes
16 hell no
17 hell no

---

by: homerun @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 00:19:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Prop. 14--yes, please

n/t

---

by: Zeitgeist9000 @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 06:23:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm only yes on 14 & 15

Hell no on everything else.

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)

---

by: daman09 @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 21:02:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

NNNNOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

Prop. 14 would be HORRIBLE for California.  It would make us even MORE dysfunctional for quite a few reasons.  Over on Calitics, Brian Leubitz has written several pieces on why it's a horrible idea.  Note that this would force campaigns to be even MORE expensive, which helps even more the two most wealthiest candidates in a given district.

And this in no way will help get more "moderate" candidates elected.  Maldonado's saying that, but he can't point to any actual evidence to back him up.  As David Dayen wrote:

The primaries will feature the same low-information voters - and very few DTS voters - as there are now.  As a result, power and the ability to get out voters in a low-turnout primary will be based on your institutional ability to get endorsements, volunteer support, etc.  Therefore, these Dem-on-Dem fights will, in most cases, be between two almost identical candidates from an ideological perspective, and the subsequent fights personality-based.  That's pretty much how it's worked out everywhere this has been tried.  Open primaries simply do not moderate legislatures.  Abel Maldonado is wrong.

---

by: BruinKid @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 05:16:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Odd assertion about not moderating legislatures

and "...and the subsequent fights personality-based"

Um, that is a good thing.  Right now we have dozens of total suck ass politicians, from Dan Burton to (probably)Charlie Rangel, who are in office even though the majority opposes them personally the current system leads to them winning primaries over split opposition, and then the majority in the district holds their nose because ideologically the lame-o is better than the opposition.

Choosing between two politicians with similar views will get us a bunch of much better human beings in office.

My first reaction is to not like this idea, but there are some undeniable positives, including the inevitable moderating of officials.  Imagine if Dems in Utah got to choose between Bennett and a wingnut, or Moran and Tiahrt in Kansas.  Moderation in deep red districts especially would be inevitable.

---

by: tommypaine @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:49:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

We don't need more moderates

especially in the democratic party. I'm no purist and I realize that Bright,ect need to vote the way they do to win. But we don't need a Lieberman from California. All moderates do is water down good legislation  

---

by: lovespolitics @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 14:18:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The great mass of people are moderate

or moderate with a center-left tilt.  The political system is in disarray because moderates (as well as innovators) have a system stacked against them.  While a moderate Dem might get elected in a red state or a moderate Rep might get elected in a blue state, then end up being forced to choose from extremes instead of focusing on legislation that is very popular witht eh vast majority of their constituents, like a public option.

When you talk of watering down, I think you are confusing cloture with moderates.  It's absurd to think that having a hard right representative instead of a moderate one will magically lead to better legislation.

The country needs more moderate Republicans, and Team Blue needs to encourage moderation in the South and Great Plains, plus a few other places.

---

by: tommypaine @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 22:28:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm talking purly within the democratic party

For the record I oppose proposition 14. If this type fo system is implemented in California, democrats will move farther to the center (that is the right) while republicans remain extreme right. Why should we have to moderate while the other party gets crazier and crazier (see:Paul, Rand) This would only work if implemented in every state.
    My larger point is that moderates only serve to go halfway on good legislation. Martin Luther King described "white moderates" as the most dangerous to the civil rights movement. ( http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Ar... )
Moderate democrats only  slow down progress

---

by: lovespolitics @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 23:57:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You have a logic fail here

Asserting Dems will get more moderate and Reps will not is... well, it just doesn't follow.

On the other hand, if it did, the CA Republican party would be destroyed.

As for "Moderate democrats only slow down progress", how do you figure having 20 moderate democrats will slow progress rather than having 20 Republican extremists?  

That line just has no logic to it.  I can't even begin to imagine how having Charlie Brown in Congress will "slow down progress" rather than Tom McClintock.

You don't make social change by cramming it down people's throats.  You do it by changing their hearts and minds.  Having more moderate Democrats replace extremist Republicans in pink and purple states and districts is the key to progressive change in this country.

---

by: tommypaine @ Sun May 23, 2010 at 03:20:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am making two points here

(and I apologize for not being eloquent about it)
1) in the grand scheme of things,  California, Prop 14 will cause moderates to be elected fro a liberal state. While there is no such system in let's say Texas, so Texas wil send extreme right wingers to congress while California will send moderate democrats, obviously shifting congress further to the right.  this system would only work if implemented on a national level forcing parties in every state to moderate instead of just liberal California.

2) My larger points about moderates in congress is that they only seek to go Half way on good legislation. For example in 1993 we got a "compromise" on gays in the military with moderates watering down's Clinton's attempt to integrate the military. The compromise brought a system that's just as bad as the previous one.I could go on about Health care, banking reforms, energy, in all these issues the "liberal" side is usually right and popular (Public option, breaking up banks) and moderates only slow down progress on these issues (Lieberman)  

---

by: lovespolitics @ Sun May 23, 2010 at 12:25:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, there's no guarantee of that.

Choosing between two politicians with similar views will get us a bunch of much better human beings in office.

How do you know?  Where's the actual evidence of that?  How'd it work out for Louisiana and Washington?  Did we see "moderate" people get elected more often?

Choosing between two politicians with similar views will mean the one with more money will probably win.  Which usually (though not always) means the one who's more beholden to special interests, because that's how the person raised all that money in the first place.

---

by: BruinKid @ Sun May 23, 2010 at 01:24:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The links you have conflict

Leubitz links to a CGS study which suggests that a top-two system would lead to more moderate candidates.

The Dayden link is entitled "I actually disagree with this,' i.e. he recognizes that Leubitz suggests that a top-two primary would produce more moderate elected officials.  

---

by: tietack @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 14:46:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No...

Dayen was responding to DavidT's post about how in a Dem-leaning district, the conservative Democrat who Republicans could stomach more would then win.  Dayen notes that ideologically, the top two would be almost identical, and so it becomes a fight over personalities.

I'm pretty sure Leubitz also agrees with David that this will do nothing to "moderate" a legislature.  He only linked to the CGS study to show that even they agree Prop. 14 will lead to more Dem-on-Dem violence, but not really any more GOP-on-GOP violence, so only one party is really getting hurt by this.

---

by: BruinKid @ Sun May 23, 2010 at 01:19:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hey, don't dig on Brown

His campaign follows Taoist principles; reaction without abstraction :D

He seems to show you can meditate for eight months and get outspent by a margin of 80 million to one and still keep a four point lead, lol.  

---

by: jwaalk @ Fri May 21, 2010 at 23:02:58 PM UTC

Brown's no neophyte

Brown knew Whitman & Poizner would start battling ferociously because they're both incredibly rich and incredibly egotistical.

I might point out that Brown hasn't been meditating the entire time--he's raised (and saved) some serious scrilla that will enable him to compete (although probably still at a serious financial disadvantage) with whichever rich Republican makes it through the primary.

Also, I'm increasingly glad Gavin Newsom dropped down to the LG race--he wasn't getting traction against Brown, and now they can work together instead of against one another.  Plus, Newsom should be able to knock off now-incumbent moderate Republican Abel Maldonado. A lesser-known, less well-funded Democrat might've struggled. That said, I don't think it'll be a cakewalk for either of them.

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.

---

by: arealmlc @ Fri May 21, 2010 at 23:28:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where can I look up fundraising for the CA-Gov race

So I can see how much each has raised, spent, and has on hand.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 00:28:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Brown is smart to be laying low

At first I thought what he was doing was foolish, but the truly foolish thing was to try to compete fianically with a bunch of multi-millionaires. Still going to be tough but I'm not as worried about the CA-GOV race as I was months ago.

On the Senate race, the good thing is that Barbara Boxer was never going to take this race for granted. Tom Campbell is easily the strongest candidate but his major problem is money. I'm not particularity sure the Senate Republicans would be willing to help him. I mean Fiona is worse fit for the state ideologically but at least she has money.

---

by: Jaxx Raxor @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 02:40:17 AM UTC

Good news

PPP would have a new poll for California the next week. I hope the good results continue.

Working well I think the democratic party can make Vermont, Colorado, Maine, California, Illinois, Minnesota and Massachusetts become not battleground states for November elections.

I worry more about Wisconsin. The gubernatorial race can be in risk.

If the things go well, the battleground states should be Ohio, Missouri, Florida, New Hampshire, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Texas, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada and Delaware.

---

by: abgin @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 04:32:52 AM UTC

Stunning that DailyKos/R2K and PPIC have virtually identical CA-Sen numbers......

Boxer is recovering, as is Brown.

It'll be a hoot if Brown is Governor again.  I was a little kid his last go around.  His life is really unprecedented in giving him 2 entirely separate political careers.

The metastory that I like in this is the reinforcement by yet more data points that Democrats are recovering.  It's a clear trend now.  I just hope nothing happens the next few months to sabotage our comeback.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 18:04:06 PM UTC