How to do this will take many forms. There are minor parties, third parties, independent movements, better ballot access for candidates and write-ins, and opening the primaries to all voters.A new effort is taking shape to open the primaries to all voters and in providing the access to the ballot for minor party and independent candidates. Here in NYC we are trying to get Non-Partisan Municipal Elections on the ballot again. We first got in on the ballot but lost by a 2 to 1 margin but we think the conditions have improved. We failed last year to get the Charter Revision Commission to put it on the 2010 ballot. But we will try again.
With Top-Two/Open Primaries passing in CA., more states are looking at this option to allow all the states' voters to take part in the Primary Election. Also happening around the country is the fight to keep open primaries from becoming closed by the two parties.
The Open Primary issue has two elements to look at:
Who Pays
We are starting to hear this issue from Alaska to NY. If we can not vote in a closed party selection system why does all the state voters have to pay for the running of these closed systems? Isn't that "Taxation without Representation"?
If one-third of the voters are neither Republicans nor Democrats, then why does the state of Tennessee pay for party primaries to pick party nominees?
In some 39 states with presidential primaries, taxpayers pay out millions to run a vote that helps the two major parties select their nominees.
Why should government pay for partisan primary elections? Political parties are private organizations, like the AARP or NRA or most big corporations. Such groups conduct leadership elections on their own. Why shouldn't political parties do the same? On the flip side, why should unaffiliated voters -- a big majority -- be forced to fork over millions to nominate candidates in what may be a skewed system? Perhaps they shouldn't. Political parties have every right to make their own rules and govern their own affairs. They have every right to select candidates any way they like. They can raise funds and spend. But why should all the taxpayers be forced to pay?
If these are IN FACT party elections or caucuses, why is the taxpayer in my home state of Idaho (and yours?) paying for them? If Independents cannot vote in them (as is a partial focus of the Idaho case) why then should those citizens pay for the costs of those party elections? Also, since a Party is a corporation and certain new rights have recently been accorded to corporations by the US Supreme Court, how can a Party expect to nominate from among its members, candidates, and expect the taxpayer to foot the bill?
How it is Run
To create a system to answer all the Supreme Court issues, I would create a system with these features:
1. All Candidates selected by their parties paid for system, ballot accepted new minor party candidates, independents, and write-ins are on one ballot.
2. There is two boxes. One optionally indicates the Candidates registered party. The other optionally indicates all endorsements.
3. The Top Two go on to the General Election.
A possible additional element could be IRV. This would allow the first selection of a favorite son or daughter, vanity candidate, etc. and also reduce the cost of running the primary.
What do you think is a way to Break the Two-Party Monopoly?
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!
Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us 
4 comments:
Top two and open primaries are two VERY different things. Open primaries open the process, but top two puts up giant road blocks for lesser known, non-wealthy & independent candidates. We need to stop top two from being attached to real open primary legislation and put our focus on what is actually good for independents.
Solomon Kleinsmith
Rise of the Center
I disagree. Openning a major party primary is not the answer. I am talking about replacing the importance of the two-party system and making the candidates who we vote for and not a party. This is how you improve the voting power of all voters. Also you wealth issue seems to have gone away with the power of the internet for all voters.
Political scientists, for decades, have studied non-partisan elections in large cities in the U.S., and compared those elections to other large cities that have partisan elections. Some of these studies are more than 60 years old. Generally they agree that special interests have more power in cities with non-partisan elections. There is a large amount of scholarly work on this, and people who are willing to work for non-partisan elections ought to dig into it. Chicago has non-partisan elections, and Detroit does, and Cleveland does, and Newark NJ does, but are those good models?
You can certainly disagree with whether Top Two is good or bad, but you can't disagree that they are two very different things.
I'm not convinced that Top Two will lead to any more moderate or independents being elected... certainly hasn't been the case in Washington, wasn't the case when they had it in Louisiana until recently, and sure as hell isn't the case here in Nebraska, where we have it for some lower level races.
I'd love to see (not sarcasm) any actual data to back up any of the claims you make there.
And you know... its just plain wrong to block people from running for office. You're pushing for the use of government to block people from the general election ballot. How do you not see that as undemocratic, or do you just hate the parties so much that you don't care?
I'm as staunch of a centrist independent as you could possibly be, but I don't let my personal disagreements with political parties go so far as to try to use the government to get in the way of a person's right to freely associate.
And boy are you wrong about money. The internet isn't a magical place where money grows on digital trees. Politics is still won by knocking on doors, making phone calls, glad handing at events and advertising. Someone with no organization behind them has next to no chance to no chance against the already frought with hurdles system we have where it is stacked against independents. Top two makes it harder... it takes away the only level playing independents had... TIME.
Now they don't just have to catch up by election day, they have to catch up by primary day, or they're out. How exactly does that help independents again?
Solomon Kleinsmith
Rise of the Center
Post a Comment