The morning panel:
Panel Discussion
Moderated by Jackie Salit and IndependentVoting.org General Counsel, Harry Kresky with:
•John Avlon, Senior Political Consultant, TheDailyBeast.com; Founder, No Labels
•Theresa Amato, Ralph Nader’s Presidential Campaign Manager in 2004
•James Mangia, Executive Director, St. John's Well Child & Family Center and Founding Secretary, National Reform Party
•Bradley Tusk, Founder, Tusk Strategies; Campaign Manager Bloomberg 2009
•Lenora Fulani, Co-founder, IndependentVoting.org
•Michael Hardy, General Counsel, National Action Network
•Cathy Stewart, Chair, New York County Independence Party
•Douglas Schoen, pollster and author
Use this link to view the panel discussion.
Before I can decide on how things could work, I need to define what they should fix in our current political process. These panelist's thoughts helped me to begin this process:
 |  |  |
As I have been blogging this issue, I have said that it is time for all voters to take part in the political process and should be able to select candidates and not parties. So the concept of opening a party's primary forces the voter to only select candidates pre-selected by the party and fails the ability for the voter to pick any candidates those choose for each position on the ballot . Then there is the issue of denying potential candidates the opportunity to get on the ballot.
The ballot issue should be easy to address by designing a process that is even and fair to all protential candidates: filing fee, equal number of petition signatures, write-ins, and the parties paying for their selection process. Write-ins are a little harder to decide. They are part of any primary system, but should they also be part of the General Election with the type of primary I am looking at? Of course what ever primary system we pick must take into account prior Supreme Court decisions.
Now we have the General Election. I have been looking at CA's Top Two but now I am not sure. Since most voters in our current system may not take part in the primary and only vote in the General. So I disagree with the concept of some % value that will negates a candidate from going to a general election. I will continue this General Election problem in future posts.
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 and existing 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. General Election - TBD
A possible additional element in the primary could be IRV. This would allow the first selection of a favorite son or daughter, vanity candidate, etc.
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 
8 comments:
The best way to break the two-party monopoly is (1) equal and easy ballot access to the November election, which is when states must hold federal elections, by federal law; (2) inclusive general election debates, especially presidential debates; (3) proportional representation, so that everyone's vote in the general election counts.
Europe figured this out long ago. Europe does it better than the U.S. does. Activists in the U.S. will do better if they pay attention to Europe's methods.
Hi Michael!
I was at the Independentvoting.org meeting on 2-12-11. Sorry I missed you there. Here is how I think Independents can change US politics:
Independent Voters Are On the Move. Two-Party System BEWARE – Tunisia and Egypt Can Happen Here! http://tinyurl.com/gotguts
PS
Richard Winger does not understand activism, as I said at http://bit.ly/gm2lpy
So, explain activism to me. Thank you.
Michael Drucker in this blog noted on Dec. 16, 2008, "We gave Richard Winger an anti-corruption award. He is the country's leading authority on independent and third-party ballot issues and the founder, publisher and editor of Ballot Access News." see http://pview.blogspot.com/2008/12/cuip-national-conference-of.html
Yes we did and you have made me think more about Top Two. I think I have an idea about the primaries but will have to still work on the general. Where I disagree with you is we need to make the change so all the voters make take part in the primary not just the parties.
There is a system in which any voter in a primary can vote for any person for any office, and yet the general election ballot is not restricted. It is called a blanket primary and is used in Alaska.
As far as California's system, it is one thing to support a top-two system for California, but it is quite another to support Prop. 14, because Prop. 14 does so many evil things, which supporters of Prop. 14 never ever mention, not even you, Michael. It bans the ballot label "independent"; it says write-ins can't be counted in November; it makes it far more difficult for candidates to get on the primary ballot; it makes it far more difficult for minor parties to remain ballot-qualified and thus to be able to run a presidential candidate; it says if a party isn't ballot-qualified, its members can't have that party label on either the primary or general election ballot. I challenge you to comment on each one of these flaws and tell me what you think of each one.
Richard, I agree with you on these issues. I did say I did not like all of Prop. 14 but dd not express the details which you have. I have been looking at the Blanket and will do a post soon about the changes I think is needed to make it work. In looking at my open primary plan, would those issues go away?
Open Primaries have nothing to do with Top Two. There are several forms of open primaries that don't have any connection with blocking all but two people from making it to the general election ballot. The only people trying to make the connection are those who haven't looked at the issue enough and have been duped, or those who are actively trying to hide the controversial Top Two "Choke Point" primary rules behind the very popular Open Primaries banner, like a nasty earmark hidden within an otherwise great piece of legislation.
Post a Comment