Here's the statement from my friend, Jason Olson, the Director of IndependentVoice.Org, regarding the California results.
According to exit polling, California voters identifying themselves as independents were 29% of the electorate (up slightly from 28% in 2008), and for the first time outnumbered Republicans who represented 27% (down from 30% in 2008). Democrats made up 44% of voters (42% in 2008). These numbers reflect the latest state voter registration trends, with independents up over 3.8 million voters, and Republicans dropping to less than 30% of registered voters for the first time ever.
As a result of the new political landscape, nine incumbents were defeated on Election Day. Pete Stark (D), Dan Lungren (R), Michael Allen (D), Howard Berman (D), and Mary Bono Mack (R) are just some of the big name incumbents who will be looking for a new job in January. Interestingly enough, the five Democratic incumbents who were defeated lost to another Democrat in a same party race.
Congratulations to Democratic Assembly Candidate Marc Levine, who IndependentVoice.Org endorsed as part of a post-partisan candidate slate. Levine defeated Michael Allen, a heavily partisan Democrat backed by the Sacramento party establishment. While Allen was busy filling mailboxes with partisan attack pieces branding Levine "not a true Democrat", Levine was pushing a message of taking on special interests and reaching out to all voters.
That was the message IndependentVoice.Org volunteers communicated in hundreds of person-to-person phone calls to independent voters in the district. In the end, Levine's non-partisan reformer message was able to overcome over $1 million in negative partisan advertising against him as he edged out a 1% win. The campaign will no doubt be studied and become the blueprint for how to win in California's new non-partisan political environment.
I also want to congratulate the three other candidates IndependentVoice.Org endorsed: Abel Maldonado (R), Bill Bloomfield (NPP), and Chad Walsh (NPP). Each of them is a champion of reform who reached out to independent voters and supports the reforms necessary to move California and America forward. Despite their losses, Walsh and Bloomfield performed the best of all the independent candidates in the state garnering 38% and 47% of the vote, respectively. What's clear is that much more has to be done to organize independents as a force before independent candidates can win against the well developed major party machinery. We look forward to continuing to work with each of them to move the state beyond partisanship.
I want to thank all of our volunteers and activists around California. Many of you participated in our process to have independent voters directly impact California elections as a third force pushing a reform agenda. Thanks to your support of our work, we established that independents could function as a force for change outside the constraints of a political party. This is a process we hope to expand across California ahead of the 2014 Gubernatorial Elections (which will look a lot like the 2003 Recall Election).
Looking ahead to 2014, if independents are to continue to play an expanding role as a third force, we've got a lot of work to do. After all, there are now over 3.8 million independents in the state. While huge in number, our organized force is still tiny in comparison. It will be our job over the coming period to amass the partners and resources necessary to organize that voting block and unleash their true power.
One other noteworthy happening for California is the now irrelevancy of the State Republican Party. For the first time in over 80 years, the Democratic Party now controls the two thirds in the State Legislature required to approve a budget or raise taxes without Republican support. (Ironically, Democrats can trace their new super majority in the State Legislature to the Top Two Open Primary and Redistricting Reform - political reforms the party leadership vehemently opposed).
California State Republicans have largely rejected the path of reformer outreach to independents blazed by Maldonado and former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Instead they have pursued a policy of hyper-partisanship that has made their party toxic in the eyes of voters. This is perhaps most evident in Maldonado's loss because frankly, if an ideological moderate Latino, proven reformer who campaigned on taking on partisanship can't win as a Republican in a moderate district like the 24th Congressional, then nobody can. That should scare Republicans.
Finally, I offer a new warning to partisans everywhere across California. The voters - particularly independents - now have the tools to take on those forces that put their party ahead of their state or their country. We successfully tested that in 2012. In 2014, we're coming for you.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!
Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us 
12 comments:
Seven incumbent members of Congress lost in California last week. In six of those instances, the results would have been the same if there had been no top-two primary. There were three races in which incumbent Republicans lost to Democrats. Top-two primary had no effect on those three races and the same candidates would have been on the November ballot under the old system.
Among the four races in which Democratic incumbents lost to other Democrats, probably in three, the results would have been the same, only they would have manifested themselves in the Democratic primary. Laura Richardson would have lost in a semi-closed Democratic primary easily, because of all her scandals. Howard Berman would have lost in a semi-closed Democratic primary because the 30th district was mostly composed of territory that had been in the old district of Brad Sherman. Gloria McLeod would have beat Joe Baca in a semi-closed Democratic primary because McLeod was further to the left than Baca. The only congressional race that turned out differently because of top-two was Pete Stark's defeat by fellow Democrat Eric Swalwell.
Part of the benefits of Top-Two is the ability for any voter to vote for any candidate. You talk about a party's selection process, which is what Top-Two will hopefully open to all the voters. It will take a number of elections for the voters to understand how to use a Top-Two system.
Top-Two is one of the ways that would allow me to vote in a primary for any candidate I want to for any position.
This method also should allow the party to hold their own selection process, that they pay for, to determine their endorsed choice.
Mike, how can you say that top-two makes it possible for the voter to vote "for any candidate." This is the exact opposite of the truth. I am a California voter and at the election, I was forced to either vote for Dianne Feinstein for US Senate, or Elizabeth Emken for US Senate, or not vote at all.
Over 350,000 Californians who voted for president didn't cast a vote for US Senate. I was one of them.
What were your choices at the primary? That is were under Top-Two your voice, and the voices of the other voters, needs to be used.
My problem with all the other systems is thay do not allow me to choice the candidates I support, not a party. When I go into the primary voting booth, there is no other system that would let me select a democrat, republican, third party, and an independent for the different positions on different party ballots.
If the primary voting system allowed me to take many different ballots and submit them with my selections, then there would be no reason for Top-Two.
Under federal law since 1872, states must hold congressional elections in November of even years. I want to vote in the election itself for a candidate who represents my views. The fact that California held an event five months before the election itself is no more satisfying than a chance to participate in a public opinion poll. When the votes for Congress are all tallied, they will show that 1,600,000 people voted for a Libertarian for Congress, but my voice will be missing from that tally, because I was barred from voting that way by that measure that you support.
I disagree with your premise. In the 21th Century, with over 30% of the voters not belong to any party, voters want to vote for candidates. The place to make your presence felt is in the selection process to determine who gets on the ballot. One way or the other, our current voting system will be changed, I think for the better, when everyone eligilble to votes takes part.
In California, under the old system, everyone could vote. Starting in 2001, independents were asked at the primary when they went to the polls if they wanted a Dem ballot for Congress, or a Rep ballot for Congress, or just a non-partisan ballot.
What is the function of the California primary under top-two? What good is it? Why not just abolish it, the way Louisiana has abolished it? All it does is harm people.
You say you disagree with my "premise". I am not setting forth a "premise" when I say I was prevented from voting in November 2012 for a candidate I agreed with; I was setting forth a fact. How you would like it if the New York November ballot had nothing but Democrats and Republicans on the ballot? I am especially keen to vote for candidates for congress who are opposed to the federal treatment of marijuana. I couldn't do that. That is a fact, not a premise.
As a 4 term member of the State's Independent Party State Committee we are trying to get the over 2 million voters how can not vote in our primary as we are a closed primary state. My point is why are you waiting for November. You and other voters like you should be creating the movement to get your desired candidates on the ballot during the primary, so you the voter decide who is on the ballot in November, not the parties.
I knew it! You don't really care about the reality in California; you are just upset about the exclusion of independent voters in New York state primaries. In California, independent voters were already permitted to vote in Dem & Rep primaries for congress and state office, starting in 2001. There was no problem in California before Prop. 14. You are allowing your feelings about New York to influence what you say about California, but it is a totally different situation.
Is it? You said that independents could vote in the Dem & Rep primaries. But how would I vote for candidates in different party primary's for the different positions. As far as not caring. We at www.independentvoting.org want the concept of "Open Primaries" to be the standard in all the states. If a party wants their own party, they should pay for it.
I lived in California from 1967-1969 and worked their from 1990 to 1998.
Post a Comment