A New Goldrush For Independents?
Can California's "Governator" outfox the two major parties again?
With little notice or fanfare, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is slowly pulling at the death grip the two major parties have on the Golden State.
First, his redistricting proposition passed. That means politicians in the state will no longer get to play partisan cartographers after every census, redrawing the map of congressional districts to ensure their candidates can’t possibly lose. An independent panel will now, hopefully, craft districts that make rational, geographic sense.
(Unfortunately, the panel will only redraw state legislative districts, not federal congressional districts. Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic thugs in Washington threatened to pour millions of dollars into the No campaign if reformers messed with their turf, so the text of the initiative was changed.)
But the Governator says he’s not done yet. He’s now pledged to push for completely open primaries, in which any voter - regardless of party identification - could vote for any candidate. Instead of Republicans only voting for Republicans and Democrats only voting for Democrats in spring elections, which guaranteed that a Donkey always faced off against an Elephant in the fall, an open primary would put all candidates, regardless of party, on the same ballot.
In this system, the top two vote-getters would proceed to the general election. That means two Democrats could wind up squaring off against each other, or two Republicans. Or, perhaps, one or two Independents could make a strong run and break through.
Specific legislation designing this possible new primary system has not been written yet, but we hope it will be crafted in a way to allow independent candidates fair access to primary ballots. We will continue following the issue as Schwarzenegger releases more specifics on his proposal.
In the meantime, the sour reactions of partisan hacks on both sides of the aisle definitely indicate how scared they are by the possibility of open competition. That’s a good sign. From the Contra Costa Times:
Leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties are opposed, saying it would effectively take the parties out of play in huge swathes around the state and weaken their ability to control the outcome of who represents their party.
“This would force political parties to abandon even more of the state than they do now,” said Ron Nehring, chairman of the state Republican Party. “If a party doesn’t have a candidate on the general election ballot, a party has no reason to be involved. Is it healthy to our democracy to not have our parties engaged in every part of the state?”
Mr. Nehring has his head so far up the derriere of his party’s machine, he obviously can’t even hear how laughably hollow his complaints sound. It’s absurd for anyone from the Republican or Democratic parties to preach to anyone about what is or isn’t “healthy to our democracy.” Just take a look at what they consider an acceptable voting district:
This tortuously drawn amoeba, known as California Congressional District #11, is the kind of “democracy” we can expect if we continue to allow the Dems and Reps to, literally, carve up the balance of power. Unbelievably, District 11 was 1 of 2 districts (out of the 53) in the entire state that were considered “competetive” in the last election.
Trust me when I tell you Massachusetts makes california look like weekend pikers.
Indeed. Your former governor, Elbridge Gerry, may not have invented “gerrymandering,” but he was so good at it, they named the practice after him!
I find this propasal interesting but as they say, always look deeper and follow the money. My only concern is the issue of the “top two” primary candidates moving forward. Often in tight primary races the differences between the candidates is less than 5%. Does this proposal mean in a predominately Republican Districts the two top Republicans would be the only two candidates on the Ballot. Or, vise versa with regard to predominately Democratic Districts. Open Ballot access means just that. It is my position, because Independents are truly independent of specific political party ideology they should be allowed to run individually on the General Election ballots. While there may be an argument this could result in 100s of candidates on a ballot then so be it. However, one must first examine the participation of Independent candidates in states that offer easy access. In the Tennessee where on 25 signatures and no filing fee to run as an Independent for Congress, there has been no rush of Independent Candidates. The same is true in Mississippi where 200 signatures and no filing fees are required. Yet, I have heard no complaint of problems from California where over 120 candidates were on the ballot in the election to replace recalled Governor Gray Davis. In many countries there are pages of candidates. A true democracy is just that. If this effort in California is truly to benefit Independent candidates there must be provisions for non-traditional candidates from third parties and independents to be on the General Election ballot.