From an article posted to IVN by Shawn M. Griffiths:
Third parties argue that by only allowing two candidates in the general election, the stage in the electoral process where the most voters participate, it limits choice. However, how much choice does the current system offer by barring a quarter of the voting population from participating in all integral stages of the voting process? How much choice does the current system offer when nearly all congressional races are decided by members of the majority party in that district?
Third parties don’t fare very well under traditional partisan systems. According to House.gov, only two third-party candidates have served in the U.S. House since 1949 (not counting the 3 independent candidates who have served since then). The last third-party candidate served in the 86th Congress from 1959 to 1961.
Consider this for a moment. There are 435 seats in the U.S. House and there have been a little over 30 elections since 1948 (not counting special elections). It has been half a century since a third-party candidate was elected to the House. The number of non-major party lawmakers who have served in the lower chamber of Congress is nowhere close to being statistically relevant.
In fact, what third party leaders fail to see (or willingly ignore) is that they are being used by the major parties under the current system. The majority party in an electoral district counts on third-party candidates to diminish the voting power of voters outside the party. The more candidates that are on the ballot, the less support candidates in the majority party need to win. If a voter is not a member of the majority party, their vote is essentially meaningless.
It is the illusion of choice that third-party leaders try to sell voters when opposing nonpartisan election reform. They are more concerned about getting their party’s name on the general election ballot than making sure their members have an equal and meaningful voice in elections. If anything, third-party voters in Oregon should be just as upset as independent voters about the closed partisan primary system in the state — a system that puts private interests ahead of voters.
Top Two = Top One.
How about Top Zero?
So, Mr. Haran, I ask you again;
Can you explain WHY you would feel guilty for allowing your party members to make their own decisions and WHY you feel the need to impose your own opinion on non party members?
. When people register to vote, they DO have a CHOICE of registering in any one of several “Parties” OR to remain UNAFFILIATED (i.e “independent)???
I fail to understand why you feel these folks are “DISENFRANCHISED”, when THEY made the decision to remain outside the political party structure.
Worse than that, it’s basically for the “top two” establishment parties to more or less officially merge into one, and engage in a hostile takeover of all other political parties all at the same time. It’s essentially a one party system, a hallmark of an emerging dictatorship, with elections even more transparently phony than what we already have.
I’d just like to point out that the Constitution Party could be bigger if they’d act more like a party and less like a caucus. That’s what’s really going on with the gentleman from AZ; they want their members to be able to vote in Constitution Party and Republican Party primaries.
Furthermore, each of those parties is a private entity. They have the right to select their own candidates. In fact, I suspect that a new development will occur in the Top Two states; private primaries that precede the state-funded Jungle Primary. The state can’t prevent it. Parties can choose their preferred option and push them.
I do not view the Libertarian Party as a caucus of another party. We are our own organization. Any political organization that wants to be treated as a serious party needs to act like one.
LPKY has matured. Libertarians are going to win small partisan offices in KY this year. And that’s smart politics; build the constituency, build the brand, and get people elected. Collect institutional knowlegde and impart that on candidates. That’s what a political party does, and that’s what we’re doing.
I vehemently oppose Top Two. It would wipe out our ability to grow as a legitimate party (as opposed to a caucus of one of the Old Parties), which is exactly why it’s being pushed. Americans are fed up with the Old Parties and are looking for alternatives. We’re gaining ground at the ballot box.
I am a friend to the director of KY’s IVN affiliate, and I understand his position. But having been heavily involved in politics, and specifically in the building of the LPKY, for the past decade, I see Top Two for what it really is; a plan to destroy the up-and-comers and corral people back under the false dichotomy of the Old Parties.
Exactly.
Please don’t be a tool of the Schwarzeneggers and Bloombergs. Establishment Republicans in CA (Maldonado, Schwarzenegger) openly pushed top two as did establishment Republicans in Arizona, Montana and other states. The Arizona NSGOP legislature passed it and then withdrew it before it could go to referendum so they can reintroduce it again next year. They know damn well they wn’t lose in their primary;; just look at California. And the only alt candidates on the Washington ballot are those who were in two way races in the primary. Not a single one came out of a three or more candidate primary. Compare this with how many candidates we had on general election ballots in some past years in either of those states. Again, please don’t be a tool and look at the actual record, who is funding what in which states and what the results have actually been in the real world as opposed to in top two rhetoric land. If it’s academic and if the establishment opposed it how did it pass in CA, WA and in your own state’s legislature?
So what? Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans should get tax funded primaries at all. And it is perfectly reasonable for them to say that if you support one of those parties and want to have any kind of role in picking who their candidates are you should pick one and only one. It would also be reasonable if they said that you don’t get a role unless you physically attend their state convention in person in an assigned date and place. I don’t care if they choose to use a primary instead, but either way they should pay for it themselves, not stick it to the taxvictims or have the state run their nomination process for them.
To make real changes in the political system, because we will actually have candidates on the real election ballot, unlike under top one and a half where we don’t.
Many of us oppose both progressives and conservatives, so we don’t have that problem. They can say anything they want to but we just have to counter their propaganda. Under top two they don’t have that problem because Democrats and Republicans are the only ones on the ballot in the real election.
Establishment Democrats and Republicans are the ones backing top two. In Arizona you have establishment Republicans openly admitting that this was their way to stop the Libertarians from supposedly taking votes from them, which is not even true if you believed the lie that they are entitled to split 100% of the vote with the Democrats, much less in reality. They have openly admitted this. In California Schwarzenegger was fundraising for top two. In Oregon Bloomberg is funding it. The Libertarians, Greens and others are fighting against it. Wonder why? Look at who is on the ballot this November in California and who isn’t.
You should be the one to explain it, since that is exactly what you are justifying if you justify the top two abomination which is designed specifically to keep everyone except establishment Democrats and Republicans out of the real elections.
Doubly so in California top two primaries.
In reality this does not happen. What happens is that two Democrats or two Republicans go to the real election. The reason why the other establishment party does not run in the primary is because they know that they won’t make it out of the primary, and that few people care about the primary. Doubly so for any non-establishment party. That’s why in top two states few alternative parties or candidates even run in the primaries. And it’s designed to do exactly that, consciously, which is why billionaires are sinking millions of dollars into pushing this horrid system.
Top two is completely different from open primaries, although its proponents deceptively bill it as open primary. Under open primaries voters choose which party’s primary they vote in regardless of how they are registered, but you still have alt party and independent candidate on the real general election ballot. Under top two, you get a bunch of candidates with meaningless ballot labels that parties have no say in in a crowded primary while normal people are on vacation and no alt party candidates (and very, very few independents) in the real election that most voters pay any attention to. See the difference?
As for how alt parties pick our candidates, in many states it is by convention. In some states there is a primary but that is not how the candidates are picked. In some states there are binding primaries. In some states we have registration by party, in others such as here in Alabama as well as many others there is no registration by political party at all, and there are also some states which do have registration by party, but only for Democrats and Republicans. Parties should be free to choose how they pick their candidates for the general election ballot, regardless of whether it is by open primary, closed primary, convention, rolling dice, or any other method they choose. They should not be allowed to bill the taxvictims for the cost of their primary, convention, wrestling battle royale or whatever they choose; nor should the state have any role in dictating or officiating their proceedings in choosing their respective candidates.
The argument that there is currently a problem , does not equate to “top-two” voting being a solution to that problem.
The idea that top-two is “non-partisan” is mis-leading. The parties still exist, and the two dominant parties still have undue influence on the process.
Addressing a problem with a bad solution isn’t a solution at all
BH> “And please explain to me how I, as the chairman of the Constitution Party of Arizona, justify the continued disenfranchisement of the largest block of voters in Arizona, those not affiliated with any political party?”
IF you feel guilty for defending the integrity and principles of your own party, the ONLY moral
action that you can take is to resign and find a more compatible avocation – I am certain that
your constituents will be relieved – I KNOW I WOULD!
Can you explain WHY you would feel guilty for allowing your party members to making their own decisions and WHY you feel the need to inject your own opinion on non party members?
This is NOT rocket science. When people register to vote, do they not have a CHOICE of registering in any one of several “Parties” OR to remain UNAFFILIATED (i.e “independent)
I fail to understand why you feel these folks are “DISENFRANCHISED”, when THEY made the decision to remain outside the political party structure.
Open primaries exist in 19 states. A majority of states in the south have open primaries.
This whole discussion is just academic. I spent 30 years in the GOP as a party official and candidate, the major parties are never going to allow open primaries because clearly threatens their dominance of the political system and the two party system. The Democrats don’t want to go up against a progressive party like the Greens in a primary and the Republicans don’t want to go up against a conservative party like the Constitution Party in a primary because they just might loss.
So if your an independent and want to vote for a Democrat for one office and a Republican for another office, you can only vote for the candidate you support for one office and are not allowed to vote for a candidate from another party that you support for a different office, unless the plurality of the voters for the that second office happen to vote for the candidate you support and allow you to vote for them in the general election. Under the closed primary system, if a voter wants to have any say in the primary, they better either register with one of the two major parties or select a ballot from one of those two big box parties, which will help draw them to that major party and forget the third party option. Why then should a voter join a third party? In the general election all the Republicans have to do is tell the voters that if you vote for the conservative third party you are really voting for the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party can tell progressive third party voters that if they vote for the progressive third party they are really voting for the Republican candidate and, therefore, the Democrats and the Republicans are able to keep their dominance over the American political system and alternative parties from ever gaining any traction, which is one reason the two major parties love the closed primary system.
Bob, I should have remembered you live in Arizona. Arizona independent voters can vote in any party primary they wish. Because they have the freedom to choose a primary ballot, whereas party members must use their own party’s primary ballot, independent voters in Arizona have more freedom than any other voters, on primary day.
Bob – in many states, Independents are allowed to vote in a primary – they pick a party on primary day when they go to the polls.
In California before the adoption of top two, each party was allowed to decide if they would let Independent voters vote in their primary; Democrats chose to allow Independents to vote in the primary for all offices, while Republicans chose to let Independents vote in the primary for every office except President.
So there is no big problem of disenfranchising Independent voters in the primary. With top two there is a big problem of disenfranchising Independent and alternative party voters in the November election.
So Richard, who are all these federal and state third party elected officials? And please explain to me how I, as the chairman of the Constitution Party of Arizona, justify the continued disenfranchisement of the largest block of voters in Arizona, those not affiliated with any political party? I don’t know what the situation is in Oregon but here in Arizona, most of the time, the election is decided in the primary and when a third party does put up a candidate in the general, they are ignored by the media and the voters. Open up the primaries, put all the candidates on the ballot. Many times, in Democrat or Republican districts, many candidates from the dominate party run for office and therefore split the vote for the dominate party and many times the smaller of the major parties don’t even run a candidate, which therefore opens up an opportunity for a third party candidate to become one of the top two in the primary and move on to the general as the only alternative to the major party candidate.
RW – in Oregon the Independent Party and the Libertarian Party nominate by privately run primary ballots by e-vote card and mail respectively.
Every year, independent and minor party candidates are elected to federal and state office in states without a top-two system. The very title of Shawn’s article is false. His word “never” is erroneous. He has been told this, by me among others, probably 20 times, in comments underneath his frequent articles. I know he reads the comments because he comments back.
As to Bob Haran’s comment, I don’t know if he lives in Oregon or not. Minor parties in Oregon nominate by convention, not primary. However, the Independent Party is virtually certain to have its own government primary in 2016, assuming Measure 90 loses. The Independent Party will open up its primary to not only its members, but all independent voters.
What the third parties fail to consider is that under the current system of partisan primaries, if they have obtained ballot status, their members can only vote in their parties primaries and they usually don’t have enough candidates for every office on the ballot, therefore, a closed primary limits their own members to only voting in a primary in which they have a candidate from their party and if they do have a candidate it is usually only one candidate. Why would someone therefore register in a third party if it will severely limit their vote in the primary election. Closed primaries only guarantee that third parties remain marginal parties and not worth supporting.
Better reform: the State shouldn’t conduct primary elections at taxpayer expense for the benefit of private groups. It costs about $3 million for Oregon to conduct a primary election. The R/D parties should be footing the bill for that themselves (just like we do in the Libertarian party). How about a range voting general election and no State primary at all?
If only there was a state, maybe a large state with a lot of coastline, where the Top-Two idea had been tried. Then we might know what actual effect it has on third parties.
If only…