Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Chronicle & Gropernator Recommend Prop Backed by Billioniares
This is the most blatant prostition by the Chron for power that I've ever seen. I urge everyone to respond to this idiotic endorsement.
EDITORIAL
THE CHRONICLE RECOMMENDS
Yes on Prop. 62 - [annotated version!]
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
PROPOSITION 62 is not for Californians who are satisfied with their choices for the U.S. Congress and the California Legislature.
[Wrong - It actually provides LESS choice - only the most
well-funded candidates will ever end up on the ballots!]
This measure would radically alter the way elections are conducted for state and federal offices.
[Just what big business ordered]
So, if you think everything is going just fine in Sacramento and Washington, Proposition 62 is not for you.
[This has virtually nothing to do with the 'current job' in Sacramento]
We, however, happen to like it.
[Since it means the billionaires behind it will FUND us now!]
Prop. 62 is about promoting competition and accountability. It rests on the theory that truly competitive races will require elected officials to reach out to more voters when they are running for office -- and act more responsibly when they get elected.
[Complete BS - it limits the choices to the choices of the CEOs, not the people]
Under Prop. 62, voters in a primary election would be able to choose among all candidates on the ballot, irrespective of party affiliation. The two top vote-getters would then qualify for the general election.
[The two top-FUNDED corporate backed candidates]
The measure acknowledges the modern-day reality of California politics: Fewer and fewer voters identify with a political party. It also attempts to address the increasing partisan polarization that has often resulted in gridlock on the budget and other important issues.
[More complete BS - would we rather only have candidates funded by CEOs than have a choice of political party???]
Leon Panetta, a former member of Congress and White House chief of staff under President Clinton, suggested that the current system only fuels the partisan vitriol. Legislative districts are carved up to be "safe" for a candidate from one of the two particular parties. Legislators are left to worry only about primary challenges from more extreme elements within their own party.
[This will not solve partisan vitriol. It will only hand power to the wealthy]
"I can't tell you how angry and disturbed I am by what I see happening today," Panetta said of the partisanship in Sacramento and Washington during his recent meeting with our editorial board.
[Gropernator was elected on UNCERTIFIED software being run on every single county using Diebold machines - this is the REAL issue, not the current problems that will not be even touched by this proposition].
Panetta and other supporters of Prop. 62 maintain that a truly "open primary" would provide a better chance for moderates of both parties to advance to the general election. For that reason, the measure has gained the support of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the California Chamber of Commerce.
Not surprisingly, the status quo is fighting back. California legislators, faced with the prospect of an initiative that would upset their re-election comfort zones, rushed an alternative measure onto the ballot last summer (Proposition 60) that would preserve the system of voters from within each party to select their own party nominees for the general election.
[The whole idea that this will solve problems in Sacramento is a STRAW MAN - they are setting it up as though it can do something it cannot].
The underlying causes of the mess in Sacramento include politician- orchestrated redistricting, which eliminates competition; weak campaign finance laws, which leave elected officials beholden to special interest; and absurdly short term limits, which keep politicians from focusing on the long- term interest of the state. All of those issues need to be addressed, starting with the need for objectively crafted redistricting of legislative and congressional districts.
["weak campaign finance laws, which leave elected officials beholden to special interest" - This is INSANE - you mean to tell me the CEO billionaires are out to 'strengthen' campaign finance laws!!!???!!!]
In the meantime, an infusion of competition would be healthy for our democracy. Make no mistake: The politicians in power fear Prop. 62. We recommend its passage and defeat of Prop. 60 on Nov. 2.
[If you've been taken in by the 'democracy' most people in power are trying to ram down your throat and have had enough, shove this back in their faces and let them have a taste of their own crap. VOTE NO ON 62!!!].
-------------------------------
Here's the real deal :
The Prop. 62 scam
by richard winger
PROPOSITION 62 WAS placed on the November state ballot by big-business interests. It would require that all candidates for Congress and state office run on a single primary ballot. Voters would choose from that primary ballot, and the top two vote getters would then compete in November. There would be no other route onto the November ballot except by coming in first or second in the March primary.
The money that paid for the signature-collecting firm to get Prop. 62 on the ballot came from the following: Countrywide Home Loans, $350,000; Charles Munger, CEO of Wesco Financial, $200,000; and Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, $100,000. Other individuals who gave $100,000 are Elizabeth Rogers, Otis Booth, Stewart Resnick, Jerry Perenchio, and Richard Riordan. Individuals who gave $50,000 are Eli Broad, Haim Saban, Robert Day, and Donald Fisher.
Our California legislature is very diverse, not only ethnically and by gender and sexual orientation, but also in ideology. Yes, there are wild-eyed conservatives in our state legislature, but there also are solid, principled liberals. And yes, sometimes our legislators fight bitterly with each other, and it does take a while to get our budget passed. But that very diversity guarantees that every significant group in California has a spokesperson in the legislature.
Big business doesn't like our legislature. It would prefer a bland mix of "moderates," who would pass the budget on time and see to it that California's "business climate" took primacy over other concerns.
The only other state with an election system like Prop. 62's is Louisiana, but, ironically, even Louisiana's system is better than Prop. 62's. In Louisiana, all candidates for Congress, whether they're Socialists, Libertarians, Greens, Republicans, or Democrats, have easy access to the November ballot. A typical Louisiana November congressional ballot contains three Republicans, three Democrats, and a minor-party or independent candidate. If no one gets 50 percent of the votes (which only happens 15 percent of the time), the top two compete in a December runoff. So at least every political party gets to run an on-the-ballot campaign in the fall, when voters are paying attention to political ideas.
But in California, Prop. 62 would make all candidates run in March. Then only the top two vote getters could run in November. This would inevitably result in a November ballot with no minor-party or independent candidates. We know this because California has held similar blanket primaries in the past, 408 times. In all 408 instances, no one but a Democrat or a Republican ever placed first or second (except in the 12 cases when only one major-party member was running). Even Audie Bock, who was elected to the legislature as a Green in a 1999 special election, couldn't have qualified for the runoff ballot, since she was a distant third in the first round. Similarly, Jesse Ventura, elected governor of Minnesota in November 1998 as the Reform Party nominee, only polled 3 percent in Minnesota's September 1998 open primary. Under Prop. 62, he couldn't have run in November either.
Prop. 62 would give us a November ballot with no outlet for voters who want to vote for parties other than the Democratic and Republican ones. There wouldn't be any minor-party election campaigns during the September-October period when voters are interested in politics.
Prop. 62 could also disenfranchise major-party voters. Imagine a primary with these results: Smith, Republican, 23 percent; Jones, Republican, 22 percent; Lee, Democrat, 21 percent; Sanchez, Democrat, 20 percent; Hawkins, Democrat, 14 percent. Under Prop. 62, the general election would contain only two Republicans, even though in the primary 55 percent of the voters had preferred a Democrat. In this case, Democrats would have no Democrat to vote for in November, even though the district leans Democratic and chances are that a Democrat could have won under our old (existing) system.
If you want to preserve diversity in our legislature, and diversity on our November ballots, vote no on 62.
Richard Winger is a ballot-access consultant.
http://www.sfbg.com/38/49/x_oped.html
THE CHRONICLE RECOMMENDS
Yes on Prop. 62 - [annotated version!]
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
PROPOSITION 62 is not for Californians who are satisfied with their choices for the U.S. Congress and the California Legislature.
[Wrong - It actually provides LESS choice - only the most
well-funded candidates will ever end up on the ballots!]
This measure would radically alter the way elections are conducted for state and federal offices.
[Just what big business ordered]
So, if you think everything is going just fine in Sacramento and Washington, Proposition 62 is not for you.
[This has virtually nothing to do with the 'current job' in Sacramento]
We, however, happen to like it.
[Since it means the billionaires behind it will FUND us now!]
Prop. 62 is about promoting competition and accountability. It rests on the theory that truly competitive races will require elected officials to reach out to more voters when they are running for office -- and act more responsibly when they get elected.
[Complete BS - it limits the choices to the choices of the CEOs, not the people]
Under Prop. 62, voters in a primary election would be able to choose among all candidates on the ballot, irrespective of party affiliation. The two top vote-getters would then qualify for the general election.
[The two top-FUNDED corporate backed candidates]
The measure acknowledges the modern-day reality of California politics: Fewer and fewer voters identify with a political party. It also attempts to address the increasing partisan polarization that has often resulted in gridlock on the budget and other important issues.
[More complete BS - would we rather only have candidates funded by CEOs than have a choice of political party???]
Leon Panetta, a former member of Congress and White House chief of staff under President Clinton, suggested that the current system only fuels the partisan vitriol. Legislative districts are carved up to be "safe" for a candidate from one of the two particular parties. Legislators are left to worry only about primary challenges from more extreme elements within their own party.
[This will not solve partisan vitriol. It will only hand power to the wealthy]
"I can't tell you how angry and disturbed I am by what I see happening today," Panetta said of the partisanship in Sacramento and Washington during his recent meeting with our editorial board.
[Gropernator was elected on UNCERTIFIED software being run on every single county using Diebold machines - this is the REAL issue, not the current problems that will not be even touched by this proposition].
Panetta and other supporters of Prop. 62 maintain that a truly "open primary" would provide a better chance for moderates of both parties to advance to the general election. For that reason, the measure has gained the support of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the California Chamber of Commerce.
Not surprisingly, the status quo is fighting back. California legislators, faced with the prospect of an initiative that would upset their re-election comfort zones, rushed an alternative measure onto the ballot last summer (Proposition 60) that would preserve the system of voters from within each party to select their own party nominees for the general election.
[The whole idea that this will solve problems in Sacramento is a STRAW MAN - they are setting it up as though it can do something it cannot].
The underlying causes of the mess in Sacramento include politician- orchestrated redistricting, which eliminates competition; weak campaign finance laws, which leave elected officials beholden to special interest; and absurdly short term limits, which keep politicians from focusing on the long- term interest of the state. All of those issues need to be addressed, starting with the need for objectively crafted redistricting of legislative and congressional districts.
["weak campaign finance laws, which leave elected officials beholden to special interest" - This is INSANE - you mean to tell me the CEO billionaires are out to 'strengthen' campaign finance laws!!!???!!!]
In the meantime, an infusion of competition would be healthy for our democracy. Make no mistake: The politicians in power fear Prop. 62. We recommend its passage and defeat of Prop. 60 on Nov. 2.
[If you've been taken in by the 'democracy' most people in power are trying to ram down your throat and have had enough, shove this back in their faces and let them have a taste of their own crap. VOTE NO ON 62!!!].
-------------------------------
Here's the real deal :
The Prop. 62 scam
by richard winger
PROPOSITION 62 WAS placed on the November state ballot by big-business interests. It would require that all candidates for Congress and state office run on a single primary ballot. Voters would choose from that primary ballot, and the top two vote getters would then compete in November. There would be no other route onto the November ballot except by coming in first or second in the March primary.
The money that paid for the signature-collecting firm to get Prop. 62 on the ballot came from the following: Countrywide Home Loans, $350,000; Charles Munger, CEO of Wesco Financial, $200,000; and Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, $100,000. Other individuals who gave $100,000 are Elizabeth Rogers, Otis Booth, Stewart Resnick, Jerry Perenchio, and Richard Riordan. Individuals who gave $50,000 are Eli Broad, Haim Saban, Robert Day, and Donald Fisher.
Our California legislature is very diverse, not only ethnically and by gender and sexual orientation, but also in ideology. Yes, there are wild-eyed conservatives in our state legislature, but there also are solid, principled liberals. And yes, sometimes our legislators fight bitterly with each other, and it does take a while to get our budget passed. But that very diversity guarantees that every significant group in California has a spokesperson in the legislature.
Big business doesn't like our legislature. It would prefer a bland mix of "moderates," who would pass the budget on time and see to it that California's "business climate" took primacy over other concerns.
The only other state with an election system like Prop. 62's is Louisiana, but, ironically, even Louisiana's system is better than Prop. 62's. In Louisiana, all candidates for Congress, whether they're Socialists, Libertarians, Greens, Republicans, or Democrats, have easy access to the November ballot. A typical Louisiana November congressional ballot contains three Republicans, three Democrats, and a minor-party or independent candidate. If no one gets 50 percent of the votes (which only happens 15 percent of the time), the top two compete in a December runoff. So at least every political party gets to run an on-the-ballot campaign in the fall, when voters are paying attention to political ideas.
But in California, Prop. 62 would make all candidates run in March. Then only the top two vote getters could run in November. This would inevitably result in a November ballot with no minor-party or independent candidates. We know this because California has held similar blanket primaries in the past, 408 times. In all 408 instances, no one but a Democrat or a Republican ever placed first or second (except in the 12 cases when only one major-party member was running). Even Audie Bock, who was elected to the legislature as a Green in a 1999 special election, couldn't have qualified for the runoff ballot, since she was a distant third in the first round. Similarly, Jesse Ventura, elected governor of Minnesota in November 1998 as the Reform Party nominee, only polled 3 percent in Minnesota's September 1998 open primary. Under Prop. 62, he couldn't have run in November either.
Prop. 62 would give us a November ballot with no outlet for voters who want to vote for parties other than the Democratic and Republican ones. There wouldn't be any minor-party election campaigns during the September-October period when voters are interested in politics.
Prop. 62 could also disenfranchise major-party voters. Imagine a primary with these results: Smith, Republican, 23 percent; Jones, Republican, 22 percent; Lee, Democrat, 21 percent; Sanchez, Democrat, 20 percent; Hawkins, Democrat, 14 percent. Under Prop. 62, the general election would contain only two Republicans, even though in the primary 55 percent of the voters had preferred a Democrat. In this case, Democrats would have no Democrat to vote for in November, even though the district leans Democratic and chances are that a Democrat could have won under our old (existing) system.
If you want to preserve diversity in our legislature, and diversity on our November ballots, vote no on 62.
Richard Winger is a ballot-access consultant.
http://www.sfbg.com/38/49/x_oped.html
For more information:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c...
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
This posting may not be the best, but the prop will effectively elimiate the existance of small parties in CA with the current ballot status requirements. Literally, these parties will cease to exist in our state. It might be nice to try to highlight *something* about this situation.