advertisement
Deals | News | Forums

 

AAPL stock: $442.14 ( +0.79 )

*Cached every 60 seconds. For live updating, Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Has California killed third parties dead?
Posted by: freeradical
Date: June 06, 2012 05:15PM
There was a ballot initiative that changed who appears on the ballot in the general election. Now only the two top vote getters will be on the ballot in the general election. This November, there will be a number of races where only two D's or two R's are on the ballot. Green's, P&F, Libertarians etc. need not apply.


Quote

Two members of the same party will square off in nearly two dozen legislative or congressional elections this November.

The oddity was created by California's new top-two primary system, in which voters could cast ballots for candidates of any party and the two highest vote-getters advance to the general election.

Seven California congressional, 14 Assembly and two state Senate races are sure to feature candidates from the same party. In a handful of other races, vote counts were too tight this morning to declare which two candidates will advance to the November ballot.
Most of the same-party head-butting this fall will involve Democrats. Only four races, all of them Assembly contests, are sure to feature a Republican squaring off against another member of the GOP.


[blogs.sacbee.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Has California killed third parties dead?
Posted by: cbelt3
Date: June 06, 2012 05:33PM
Oops.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Has California killed third parties dead?
Posted by: freeradical
Date: June 06, 2012 06:03PM
To be fair about this, I should add that because of California's heavily gerrymandered voting districts, we've had some pretty strange general elections here.

We've had elections where you have a Dem running against a Libertarian, or a Rep running against a Green. The Dems don't bother fielding a candidate against the Rep, and vice versa.

In some cases, even the third parties didn't bother fielding a candidate, and you had one person running in the general election.

How about those cookies...
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Has California killed third parties dead?
Posted by: SDGuy
Date: June 06, 2012 06:14PM
I have to admit, this year's ballot was one of the ugliest to look at, ever. On some of those races, I got tired of looking through the dozens of names vying for an office and opted to select the write-in candidate, "Me"...
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Has California killed third parties dead?
Posted by: Ca Bob
Date: June 06, 2012 06:31PM
The idea is to give the rest of us (ie: people who are not extremist Republicans or loyalist Democrats) a chance to vote for a moderate for a change. In a runoff election where there are two Republicans running, the Democrats will have some say in picking a moderate over a hard core righty. In a runoff where there are two Democrats (CD 30: Berman vs Sherman) the Republicans will have some say in which of the two Democrats is elected. And all the rest of the no-party voters will also have some say.

The new redistricting system seems to have worked very well in terms of creating compact districts that are not gerrymandered to preserve incumbents, which is what we always had before.

I suppose I am expected to be outraged over the fact that the American Independent Party and the Peace and Freedom Party do not automatically own a spot on the November ballot. Somehow I lack that outrage.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Has California killed third parties dead?
Posted by: vision63
Date: June 06, 2012 07:50PM
The new ballots benefit Democrats. So did redistricting. As of this moment, there is no place for a moderate Republican. Not in this climate.

It's argued that Pete Stark's district is vulnerable because of the new ballot. He'll run against a more moderate Democrat. Bay Area moderate, not moderate moderate.

I fear the November ballot. That sucker is going to be thick. At some point, the people will command-z this ballot.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Has California killed third parties dead?
Posted by: Spock
Date: June 06, 2012 08:50PM
What about the ballot initiative that Big Tobacco didn't like?






Comedy Central: Best news channel that isn't a news channel.

Fox News: Best comedy channel that isn't a comedy channel.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Has California killed third parties dead?
Posted by: freeradical
Date: June 06, 2012 08:59PM
Quote
Spock
What about the ballot initiative that Big Tobacco didn't like?


So far, it looks like nyet on that dumb initiative, but it's close so there'll be at least a half dozen recounts and armies of attorneys involved.


[vote.sos.ca.gov]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Has California killed third parties dead?
Posted by: vision63
Date: June 07, 2012 12:01AM
Quote
freeradical
Quote
Spock
What about the ballot initiative that Big Tobacco didn't like?


So far, it looks like nyet on that dumb initiative, but it's close so there'll be at least a half dozen recounts and armies of attorneys involved.


[vote.sos.ca.gov]

I voted for it but I wasn't crazy about it because it's regressive. It would make the panhandlers beg harder overall.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Has California killed third parties dead?
Posted by: Spock
Date: June 07, 2012 07:32AM
Quote
vision63
Quote
freeradical
Quote
Spock
What about the ballot initiative that Big Tobacco didn't like?


So far, it looks like nyet on that dumb initiative, but it's close so there'll be at least a half dozen recounts and armies of attorneys involved.


[vote.sos.ca.gov]

I voted for it but I wasn't crazy about it because it's regressive. It would make the panhandlers beg harder overall.

What good will come by discouraging people from smoking. Lets keep puffing those health care costs up.






Comedy Central: Best news channel that isn't a news channel.

Fox News: Best comedy channel that isn't a comedy channel.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Has California killed third parties dead?
Posted by: Ca Bob
Date: June 09, 2012 03:30AM
Quote
vision63
The new ballots benefit Democrats. So did redistricting. As of this moment, there is no place for a moderate Republican. Not in this climate.

It's argued that Pete Stark's district is vulnerable because of the new ballot. He'll run against a more moderate Democrat. Bay Area moderate, not moderate moderate.

I fear the November ballot. That sucker is going to be thick. At some point, the people will command-z this ballot.

We've had moderate Republicans such as Senator Tom Kuchel and, more recently, congressman Steve Horn. We've also had quite a few Republican governors in recent years, including Pete Wilson, Arnold, George Deukmejian, and that guy named Reagan who ran for some higher office. But I admit that it's been a while since anybody like them either ran or got elected from a moderate district. That's not the fault of the voters. It's just that Republican Party primary voters coalesced around the really hard right a few years ago. Some of our California Republican congressmen and state legislators are far to the right of a lot of midwestern Republicans.

What makes a Republican not a moderate in California? Being demonstrably anti-abortion and anti-Latino are signs. Attacking liberals as some kind of alien life form (like they do on talk radio) is another. Promising never to negotiate with Democrats is a third, and signing the Grover Norquist pledge never to raise taxes nails the lid down tight. On each of these issues, a majority of Californians are opposed.

I followed the citizens' redistricting process fairly closely, and I think it turned out a fair and balanced product. The fact that it may be advantageous to Democratic congressional candidates is just the corollary to the fact that (a) in recent years, the Republicans have managed to outrage a lot of voters including, but not limited to, Latinos and (b) this time the redistricting was not designed merely to protect incumbents of both parties. Note that this was what the previous redistricting did. Notice also that one effect of the redistricting will be to take out at least two Democratic incumbents in the House of Representatives -- either Berman or Sherman in CD30 and either Hahn or Richardson in CD44. On the other hand, redistricting already took out a Republican, Dreier.

In the so-called "jungle" primary, the Republicans didn't even bother to try to annoint an opponent to Diane Feinstein. DiFi got about 49.5 percent of the votes, and her nearest competitor got about 12.5 percent. There were lots of other entrants including the birther Orly Taitz (3.2 percent) and the "surfing rabbi" Nachum Shifren (0.4 percent -- that's not a typo).

I believe that the majority of Californians are reasonably OK with this system, at least for now. We will have to see what and whom it actually produces, but considering that a good fourth or so of the voters are definably independent voters, turning the decision making powers back to the extremists in the major parties would be a difficult sell.

By the way, it is said by observant pundits (Calbuzz, for example) that Pete Stark is a jerk. This is a chance for the system to actually work -- The moderate Democrats and all the rest of the non-Democratic voters can elect his opponent. The moderate Democrats will be satisfied that they are not electing somebody who will vote with John Boehner, and the Republicans can get some modest satisfaction out of removing Stark.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Has California killed third parties dead?
Posted by: vision63
Date: June 10, 2012 03:28PM
Quote
Ca Bob
Quote
vision63
The new ballots benefit Democrats. So did redistricting. As of this moment, there is no place for a moderate Republican. Not in this climate.

It's argued that Pete Stark's district is vulnerable because of the new ballot. He'll run against a more moderate Democrat. Bay Area moderate, not moderate moderate.

I fear the November ballot. That sucker is going to be thick. At some point, the people will command-z this ballot.

We've had moderate Republicans such as Senator Tom Kuchel and, more recently, congressman Steve Horn. We've also had quite a few Republican governors in recent years, including Pete Wilson, Arnold, George Deukmejian, and that guy named Reagan who ran for some higher office. But I admit that it's been a while since anybody like them either ran or got elected from a moderate district. That's not the fault of the voters. It's just that Republican Party primary voters coalesced around the really hard right a few years ago. Some of our California Republican congressmen and state legislators are far to the right of a lot of midwestern Republicans.

What makes a Republican not a moderate in California? Being demonstrably anti-abortion and anti-Latino are signs. Attacking liberals as some kind of alien life form (like they do on talk radio) is another. Promising never to negotiate with Democrats is a third, and signing the Grover Norquist pledge never to raise taxes nails the lid down tight. On each of these issues, a majority of Californians are opposed.

I followed the citizens' redistricting process fairly closely, and I think it turned out a fair and balanced product. The fact that it may be advantageous to Democratic congressional candidates is just the corollary to the fact that (a) in recent years, the Republicans have managed to outrage a lot of voters including, but not limited to, Latinos and (b) this time the redistricting was not designed merely to protect incumbents of both parties. Note that this was what the previous redistricting did. Notice also that one effect of the redistricting will be to take out at least two Democratic incumbents in the House of Representatives -- either Berman or Sherman in CD30 and either Hahn or Richardson in CD44. On the other hand, redistricting already took out a Republican, Dreier.

In the so-called "jungle" primary, the Republicans didn't even bother to try to annoint an opponent to Diane Feinstein. DiFi got about 49.5 percent of the votes, and her nearest competitor got about 12.5 percent. There were lots of other entrants including the birther Orly Taitz (3.2 percent) and the "surfing rabbi" Nachum Shifren (0.4 percent -- that's not a typo).

I believe that the majority of Californians are reasonably OK with this system, at least for now. We will have to see what and whom it actually produces, but considering that a good fourth or so of the voters are definably independent voters, turning the decision making powers back to the extremists in the major parties would be a difficult sell.

By the way, it is said by observant pundits (Calbuzz, for example) that Pete Stark is a jerk. This is a chance for the system to actually work -- The moderate Democrats and all the rest of the non-Democratic voters can elect his opponent. The moderate Democrats will be satisfied that they are not electing somebody who will vote with John Boehner, and the Republicans can get some modest satisfaction out of removing Stark.

I think Stark is going to survive anyway. He's old. But there are better choices than Eric Swalwell. He'll do his last 2 though he needs to quit. He's done good stuff over his career. I don't believe there is a preponderance of moderate Dems in his district. Someone is always going to think you're a jerk, so who cares about that. Everyone has haters.

California's primary turnout was just 24%, so I don't believe the voters are going to like this ballot. I didn't. Everyone I know that voted disliked this format. Too many names for each office. Literally dozens of names per office. The sample ballot was a mess.

Here in Oakland, we have ranked choice ballots for city elections. Our mayor actually came in second. Too much tinkering. The way we vote seems to change per election.

I do like Orly Taitz's name.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Has California killed third parties dead?
Posted by: RgrF
Date: June 10, 2012 10:28PM
Quote
Ca Bob

We've had moderate Republicans such as Senator Tom Kuchel and, more recently, congressman Steve Horn. We've also had quite a few Republican governors in recent years, including Pete Wilson, Arnold, George Deukmejian, and that guy named Reagan who ran for some higher office. But I admit that it's been a while since anybody like them either ran or got elected from a moderate district.

We Californians still have moderate Republicans in office; today they are called Democrats and include DiFI and a significant number of congressional Dems such as the recently retired Jane Harmon and soon to be retired Howard Berman.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Has California killed third parties dead?
Posted by: vision63
Date: June 11, 2012 10:33PM
Quote
RgrF
Quote
Ca Bob

We've had moderate Republicans such as Senator Tom Kuchel and, more recently, congressman Steve Horn. We've also had quite a few Republican governors in recent years, including Pete Wilson, Arnold, George Deukmejian, and that guy named Reagan who ran for some higher office. But I admit that it's been a while since anybody like them either ran or got elected from a moderate district.

We Californians still have moderate Republicans in office; today they are called Democrats and include DiFI and a significant number of congressional Dems such as the recently retired Jane Harmon and soon to be retired Howard Berman.

Berman is your rep? Interesting. I've never heard him being considered a moderate. But then I've been out of L.A., since 1992 during the Waxman-Berman Machine days.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Has California killed third parties dead?
Posted by: RgrF
Date: June 12, 2012 01:25AM
No, my rep is a thoroughly corrupt right winger named Buck Mckeon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/12/2012 01:30AM by RgrF.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login