California Voters To Repubs and Dems: Suck It

Posted by politicalpartypooper on June 14, 2010

What is the one thing that all Republicans and all Democrats agree on?

This, and only this:  Independents are evil and dangerous.

Okay.  I’ll admit it.  That’s two things.  But you get the point.  Democrats and Republicans believe Indies are a threat to their way of life…and they’re right; we are.  California’s Prop 14 passed with 54% of the vote, an electoral ass whooping against the two parties of biblical proportions.  Opponents of the measure say it will kill smaller political parties, or political parties altogether (if only).  But those “opponents” are the usual suspects; party hacks from the Republican and Democratic Party disguised as “Fair Vote” and StopTopTwo.org.  FairVote.org says,

To achieve these goals in California, we support adoption of proportional representation for legislative elections and instant runoff voting for elections to single winner offices. Proportional voting means that like-minded voters can come together to win seats in proportion to their share of the vote: 50% of the vote wins five out of ten seats, and 10% wins one out of ten seats.

Proportional representation is their idea of “fair voting”. Allow me to interpret.  If one Party wins 50% of the vote for ten open seats, they win five seats.  Don’t see a problem with that?  Well, you might when I tell you that those ten seats are then filled by the Party, not the voters.  In other words, voters don’t choose a person, they choose a party; which is akin to saying, “You don’t need to know t all that confusing stuff like who you are actually voting for; let us choose that for you.  You just vote Democrat, and everything will be fine.  The Party will choose the candidate”

Nothing could go wrong with a system like that.

Yup.   Not one thing.

Well, we don’t have to worry about that silly system, because Californian voters told the Repubs and Dems to suck it.     Ω


6 Responses to “California Voters To Repubs and Dems: Suck It”

  1. Liberty4ever4all said

    Good! It’s time, it’s overtime. I’ve been a registered Independent since 1990.
    Ross Perot made alot of sense.

  2. “Those ten seats are then filled by the Party, not the voters.”

    This is not true. This is not true. This is not true. This is not true.

    This is one of the persistent myths (lies) about proportional representation.

    Candidates are nominated locally by party members under proportional representation, in advance of the election, just as in any system. The proportional systems most discussed for North America allow voters to vote for individual candidates and elect local representatives.

    Get the facts: http://fairvote.org

    • politicalpartypooper said


      Do you wish to explain to my readers how the candidates would be chosen if, with ten open seats, a party won six of them? Which six candidates that they “nominated” would get a seat? Would the voters vote for them, or in the end, would that party choose?

      Also, under proportional representation, how many seats do Indies get? In America, Indies range from 30-35% of voters (it’s been said they have ranged as high as 40% in 2008). So, if Indies checked their ballots indicating that they were an Independent voter at a 30% rate,under your idea for a fair vote, would at least three of the seats have to go to Indies, if there were actually that many on the ballot?

      • How the candidates are elected will depend on which voting system is used. There are three different families of proportional voting systems. People who really want to know the technical details can find them here: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm

        I’ll try to give a concise summary.

        With a party list system, or a mixed system involving a party list, the party nominates an ordered (numbered) list of candidates. If a party receives enough votes to elect six candidates, then the first six candidates on the list are elected and number seven doesn’t make the cut.

        A variation of this is the “open” list, where voters vote for individual candidates on the party list. The vote counts for the party, and the candidate’s personal votes help determine the order of the list.

        With a single transferable vote system, voters express their preferences for individual candidates by numbering their choices. Voters can vote for candidates of more than one party, or for independents. Candidates who get enough first choice votes are elected. If they receive more votes than they need to get elected, the surplus value of each vote is transferred to the voter’s next preference. If there are still more candidates to be elected, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and his votes are transferred to each voter’s next preference. This continues until all the seats have been filled.

        How the candidates are nominated (become candidates) is a separate question. It can be done by party bosses, by party members, or in public primaries. This is true under any system, including the current one. Of course, it must always be done before the election, so the voters can evaluate the candidates and decide how to vote.

        As for independent candidates, the systems most discussed for North America are the Mixed Member Proportional and the Single Transferable Vote. Under a mixed system, you get two votes, one for a candidate and one for a party. If the candidate you vote for doesn’t get elected, your party vote will still help somebody get elected. Under STV, independents are on the same footing as party candidates.

        Either of these systems would be better for independent or small party candidates, because they would no longer be “spoilers”. Voters could vote for a candidate with an outside chance of getting elected, knowing that their vote will still count.

  3. Jeff Trigg said

    “But those “opponents” are the usual suspects; party hacks from the Republican and Democratic Party disguised as “Fair Vote” and StopTopTwo.org.”

    Care to cite any evidence to back up this allegation? How about to pointing to which side all the money was on and where that money came from? FreeandEqul.org is behind StopTopTwo.org, and a Libertarian candidate who worked with Ralph Nader, is behind FreeandEqual.org. So are you accusing the Democrats and Republicans of somehow pulling the strings of the Libertarians and Ralph Nader? You are completely wrong.

    I am an independent. I volunteered for StopTopTwo.org, an organization you accuse of being just a disguise for the Republican and Democratic parties. You are wrong and just spewing ignorance.

    I will agree with you that some California voters thought they were telling the Republicans and Democrats to suck it while voting for Prop. 14. But they were horribly wrong. I have proof, and history will provide even more proof.

    Under Top Two elections, voters will have nothing but Democrats and Republicans to vote for on their ballot. Those two parties you hate will have complete control over our ballots. There won’t be any independent candidates on the ballot, something I would love to see.

    The first election after Top Two was introduced in Washington State for the first time in ages there was not one single independent candidate or candidate from any party other than the Republicans and Democrats. Not one. (Except for President.) The same thing will happen in Washington ST. in 2010 and it will start happening in California in 2012. Voters will have no other choice but Republicans and Democrats under Top Two, and those two parties will have complete control over the ballots.

    In fact, in Washington State. candidates can not even run as an independent candidate. They can be a No Party Preference candidate as listed on the ballot, but independents in Washington are not allowed to run as an independent. In California, write-ins are taken away as an option if the two candidates are both bad.

    So why did the Rs and Ds oppose Prop. 14? Here’s a better question, if the Rs and Ds really hated it as much as people say they did, why didn’t they spend more money opposing it? StopTopTwo.org didn’t get any money from either party that I am aware of.

    Prop. 14 was both good and bad for the Reps and Dems. Prop. 14 was good for them because it does eliminate independents and alternative parties from the ballot. They don’t have to worry about outsiders challenging their two party system now. That is good for them.

    What they don’t like about Prop. 14 is that it shifts the power around within their two parties. Now, people like Arnold and Abel and Whitman and Fiorina and Hewlett Packard and the Chamber of Commerce and NetFlix and Silicon Valley CEOs and the big corporate money behind Prop. 14 can buy their way in to the top two and completely ignore the loyal party voters. Sure that COULD be good for independents, IF they were running as independents, but they won’t be, they will be running as Republicans and Democrats because its easier to get on the ballot with that label in California than it is as an R or D.

    As for my independent credentials, I’ve done REAL work to help independents, instead of being a fool and helping the Rs and Ds gain more control over our ballot. Originally from Illinois where there still has not been one independent candidate able to get on the ballot for their state legislature since 1980, I helped challenge that election law in Illinois and had it ruled unconstitutional in the case Lee v. Keith. In fact, I filed to run for Governor of Illinois as an independent against Rod Blagojevich but he kicked me off the ballot using that election law which was ruled unconstitutional. I tried the Democrats, I tried alternative parties, they weren’t for me and I’m an independent now and an activist to fight stupid election laws, like Prop. 14, that make it impossible to independent candidates to compete in America.

    As for your proportional representation statements, you are mostly wrong. There are numerous ways proportional representation can be implemented, and rarely has it been implemented the way you describe, if ever. Some systems do combine a party list with individual candidates but in almost every case that I am familiar with, the voters still choose individual candidates under proportional representation.

    Look, I’m with in disliking the two power parties and wanting to reduce their complete control over our governments. But you need to get up to speed and educate yourself more before going off like this. You are hurting the independent cause with this ignorant nonsense, not helping it.

    • politicalpartypooper said


      “It’s not just the Republicans and Democrats who agree that Proposition 14 is a bad idea. They are joined by the Green, Peace and Freedom, Libertarian and American Independent parties. In addition, you have California nurses, firefighters, teachers and school employees joining with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association to oppose Proposition 14” (http://www.youthradio.org/news/opponents-proposition-14) (Interview by Kelly Chau of Josh Golka of the California School Employees Association)

      Look at the names of the organizations on that list. Unions, almost all of them. The Howard Jarvis association can hardly be called an Indie organization. They are heavily involved in Republican Candidate endorsements, and I don’t think you need to look very far at OpenSecrets.org to find out who these organizations generally support and give money to.

      Here is a link to a list of opponents of the bill. It’s one of your sources: http://peaceandfreedom.org/blog/?p=2813

      Orly Taitz is on that list, Jeff. You know, the Queen Birther. Organizations that are opposed to Prop 14 are all heavily involved in the revolving door system between Washington politics and lobbyists; a system DOMINATED, PROTECTED, AND PERPETUATED by Democrats and Republicans. As for the Greens or Liberatrians being opposed, of course they would be. They are political parties who know they are on the fringe, and not likely to win many elections.

      I think the key here, Jeff,is that while Dems and Repubs might see a sly way of ridding themselves of the smaller parties, they also understand the overall message by the support this bill received from voters. The overall message is that change is coming; and if this doesn’t work, then voters will continue to change it until it does. Especially this year, Indie candidates would have real hope of winning Federal seats as well as local seats; this is, after all, the year of voter discontent. I think it’s actually going to be a long decade of discontent. In the end, voters are saying they think the Dem and Repub primary should be done away with, especially since taxpayers are paying for it, and the two parties are controlling it.

      This is just the beginning, Jeff. While you may not be convinced that Dems and Repubs are really opposed to a system of open primaries like this, you’ll see just how loud they become the first time an Indie is one of the two.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: