Why Did the East Bay Express Endorse Proposition 14, the Fake "Open Primary"?

The East Bay Express's only remark as to why they endorsed it was this:

"We also endorse Proposition 14, the open primary initiative. For us, it's an issue of liberty — people should be able to vote for whomever they want, regardless of party."

But here's what readers had to say about that:

--------------

I'd like to hear more about why you're endorsing Prop 14.

I agree that independents should be able to vote for whomever they'd like in the primary and in the runoff, but with this proposition what will happen is that voters will only have a choice of only two candidates in the runoff. Doesn't sound like liberty to me. Then we can all say goodbye to third party candidates having any real chances at office.

Parties exist and are still strongly represented. I think that gnoring them only exacerbates the partisan problem. This might be a good idea one day, but not now.
Posted by RenaR on May 26, 2010 at 4:24 PM | Report this comment

--------------

Wow, I can't believe this great little paper would endorse the Proposition (14) which is designed to destroy small parties in the state -- they literally will never be able to run on a November ballot. I can only assume you haven't looked into it very closely. Why would we want zero challenges to the corporate-owned parties? Why would we want to eliminate the only parties which refuse corporate money, stand for Peace and Justice, and are grassroots?

From Mike Feinstien:
"In California there are only two ways that parties stay on the ballot. One is to receive at least 2% in a general election every four years for a statewide office like Governor or Secretary of State. But under Prop 14, minor parties won’t be on the general election ballot for statewide office, so they can’t retain party status that way.

The other method is to have a certain threshold number of voter registrations. But if this were the only method today, both the Libertarians and the Peace & Freedom Party would already be off the ballot and the Greens would be threatened with the same.

***Had Prop 14’s authors intended to honor California’s political diversity, they would’ve reduced the registration threshold so these kinds of parties could reasonably stay on the ballot.*** By leaving the threshold where it is and eliminating their ability to qualify on the general election ballot, Prop 14’s sponsors are going for the jugular to entirely eliminate minor parties in the state."

I urge you to reconsider your endorsement of this Prop and look more closely at the info. See:

http://www.StopTopTwo.org

East Bay Express will join Prop. 14 backers -- the LA Times, The Sacramento Bee, The SF Chron, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Police Chiefs Association, and the California chapter of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP).

Opponents include: SF Bay Guardian, California NAACP, California League of Conservation Voters, the ACLU (Southern and Northern CA), Libertarian, Green and Peace and Freedom Parties, Marin Peace and Justice Coalition, Sandre Swanson, Mark Leno, Lori Hancock, Cindy Sheehan . . .

Which side are you on?
Posted by Victronix on May 27, 2010 at 9:39 AM | Report this comment

--------------

The Express rightly rejects the major Democratic and Republican gubernatorial candidates, but in stopping there shows the same ignorance as it does in endorsing the dreadful Proposition 14.

If Proposition 14 were in effect, the only choices on the ballot in November for Governor would be two of the three the Express rejects, Brown, Poizner and Whitman, and if you write-in someone else your vote wouldn't be counted (that's part of the implementing legislation for Prop 14 that will automatically take effect if it passes).

This June, in addition to the 6 "minor" Democratic and 6 "minor" Republican gubernatorial candidates that the Express ignores, there are 2 American Independent Party, 2 Green Party, 1 Libertarian Party and 3 Peace and Freedom Party candidates for Governor. In November, one candidate from each "third party" will be on the ballot in addition to two of the three major party candidates you've already rejected and possibly one or more independent candidates (who wouldn't need to file until after the June primary). Why no endorsements in any of the third parties' contested gubernatorial primaries?

Proposition 14 doesn't call for an open primary, but for a blanket primary leading to a closed general election. It was put on the ballot as part of the February 2009 budget deal. Abel Maldonado's price for his vote was a middle of the night vote to put Prop 14 on the ballot with a biased title and summary and to enact its lengthy implementing legislation without hearings. The Express endorsed the May 2009 special election ballot measures from the deal, and now it endorses Proposition 14 and Maldonado for Lieutenant Governor.

Common wisdom says the press is in favor of open government and against backroom deals. But not the East Bay Express.
Posted by Dave Kadlecek on May 27, 2010 at 10:43 AM | Report this comment

--------------

The editors of the Express obviously decided to endorse Prop 14 on a whim. Had they spent even five minutes on the subject, they would have realized that it affects liberty to vote for the candidate of your choice in exactly the opposite way from what they appear to think. Two candidates to choose from? Who will sometimes represent the same party? Who would almost never include an independent or representative of a minor party? With no possibility of voting for a write-in candidate? The Express has a very odd notion of voter liberty.
Posted by rrichard63 on May 27, 2010 at 6:50 PM | Report this comment

The reasons cited by other writers here are why the Green Party opposes Prop 14, as do the Democratic and Republican parties. It would ROB voters of choice, including the choice to vote for a Green in November ever again, except in VERY rare circumstances, as Green gubernatorial candidate Laura Wells of Oakland (http://www.laurawells.org) points out. Moreover, in states that have tried this approach, almost every single incumbent has been re-elected (one who lost had a sex scandal). Prop 14 is the Incumbent Protection Act.
Posted by Progressive_Portal on May 27, 2010 at 8:05 PM | Report this comment

--------------

Everyone looks at how Prop 14 changes the primary election. But it also changes the general election by restricting voters choices. General elections are more important, they are much more important, than primary elections because general elections are where the final determinations are made as to who gets elected. So why would you support Prop 14 which may or may not improve the less significant, much smaller primary elections when you know Prop 14 would reduces voters choices in the much larger, much more important general elections. No longer would independent candidates be able to qualify for the general election ballots. Put smaller parties and their messages in the trash can because Prop 14 would effectly squeeze the life out of them. And to top it off, write-in votes would no longer be counted. Prop 14 would not give most voters more choices. Prop 14 would reduce voters choices to the two choices of big business. Please vote No on Prop 14.

C. T. Weber
Peace and Freedom Party candidate
Lieutenant Governor


--------------

See also:

http://www.stoptoptwo.org/

Listen to the Prop 14 debate on KQED's Forum which includes Ballot Access New's editor Richard Winger:

Prop. 14: Open Primaries
Referred to as "Top-Two Go," Proposition 14 would create a primary system where all candidates would appear on the same ballot, and voters would be able to vote for any candidate, regardless of political registration. The top two candidates would then face off in the general election. Proponents argue that the open primary will increase competition and decrease hyper-partisanship. Opponents claim that the measure will actually decrease voter choice.
Host: Michael Krasny
Guests:
* Abel Maldonado, lieutenant governor of California and former state senator (R-District 15)
* Eric McGhee, research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California
* Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News and board member for the Free & Equal Elections Foundation
http://www.kqed.org/.stream/anon/radio/forum/2010/05/2010-05-10b-forum.mp3
http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R201005101000