California's Proposition 14

[Frodo]

A brief description from Ballotpedia:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And here's a link to the complete text of the original Proposition 14.

[Ebowed]

Seems to me to be a not so subtle (and likely successful) attempt to kill third parties.  No.

[Bo]

Dem: Yes

[Verily]

No, it's awful.

[Shilly]

I did vote against it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I did vote against it.

     As did I.

[??????????]

No, what jackass put that on the ballot?

[Free Palestine]

More reason why the initiative system is stupid.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Absolutely not.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Seems to me to be a not so subtle (and likely successful) attempt to kill third parties.  No.

Not that third parties are particularly relevant in the first place.  It's more like an effort to make all parties irrelevant.

[Sbane]

I don't see how prop 14 weakens third parties. You all are assuming that just because they will be on the general election ballot, they have a chance of winning. The truth is that no Green or Libertarian is going to be elected statewide. Rather what prop 14 does is allow elections in SF, or similar districts, to be between a Green and a Democrat. Or in some uber Republican district down in SoCal, the race could be between a Republican and a Libertarian or perhaps two Republicans if one of them is certifiably insane and voters don't want to vote Democrat just to get rid of her/him.

[phk]

Republican: No

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Republican: Yes

It's better than a closed primary.  Closed primaries should be illegal.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Firmly opposed.

[Phony Moderate]

Other: No.

[Ronnie]

I did vote against it.

     As did I.

Me too.

[Хahar 🤔]

I would have voted against it if I could.

No, what jackass put that on the ballot?

Abel Maldonado (now Lieutenant Governor). It was his price for voting for the budget.

[President Mitt]

lol no.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Republican: Yes

It's better than a closed primary.  Closed primaries should be illegal.

lol

[RI]

As someone who lives in a state with that system already implemented, I have no problems with it and find it much more interesting than the system used by other states. I'd probably vote for it again.

[Хahar 🤔]

As someone who lives in a state with that system already implemented, I have no problems with it and find it much more interesting than the system used by other states. I'd probably vote for it again.

Interestingly, I believe you're the only Washingtonian on the forum who feels that way.

[RI]

As someone who lives in a state with that system already implemented, I have no problems with it and find it much more interesting than the system used by other states. I'd probably vote for it again.

Interestingly, I believe you're the only Washingtonian on the forum who feels that way.

This is probably true, at least from what I've seen of Alcon, Meeker, etc.

I don't believe that the system hurts third party candidates in any real way. If anything, I think it increases the chances for their success. Aside from the chances of a race where a third party candidate makes the general, it seems to me that the openness of the primary encourages third party votes. In 2008, the only sample Washington has so far, we saw statewide races where the Constitution Party candidates broke 5% statewide in two races (SoS and Auditor - including getting over 10% in several counties in each race) and did relatively well in another (Lt. Gov), and an unknown Independent candidate broke 10% statewide in one race (Insurance Comm). The last third party candidate to break 5% statewide was in 2000, when two Libertarians broke the mark, but before that there was one in 1992 (which was essentially a NOTA option), and only a couple in the preceding decades.

The only issue I see as legitimate is something that Alcon brought up in that state parties have the incentive to limit competition within their party during the primary. I’ll have to see a few more elections with the system before I judge the actual effects of this.

[Torie]

I don't see how prop 14 weakens third parties. You all are assuming that just because they will be on the general election ballot, they have a chance of winning. The truth is that no Green or Libertarian is going to be elected statewide. Rather what prop 14 does is allow elections in SF, or similar districts, to be between a Green and a Democrat. Or in some uber Republican district down in SoCal, the race could be between a Republican and a Libertarian or perhaps two Republicans if one of them is certifiably insane and voters don't want to vote Democrat just to get rid of her/him.

Well at least one poster gets it.

[Хahar 🤔]

The only issue I see as legitimate is something that Alcon brought up in that state parties have the incentive to limit competition within their party during the primary. I’ll have to see a few more elections with the system before I judge the actual effects of this.

This is my big problem with it.

[Derek]

A brief description from Ballotpedia:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And here's a link to the complete text of the original Proposition 14.

Awful idea. All that does is prevent Republicans from having a chance because with how outnumbered they are in CA, the top 2 will always be democrats.