What they hope will happen versus what we know will happen. There is a difference between the two when it comes to the results of Prop 14 possibly passing.
Proponents will paint a picture, looking forward, of a reformed and well functioning Sacramento. "Party bosses" will be no more, and enlightened "moderates" will rule the day. There is an irony that the Governor and Lieutenant Governor-those in the best ‘insider’ positions to run a party under normal circumstances, i.e., the ultimate party bosses-are the prime pushers of this measure.
Not to mention that the pushers are themselves self-described moderates and are the people who have run the state (or cast critical votes in the very budgets that have nearly destroyed the state) lately. One must wonder whether the theoretical moderates produced by Prop 14 will rule us any better than the actual moderates who are promoting Prop 14.
These ironies are lost, however, on those who-for looming state-budget reasons-are desperate to maintain governmental favor and are thus leveraged to support the ‘reform’ proposition de jour. The irony is also ignored by those who naively support any change offered thinking: "it is so bad in Sacramento, it cannot get any worse."
But, of course, it can get worse. That is because actions produce reactions. Lost in this debate over Prop 14 is the fact that it is actually undoing voting reform. Party nominations were not always the right of the people as they are today. In the 19th and early 20th Centuries, California had parties, and the parties picked their own nominees for the general ballot. But the nominee-selection process was not open to all members of the parties. Then came the direct primaries-designed to get rid of party bosses choosing the nominees. With direct primaries every party member can pick the nominees. Because of that reform, tomorrow over 5 Million Republicans are free to choose their nominee for Governor, Senator, Attorney General, etc.
But Prop 14 will undo that reform and thereby reduce our freedom. Party nominations, via statewide elections, will be no more. Thus, for parties to impact the process, they will have to develop rules to nominate candidates before the June primary. Currently, the Republican Party is prohibited, by rule, from weighing in. Assuming Prop 14 passes, it will need a new way of determining the official nominees. This matters because only the nominee can receive the party’s money, support, volunteer organization, and so forth.
Therefore, all parties must change their rules to influence the process before June or simply disappear. While Prop 14 has plenty of naïve supporters who think the problem with Sacramento lies in our nomination process, it is beyond naïve to think parties will simply disappear. So what will they do?
They will, like the old days, have some sort of selection process that necessarily involves less voters rather than more. It is simply impractical to have a state party run a state-wide election (with millions of voters) as the Secretary of State now does.
So a more practical solution is needed. Republicans have already created their solution. The party’s rules changed to allow state and county party members to meet, at the state party’s Spring convention, and select the party’s official nominees. Only the party’s official nominee will be allowed to receive money or support from the party-whether in the June or November election. Therefore, post Prop 14 candidates will be well served to get very familiar with their local county central committee members and the state party committee members. Without their support in February, candidates-even if they are the only Republican on the ballot in November-won’t be allowed to receive any money or support from the party.
Unfortunately, the nominating process will be reduced from over 5 Million registered Republican voters-who are now free to vote to nominate candidates-to a few thousand Republicans at a convention. But the pushers of Prop 14 want it that way. They want to make party nominations more difficult-even non-existent. So they are taking the process out of the realm of a popular vote and pushing it to a limited number of party activists.
Still, this option is better than the alternative. If there is no formal process the party nomination-and hence, party money and support-would simply go to whomever ‘they’ deem the nominee to be. Who is ‘they’? That’s unclear, but history shows it will likely be the special interest or politician with the biggest wallet in Sacramento. That’s another irony of Prop 14, trying to rid the state of ‘party bosses’: it actually reinstitutes the party-boss system of the 1800’s.
And for what? Supposedly it will increase voter participation and moderate politicians. That is what they say they hope for, at least. But the pushers of this, again, ignore political and historical reality with their blind hope. The states of Washington and Louisiana have used this system. It did not work in either state to moderate electeds, cast out ‘extreme’ incumbents (or any others, for that matter), or to increase voter participation. It did serve, however, to make Louisiana the bastion of political enlightenment that we know it to be (yes, that’s sarcasm.)
Closing off nominations from the California’s party members, empowering a small group to pick where party resources are spent, and making California’s politics just a bit more like Louisiana’s. These are just a few of the benefits we know will come from Prop 14. The proponents, ignoring history, nevertheless still hope Prop 14 will produce big changes in California.
Haven’t we had enough of their type of "hope" and "change" for a while?