Prop 14 – Its Impact on Third Party Candidates
Proposition 14, if passed by the voters in the June Primary, will scratch the current method we elect our legislators by allowing the two top vote-getters – regardless of party – to run against each other in a November runoff election.
In some heavily Democratic districts and heavily Republican districts, this could lead to two candidates of the same party to run against each other in November.
Opponents of Prop. 14 have made the argument that this would "narrow voter choice" by prohibiting the state’s smaller third-parties (i.e. Green, Peace & Freedom, American Independent and Libertarian) from appearing on the November General Election ballot.
Prop 14 is Bad for Smaller Parties, Bad for Democracy Overall
The Green Party of California opposes Proposition 14 because it would reduce voter choice and political voice across political lines, while unfairly favoring incumbents, big money and party insiders.
By eliminating party primaries, expanding the number of voters that primary candidates have to reach and effectively front-loading the election process, Proposition 14 would put even greater emphasis on name recognition and early fundraising, increasing the corrupting influence of money and making it harder for competing candidates and movements to survive, let alone contend.
Because of pressure not to “split the primary vote” of their party’s faithful, incumbents and well-funded candidates would also be more able to “clear the field” and squeeze out competitors (like Schwarzenegger did during the recall), putting more power into the hands of party machines and insiders to, de facto, select general election candidates. As a result, Proposition 14 would stifle diversity and competition within the major parties and at the same time, limit the choices of independent voters who can already vote within the major party primaries.
Proposition 14’s backers are trying to sell this electoral scheme by promising it will deliver representatives of a particular political persuasion. Since when did the purpose of elections change from representing the people — whatever their views — to socially engineering a specific result?
The June 9 Re-Cut
Here’s a cost-cutting suggestion for whichever of the two Republican gubernatorial candidates emerges from the June 8 primary.
Don’t make any new TV ads for the fall. Simply take the attack ads your defeated opponent has been using against you – and re-cut them slightly, replacing foreboding graphics and music with friendly and upbeat stuff. In substance, the attack ads you’re facing now may be the best advertisement you have for yourself in the general election.
Seriously. Watching Poizner blast Whitman and Whitman attack Poizner for these last several weeks, I’ve had the through-the-looking glass reaction of an independent, Decline-to-State voter: the attacks make each more attractive.
Yes on Prop. 17
Independent agents statewide strongly support Proposition 17 on the June ballot because it will inject more competition into the auto insurance market, allowing us to better shop for the lowest rates for our auto insurance customers.
If passed, Prop. 17 will allow drivers to take their continuous coverage auto insurance discount with them no matter which insurance company they choose. Prop. 17 will reward responsible drivers and save them up to $250 per year.
Here’s the problem Prop. 17 fixes: Under current law, drivers who have maintained auto insurance with the same company are eligible for a continuous coverage discount on their auto policies. However, a flaw in the law prohibits drivers from taking this discount with them if they switch insurance companies.