The Other Side, Fairfield Daily Republic

Open primaries, yes; two choices, no
By Kelvin Wade
May 05, 2010 5:44PM

Next month, California voters will have the chance to change the way we conduct elections in this state. Let's hope it doesn't happen.

According to the official voter information guide, Proposition 14 'changes the primary election process for congressional, statewide, and legislative races. (It) allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate or voter's political party preference.'

Open primaries sound like a good idea. I loved voting for John McCain (the original mavericky version, not today's Palin-ized version) in 2000. Who doesn't want to be able to vote for whomever they want regardless of party?

But the measure goes on. It allows only the top-two vote getters to appear on the November ballot regardless of their political party. No write-in votes. The measure would also allow candidates to decline to state a party.

Proponents see it as a way to end up with more moderate legislators and break the partisan polarization in California.

But like holding a recall election and expecting a Hollywood actor to bring order to Sacramento, I'm afraid this prescription won't cure what ails us.

The nonpartisan Center for Governmental Studies analyzed the impact of Proposition 14. It concluded that more than one-third of races could produce a runoff of two candidates from the same party. Second, nearly all of these runoff races between candidates from the same party would be Democrats. Also, some races might be close enough that swing voters could tip the race toward more moderate Democrats.

Finally, CGS concludes that races will be 'significantly more expensive' due to candidates facing a broader spectrum of voters rather than just their own party.

How satisfied will Republican voters be to choose between two Democrats? While it could result in some Republicans voting for a more moderate Democrat, what's more likely to happen is people will just refuse to vote.

If you're a Green Party supporter or Libertarian, why would you want to participate in a system that would lock your candidates out of general elections?

Who thinks a candidate's ability to conceal their party affiliation is a good thing?

Who thinks we need more money in politics? Who wants to see bigger, longer and more expensive campaigns? Are we not getting enough campaign literature in the mail? Are the airwaves not full enough with political advertisements?

We're not going to gimmick our way into better representation. We need more choices on the ballot in November, not less. How about bringing some of those third-party candidates into the debates and give voters a real choice?

Get rid of our two-thirds requirement to pass a budget. That would change things. By the way, that requirement is why Proposition 14 is on the ballot. In exchange for his tie-breaking vote on the 2009 California state budget, then-Republican Sen. Abel Maldonado insisted that Proposition 14 be placed on the ballot. I give him props for trying to do something to change the gridlock and brain-dead partisanship in Sacramento.

Reject the gimmicks. If this were just an open primary bill, it would be worth supporting. But the restrictive language goes too far. Peace.