WHY PARTISAN POLITICS

Political parties are the way voters try to find other voters they agree with on political issues.


Do you want Less, the same or More government services and programs?


The answer to that question leads a voter to find a political party that wants as much or as little government as the voter thinks is best for all of us.


Under the Elections Code there are eight [8] political parties with ballot access.


Up until the passage on Prop 14 in 2010, all those parties had candidates on the November ballot giving each an equal chance to win their particular election.


Now only Two candidates in November


Under the 2010 Voter Nominated - rather than party nominated - open Primary, all voters choose from all candidates who may or may not list a party Preference [must be registered as such for a prescribed length of time to so so].


The title Election: Increases right to participate in primary elections led voters to pass without fully understanding the top two in November clincher.


The result? 


Two democrats on the November ballot for U.S. Senate in 2016 and that is just one example of only one party in November.


Stop Top 2!


It appears that the real impact of the Top Two in November has yet to hit home. 


The claim of more 'moderates' means little of no debate and no real compromise as both sides are on the same side.


Voters need and want to find candidates who share their political thinking on the size and scope of government. 


Voters needs can only be met when all ballot qualified parties [ no easy task since it takes a  certain number of voters and or a 2% vote in a statewide election]. The 2% cite us hard to get if you are not even on the ballot in Nov.


Lightfoot is pledged to Stop Top Two any way possible. 


Join her in restoring the right to join and participate in the political party of your choice with ballot access in November for all parties.


Expert commentaries

Richard Winger, editor and publisher of Ballot Access News, filed expert testimony in federal district court opposing Washington's top-two primary system in 2010. 

Winger argued, in part, that Washington's primary system unduly burdens minor parties and their candidates:[12]


“ Any election system in the United States in which all candidates from all parties run on a single ballot in the first round for federal and/or state office, and then only the top two vote-getters may be on the ballot in the second round, inevitably and always means that minor party candidates will never appear on the ballot in the second round. The only exceptions to this statement are instances in which only one major party member runs in the first round.”

—Richard Winger


Rob Richie, executive director of FairVote, in a 2010 opinion piece for The Huffington Post, argued that California's top-two primary system burdened the associational rights of individuals, candidates, and political parties:


“ We recognize Prop. 14’s intention of moving away from the antiquated process of partisan primaries that today are subject to plunging voter turnout and unrepresentative electorates, yet limit everyone else’s choices in November. But its solution is draconian for small parties and problematic for all parties. First, candidates only will be able to run with a party label only after a large number of voters register with that party — meaning that many candidates will not have the option to list their true party of choice. At the same time, a candidate can register with an established party and run with its label even if that party wants nothing to do with that candidate.”

—Rob Richie


Peter Gemma, writing for The Daily Caller in 2017, argued that "a top-two primary distorts the meaning of a free and fair election," citing electoral outcomes in California as evidence of this point:


“ In 2016, as a result from an open/top two primary system, seven of California’s 53 U.S. House contests offered voters a one party choice; five of 20 state Senate contests and 15 of 80 state Assembly races had two members of the same party running against each other. California’s 2016 primary for U.S. Senate resulted in liberal Democrats Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez the only candidates facing off in the November election. This was the first time since 1914, when direct election of U.S. Senators began, that a Republican candidate was not on the ballot in the general election. Among Californians who cast a ballot last year, 16 percent left U.S. Senate choice blank – the worst fall-off for a California U.S. Senate election in 75 years.”

—Peter Gemma

Stop Top 2

STOPTOP2.COM

1816. (17-0020)


Repeals Current Primary Election System in State and Congressional Elections. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. 


Summary Date: 10/25/17 | Circulation Deadline: 04/23/18 | Signatures Required: 585,407


Proponents: Thomas E. Palzer


Repeals the current primary elections system which provides for all candidates for an office to appear on a single primary ballot and for the two candidates with the most votes in the primary to advance to the general election, irrespective of party. 


Creates a primary election system based on political party for congressional, state legislative, and most statewide offices. Gives political parties that participate in the primary election for a partisan office the right to participate in the general election for that office. 


Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: No significant net change in state and local government costs to administer elections. (17-0020.)