We had a server outage, and we're rebuilding the site. Some of the site features won't work. Thank you for your patience.
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
Features
latest news
best of news
syndication
commentary


KILLRADIO

VozMob

ABCF LA

A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List

LAAMN List




IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles

Why Third Parties Should Join Independent Voters in Voting “Yes” on Prop 62 - Open Primary

by Harriet Hoffman & Jim Mangia Saturday, Oct. 30, 2004 at 7:03 AM
contact@civca.org 415-393-9970 870 Market Street, Suite 419, San Francisco, CA 94102

California Prop 62 has provoked a mighty controversy in the Democratic and Republican Parties – where reformers supporting Prop 62 have clashed with party bosses who want to maintain the old order. And, it has also provoked a controversy within the independent movement, where reform independents are backing Prop 62 while the third party establishment is aggressively opposing it. . .

This November, California voters have an opportunity to vote “Yes” on Proposition 62, the Voter Choice Open Primary Initiative. If Prop 62 passes, the current system of closed primary elections will be replaced with nonpartisan open elections in which all voters, regardless of party, will be able to vote at every stage of the process.

Prop 62 has provoked a mighty controversy in the Democratic and Republican Parties – where reformers supporting Prop 62 have clashed with party bosses who want to maintain the old order. And, it has also provoked a controversy within the independent movement, where reform independents are backing Prop 62 while the third party establishment is aggressively opposing it.

Approximately 3 million “decline to state” voters, 20% of the electorate in California, are disenfranchised by the current party-controlled primaries. Under the closed primary system, independent voters are treated as second class citizens and denied the right to participate in first round voting – usually the decisive round. Since the Democratic and Republican legislature carved districts to be automatically Democrat or Republican, partisan primaries determine the outcome in all but a handful of races. Passing Prop 62 would bust up this “gentlemen’s agreement” and open the door to competition.

Prop 62 also opens the door to independent voters having significantly greater influence. How? Because in an open primary system, all candidates will need to build alliances with independent voters to maximize their chances of making it to the general election. That change will increase the urgency of embracing independent voters’ agenda for structural political reform.

Yet, in spite of this clear opportunity for empowering independent voters, the third party establishment – leaders of the Greens, the Libertarians, the Peace and Freedom Party -- vocally oppose Prop 62. For them, Prop 62 will mean the end of a guaranteed spot on the ballot, except for presidential elections which will remain on the “party-line” system. The third parties argue that such a loss “disempowers” independents, but what they really mean is that Prop 62 will change the way parties -- minor and major -- practice politics.

Until the last 10 years, the prevailing philosophy in third party, or independent politics, has been to focus on building alternative parties which are modeled on the majors and which espouse a particular ideology. Under this traditional model “independent” third parties could win a nominal voice in the process, i.e. a spot on the ballot, but almost never impacted either on outcome or the public agenda. The “market” for their ideological views and fringe status rarely got above 5%. At the same time, though, the numbers of independent voters – those who do not want to align with any party and who reject the culture of partisanship – has been growing. The third parties have not been in a position to represent that growing, but disenfranchised, bloc because they are pro-party, just as the Republicans and Democrats are.

Although 35% of all Americans now identify as independents (CNN/USA Today), minor party presidential candidates received only 3% of the vote in 2000. A new anti-partisan and non-ideological approach to organizing and representing these voters without building a party has become highly effective because it responds to independents’ desire to break out of the partisan box.

The vast majority of independent voters are looking for ways to participate in the electoral process without having to join a party or vote a party line. In fact, independents don’t trust parties and party insiders to make their decisions for them. They want to be free to vote for the best candidate, regardless of party. They want to be free to partner in fluid coalitions that can pick apart special interest control of government and policymaking. While independents span the entire left-center-right ideological spectrum, the vast majority agrees that our political system is broken and the political culture is a disaster. That’s why as many as 80% of independents support Proposition 62, even while the state’s third parties are loudly opposing it.

Rich Winger, a ballot access expert and Libertarian Party member, recently argued in the San Francisco Bay Guardian “our California legislature is very diverse.... but that very diversity guarantees that every significant group in California has a spokesperson in the legislature.” Winger, now a leading spokesperson for the “No on 62” Committee, apparently doesn’t regard the state’s millions of independent voters (who certainly have no spokespersons in the legislature) as a significant group.

The open primary is hardly a panacea for our ailing electoral process. However, the proposal establishes conditions in which new things can happen and new voices can emerge. It levels the playing field and acknowledges the independent voter as a growing political force. Independents would have a significant – if not decisive – role in the first round of voting, thus becoming a critical constituency. As the non-partisan, open primary begins to weaken the control now exerted by the party machines, reformers within the major parties will have a need (as well as an opportunity) to form new kinds of beneficial alliances in which independents play an increasingly influential role.

California’s minor parties have a chance to help refresh our democracy by backing an electoral reform measure with the potential to shake up the status quo. Instead they have lined up with the Democrat and Republican Party machines in what appears to be a cynical attempt to ensure their own self-perpetuation.

As a step toward a more democratic and inclusive process, however, the Committee for an Independent Voice and the majority of California’s independent voters are joining with reformers within the Democrat and Republican parties in a new coalition to pass Proposition 62. The minor parties would burnish their credentials as champions of outsider voices by supporting, not preventing, the emergence of a new political design.

###

Jim Mangia is the Co-Chair and Harriet Hoffman is the Statewide Coordinator for the Committee for an Independent Voice, an association of California independents that advocates on behalf of independent voters and their interests. For more information go to www.civca.org
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


LATEST COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ARTICLE
Listed below are the 10 latest comments of 2 posted about this article.
These comments are anonymously submitted by the website visitors.
TITLE AUTHOR DATE
VOTE NO Steven Argue Saturday, Oct. 30, 2004 at 8:32 AM
Vote No more rational Sunday, Oct. 31, 2004 at 1:00 AM
© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy