Talk:2010 California Proposition 14

Untitled
I didn't want to add a link to such a clean page, but David Duke was elected via a the same version of a primary as Prop 14 seeks to create. That info is  here. 76.102.212.231 (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ...then he deserved to be elected. Are we supposed to believe that this somehow reflects on the system? Prop 14 establishes a simple majoritarian system. If the voters elected Duke, then they get the government they deserve. In any case, it is not notable, nor relevant to the article, nor any critical analysis of the merits or demerits of prop 14. The fact that Duke was elected is the type of fact that is pure political rhetoric promulgated by the opponents of the proposition. Stick to the objective legislative analysis for your facts. Greg Bard 23:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * One of Prop 14's main points is how it will create "moderate" candidates as a way to alleviate the polarization in the state legislature. This historical example illustrates the reality of what happens with a blanket primary. It is highly notable given that this argument is key to Prop 14's advocates. It is a simple objective historical fact, nothing rhetorical about it.76.102.212.231 (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that David Duke got elected by this method in a different state is really not notable in this context. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It merely illustrates the potential outcome, thus showing that it's claim about eliminating extreme political views is false. GreenGov2010 (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

>>"(Well you are obviously against 14, however do you think you can look at this objectively? This is obviously not appropriate at all. How many other jerks got elected by a majority vote? Shall we list them -ridicuolus)"
 * Prop 14 makes the false claim that it will lead to moderates being elected. The fact that Duke was elected shows that the claim is not true. It is notable for voters to be informed of the notable and factual reality that this proposition can lead to. GreenGov2010 (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I hate to point this out, but when you construct an elective system, you aren't supposed to construct it so as to favor moderates, or extremists or Gs or Ds or Ls or Rs. You are supposed to reflect the will of the people. If 50%+1 of the people want it, then morally they should get it. It's not the system that caused Duke to get elected or Greens to not get elected, its the people. This is especially true under 14 because it more truly reflects the will of the people, by not involving parties in the process. Parties are corporations. Why do you want to help them anyway?Greg Bard 20:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * >>I hate to point this out, but when you construct an elective system, you aren't supposed to construct it so as to favor moderates, or extremists or Gs or Ds or Ls or Rs.
 * Indeed, but this is what Prop 14 claims to do, to favor moderates. It's obviously a false claim, but this is what they are using to sell it. GreenGov2010 (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean some of its supporters do. THIS article isn't claiming anything like that. It doesn't matter anyway and I'll tell you why. You know that I am a supporter, and that I am the original author of this article (not that it matters). However when I did write it, I sure didn't include all the numerous reasons to love this proposition in it did I? I just left it at the legislative analysis that that was that. Everything going on since then is motivated by the election. There are other articles where this kind of shenanigans is going on (watch these Republicans try to out right wing each other). My point is lets wait until after the election to formulate a pro and con section. Greg Bard 23:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * >>You mean some of its supporters do
 * Actually, its creator claims that: "Both Schwarzenegger and Maldonado, say the the change would benefit moderates".
 * >>You know that I am a supporter
 * My condolences. 00:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenGov2010 (talk • contribs)
 * My condolences to you. You are about to be blocked form editing. You have also gone on the record as opposing simple majoritarian elections --brilliant.Greg Bard 00:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And you've gone on record as supporting corporate control of elections over individuals. That's what Prop 14 amounts to. Take a look at the backers and the opponents, the donors. It's pretty transparent. Why do you think the ACLU, the Teachers Unions and all the minor parties are against it while Big Healthcare, HP, and the millionaires are for it? It's not rocket science. GreenGov2010 (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The last time I checked political parties, and each and every one of those groups you mention also benefitted from the corporate personhood decision as they are all corporate groups. With respect, you are mistaken and it easy to see how: in the "50%+1", the +1 stands for a human, not a corporation. So in reality 14 respects each individual human vote, whereas the system you prefer requires membership in an organization (a corporation). I'm sorry this discussion has gotten so rankly political. I have tried in good faith to show you that you are morally wrong on this one. The Republicans agree with you BTW, so which one of you do you think is the fool? Greg Bard 00:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(OD) The discussion above, while well-intended, isn't really relevant. Pulling one controversial election as an example of this proposition is extremely undue weight. Wikipedia isn't here to push a political viewpoint, or allow original analysis of the events. Dayewalker (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Rationale
Could someone explain the reasoning behind this change, without making a partisan endorsement? I don't understand why it was proposed in the first place. - 129.97.120.47 (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the rationale is that the two most popular candidates in the primaries should advance to the general election rather than there always being a candidate from the D's and one from the R's (so that the general election becomes more meaningful than the primaries in heavily partisan districts), as opposed to having a standard bearer who loses to the entrenched power on the other side. On paper, at least, it makes some sense. In practice? I'm not making any endorsement. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings 129.97.120.47. I have to be up front and tell you that I am a big supporter for 14, however I came to be in favor of it in principle, independently of anybody campaigning for it. I just like nonpartisan elections. The political explanation for why it was proposed in the first place is actually a bit of a cynical one. Abel Maldonado believes that for whatever political reasons that this system is going to make it easier for him to run for governor eventually. It was proposed during the time when he was being considered for filling the vacant lieutenant governor's office. Arnold supported it, and I suppose that also was a big reason it moved forward in the first place. I didn't much care how it came up at the time. It is a big improvement, in my opinion. Greg Bard 17:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it only helps lobbying groups and millionaire candidates at the expense of political parties and non-millionaire candidates, as anyone who read it could readily determine. But, that's beside the point. If I believed that the lies in this article that you are supporting helped pass it, I'd probably .... .—Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The last time I checked a political party was a corporate group not a human. As a Decline to State voter (and as a human), I see them as interest groups. 14 establishes a 50%+1 requirement and since the "+1" is a human it actually respects the sacred will of the people more faithfully than a system that only respects your vote in your capacity of membership in some group. Are you under the impression that a partisan system somehow avoids the influence of lobbying groups and millionaire candidates?! In reality, the millionaire candidates and lobbying groups have an easier time manipulating a partisan system because they know exactly who to buy off to get what they want. I was curious as to how you came down on 14 Arthur. I thought mathematicians were familiar with the implications of Arrow's theorem. Only a simple majoritarian systems avoids those issues. Greg Bard 01:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * To Arthur Rubin: If there is something in the article that is not correct please mention it. Blanket statements like saying that it is filled with lies is not helpful. To everyone: Please do not use the talk page as a forum to discuss the subject. Only comment if you have a suggestion to improve the article. – Zntrip 01:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @Zntrip. No, they were (and are still, in this section) Greg's lies. I haven't seen any lies in revisions since Monday.
 * @Greg. I fail to see how any rational person can hold your point of view. Prop 14 makes it impossible for an "unknown" to make it to a primary, with the number of former movie stars who are all (at least somewhat) "known". Under the prior system (used in at least 47 states), an "unknown" can be elected if supported by a political party. It also hides party affiliation; unless the legislature(s) (state and Federal) are significantly changed, the party affiliation of a candidate is the most important factor determining what his/her status within the legislature would be, which, in turn, effects, what he/she could do if elected; and is among the best factor for determining the person's views on various issues. (It allows the candidate to choose what party he wishes to be (considered) associated with, but does not report what party the candidate has been associated with in the past.) (Some of this would be solved if the State would pay for a 250-500 word statement from each candidate to be placed with the ballot materials, but that would cost probably on the order of $100 million, so it's not going to happen.) Furthermore, due to interaction with the law specifying what a recognized political party is (which effects the Presidential primaries, contrary to the Legislative Analyst's statement), it's unlikely that any of the political parties other than Republican and Democratic would be recognized after the next statewide election (2014), and therefore making those parties' primaries void in 2016, and preventing them from appearing on the ballot as representives of a party. (There's a real chance that one of the "major" parties might also be derecognized in 2014; I'd place it at about 1 in 100.) The legislature may rewrite the law to prevent the major parties from being derecognized, but are unlikely to do so for minor parties.
 * I realize that I may be biased, as I ran for the state legislature in 1984 as a Libertarian, but all 5 recognized political parties in California issued statements opposing Prop 14.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * —Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, for the record Arthur, the ONLY information I contributed to this article was from the legislative analysis. So if you are going to call me a liar you are going to have to prove it with an example, OR F-ING APOLOGIZE NOW. NOW NOW NOW NOW Arthur.


 * Interestingly, if you only use math and reason and ignore all the rhetoric, the only reasonable position is to favor simple majoritarian elections (especially in the face of Arrow's theorem). Arthur, unknowns don't get elected period so that isn't exactly a great criticism is it? Third parties don't get elected either do they (oh wait they do sometimes --at the local level which has guess what -- nonpartisan elections)? You don't get elected from third place no matter what system you have. By locking the nomination into parties you are artificially shifting the debate to the issues that the two party system doesn't lock out. Only by abolishing it will the debate ever shift to include issues brought up by third party candidates. All 5 of the parties are parties. They are not humans, they acted in their own interest as a party not in the interest of the public.


 * In response to one of your point ending in "...therefore making those parties' primaries void in 2016, and preventing them from appearing on the ballot as representives of a party." Arthur, this isn't going to matter anymore under 14. I caught you thinking the old fashion partisan way. Think for yourself Arthur. Say listen, with respect, you are mistaken in naming me as a liar. You really do need to correct yourself. Greg Bard 02:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Guys please, we aren't even discussing the article here. This is not the place to argue about the proposition, so I would appreciate if we stopped this argument. The discussion we should be having is about how to improve the article. If you are willing to do so, perhaps it would be constructive for each of you create a pro and con section of the article that lists the major points of the opposition and proponents of the proposition.


 * To Arthur Rubin: You have yet again claimed that there are "lies" in the article. If you aren't going to show us specific parts of the article that are not true, may you please stop using that word? – Zntrip 02:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The lies apparently weren't in the article, only on this talk page. But, thinking it over, it's possible that Greg is as ill-informed in politics as he is in logic, so I apologize.
 * However, Greg (and the legislative analyst) are absolutely wrong about the presidential elections. Greg states that it applies to Presidential elections; the legislative analyst states that it doesn't affect Presidential elections; and you're both wrong. It doesn't apply to Presidential elections, but it affects the definition of a "party" that can hold a Presidential primary and have their (nationally selected) candidate on the November ballot.
 * I'll see if I can find a reliable source for that last, as it seems interesting, to me, at least.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Legislative Analyst is correct. The law makes it very clear that laws conserning presidential elections will not be effected.


 * In the intent of the law, sub-section f:

Presidential Primaries. This act makes no change in current law as it relates to presidential primaries. This act conforms to the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party (2008) 128 S.Ct. 1184. Each political party retains the right either to close its presidential primaries to those voters who disclose their party preference for that party at the time of registration or to open its presidential primary to include those voters who register without disclosing a political party preference.


 * That Section 5 (c) of Article II of the Constitution of California

The Legislature shall provide for primary partisan elections for partisan offices presidential candidates, and political party and party central committees, including an open presidential primary whereby the candidates on the ballot are those found by the Secretary of State to be recognized candidates throughout the nation or throughout California for the office of President of the United States, and those whose names are placed on the ballot by petition, but excluding any candidate who has withdrawn by filing an affidavit of noncandidacy.

You can read the text for yourself here. – Zntrip 06:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahem. The proposition makes no change in the current law as it relates to presidential primaries, but, by changing the nature of the general election, it makes it almost impossible for a minor party to retain state certification, and makes it possible for one of the major parties to be decertified. If it happened in 2014, that party would not have a presidential primary in 2016, not having official status. I suppose the legislature might adjust the party certification law.
 * And the legislative analyst is supposed to report on major effects the proposition would have on existing laws, not just the obvious effects.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahem, Arthur, I am perfectly aware that 14 is not intended to effect presidential elections. This is provided for in the US Constitution with the electoral college (another corporate group). 14 only is only intended to effect statewide elections, including U.S. Senators and Reps, but not local elections which are already required to be nonpartisan. You seem to be a true believer in political parties. Just keep your religion off of my ballot. I do understand your point about how there may be an effect regarding the qualifications for third party candidates for president. I am not really concerned that it will be an adverse effect and I respect and support third-party candidates. We need to bring the presidential elections into line with the nonpartisan system, not the other way around. In the meantime, I am sure they will interpret things so as to manifest the will of the people within the electoral college system, at least until we properly abolish it.Greg Bard 06:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * To Arthur: You do raise a very interesting point. It may very well be harder for minor parties to qualify for ballot status. However, a lot of existing legislation may now be in conflict with the State Constitution. Therefore the full implications of Proposition 14 are unknown. The courts will have to even everything out and maybe the State Legislature will have to pass new legislation. Therefore this proposition will have many implications that will not be understood until later. There is no need for us to try to predict what they will be now. – Zntrip 08:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears I made a mistake. Although Election Code 5100(a) will be impossible for any party to meet, code 5100(b) will protect the major parties and the larger minor parties (those whose registration 135 days before the (say) 2016 Presidential primary exceeds 1% of the vote in the 2014 Guvenatorial election). If 5100(a) were not in effect for this election, the major, American Independent, and Green parties would be on the ballot. The Libertarians would miss by about 7-9% (relative), and the Peace and Freedom party would be gone. When the Secretary of State ignored 5100(a) when the Libertarians first qualified in California in the 70s, they managed to qualify under 5100(b) before the next general election, so it would probably be feasible again.
 * As for Presidential elections, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think the present system works well, but a direct election without parties, with "two past the post", would be not much better than a random number generator. You'd need to have a full multiple elimination system of some kind, with voters supplying a ranked list of candidates, to have any chance of getting a result reflecting the will of the people.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I think that the criticisms of the law should be displayed in the article, and I don't think that has even scratched the surface. I know someone who is being sued for attorney fees because he dared to challenge the law in court, and he intends to not vote for any candidate if only two choices are allowed. Also, write-ins are not even allowed, so what do people do if there are people like those described above, or do we expect people to vote for racists and such? It is like the old Soviet Union or the old Egyptian elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.186  (talk • contribs) 23:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on California Proposition 14 (2010). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100722063405/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2010-primary/pdf/2010-complete-sov.pdf to http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2010-primary/pdf/2010-complete-sov.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)