Top-two primary might be bad for small-party candidates

Peace and Freedom Party candidate Cindy Sheehan, pictured in 2007, says the top-two system "seems designed to kill" smaller political parties. (Jerry Larson / Associated Press)

When California voters decided to change the way the state's primary elections work, the move was cast as an effort to moderate a state Capitol gripped by polarization.

If the top two vote-getters in a primary faced off against one another in November regardless of their party affiliation, the reasoning went, hard-nosed politicians who typically put party purity above all else would be forced to court less partisan voters. That could mean more centrists elected to office, more political compromise and better governance.

But with the approach of only the second election since the enactment of the "jungle" primary — the first featuring candidates for statewide office — some argue that the change has had a decidedly undemocratic effect, muzzling the voices of small-party candidates.

The Green Party, the American Independent Party and other minor groups will now rarely — if ever — appear on the general election ballot, even though they represent 1.2 million people. And they could eventually find themselves out of existence in California, the critics fear.

"It's just a violation of voting rights," said Richard Winger, a Libertarian and publisher of the San Francisco-based Ballot Access News. "Because the right to vote includes the right of the choice."

Antiwar and social justice activist Cindy Sheehan, running for governor as a member of the Peace and Freedom Party, paints a more dire picture. "It seems designed to kill our parties," Sheehan said.

Membership outside the Democratic and Republican parties and among those who state no party preference is admittedly a sliver of California's electorate. And every party has equal footing — at least theoretically — in the current primary system, which voters approved in 2010 for all races except presidential contests.

But already, far fewer third-party candidates have been able to qualify for the general election ballot.

In June 2012, with more than 150 races taking place under rules being applied for the first time, only three minor-party candidates made it to November. This year, no third-party candidate is likely to appear on the fall ballot for governor, attorney general or other high office.

It is more costly now for small parties to place a candidate on the ballot. Previously, Democratic or Republican candidates for statewide office had to pay a filing fee of $2,610 to $3,480 or gather the signatures of 10,000 registered voters to make the cut. But members of smaller parties were allotted a sharp discount and needed only as many as 150 signatures to avoid the fee.

This resulted in a plethora of candidates qualifying for the ballot. In 2010, 33 candidates representing smaller parties ran for statewide office, from the Green, Libertarian, Peace and Freedom, and American Independent parties. Because of closed party nominations, each party was guaranteed a spot on the November ballot.

This year, the filing fees are the same but there are no discounts for small parties. Now, there are only 10 candidates for statewide office from seven minor parties. And barring a major upheaval, none will proceed past the June primary because most Californians still vote for Democrats or Republicans.

"There's no question that the minor parties are disadvantaged by the top-two rule," said Richard Hasen, a law professor at UC Irvine who specializes in elections.

By contrast, candidates who do not register with a political party have benefited from the change. In the 2010 California primary, all candidates for statewide office had a party affiliation; this year, there are eight who state no party preference.

The occasional third-option candidate has won in California. The Green Party's Audie Bock won a state Assembly seat in a special election in 1999. Another Green Party member, Gayle McLaughlin, was elected mayor of Richmond in 2006.

In other states, Angus King won a U.S. Senate seat in Maine in 2012, and Lincoln Chafee won the Rhode Island gubernatorial contest in 2010, without party affiliations. Reform Party candidate Jesse Ventura won the Minnesota governorship in 1998.

Such candidates can shape campaigns even if they don't win, Hasen said, citing the effect of an unaffiliated Ross Perot on the 1992 presidential contest.

"His mantra was deficit reduction, and it became a major factor in the campaign," Hasen said. "In fact, it became something Bill Clinton adopted as one of his priorities. It never would have happened if not for Perot…. Losing minor parties does make the debate less rich."

Efforts are underway to offer relief to those groups.

The Green, Libertarian, and Peace and Freedom parties are pressing a lawsuit on appeal in state court alleging disenfranchisement and other harms, with a new argument filed April 3. And an Assembly bill that would reduce the level of support required for a minority-party candidate to be recognized by the state will be the subject of an upcoming hearing.

View the original article here

Above the Debt Ceiling, Boehner Might Find a Blue Sky

A valuable principle of negotiation is to “never bargain with someone who does not have the power to say yes,” and Mr. Boehner has demonstrated that he lacks that power. He couldn’t even persuade his caucus to agree on a Plan B counterproposal and had to let Vice President Joseph Biden and Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, steer the deal that avoided, or at least postponed, the so-called fiscal cliff.

I have a suggestion for how Mr. Boehner could have himself invited back to the negotiation party. But first, let’s take stock of where we are.

What has been accomplished, for better or worse, is that the Bush-era tax cuts for families earning less than $450,000 a year have been made permanent — or at least as permanent as anything in the tax code can be. Those earning more than $450,000 face a tax increase. There are further complications, of course, but the important thing is that there was no substantive tax reform, and no decisions about spending. The final bill even preserved the tradition of corporate welfare by extending a subsidy to Nascar.

Over the next few months, Congress faces a new series of deadlines:

The spending cuts mandated by the sequestration will begin on March 1, unless Congress delays them again. Congress needs to pass a “continuing resolution” or government will shut down, as it did in the 1990s during the standoff between Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. And, finally, the debt ceiling will need to be raised or the government will no longer be able to pay its bills to Social Security beneficiaries, the military or the owners of government bonds — a group that includes nearly everyone with a retirement account.

I have listed these deadlines in increasing order of their hazard to our economic health. The spending cuts would be tough and arbitrary but gradual. Incurring them for a couple of months would be bad, but not horrible. Closing down the government is more serious. And even if you’d like a smaller government, you probably still want essential services to continue.

OF the three, the debt ceiling is likely to arrive first and is simultaneously the most serious and the most ridiculous. It’s serious because it’s unthinkable that the government would stop paying its bills, and the ramifications if we defaulted on our debt payments would be catastrophic for the nation and the global economy. We don’t even want to think about going there.

But the debt ceiling is also ridiculous, because the law is redundant. It’s a tradition for members of Congress who aren’t in the same political party as the president to make sanctimonious speeches against raising the debt limit, to keep that president from running up big bills. Yet it is Congress, in fact, that determines how much we spend and how much tax revenue we collect. Our representatives and their predecessors passed the bills and authorized the spending that got us to this place. If they want to reduce the deficit, they should cut spending, increase revenue, or both. But what they should not do, under any circumstances, is to look back at the decisions they have already made and conclude that it would be smart to declare the United States bankrupt, thus creating a second global financial crisis.

Which leads to my proposal for restoring Mr. Boehner’s relevance: He should propose that the debt ceiling be raised for at least two years or, even better, propose that it be abolished. He wouldn’t need a majority of his own party to vote for such a bill, of course, because it would have wide support among Democrats. He would just have to propose it and persuade some of his colleagues to support it. That would be enough.

Here is why I think this is a good idea, for him, the Republican Party and the country:

Congress has plenty of incentives to make a deal on spending. Taxes have already been increased and Republicans are eager to even the score. The sequestration-induced spending cuts coming on March 1 should provide more than enough impetus for Congress and the president to agree to something, even if it’s only a plan to undertake serious tax reform and a comprehensive evaluation of all government spending. By removing an option that we should never rationally use, we can immediately accomplish an often-cited Republican goal — reducing global uncertainty — and likely restore our triple-A credit rating. The Bipartisan Policy Center has estimated that the dillydallying about the debt ceiling last time, which ticked up interest rates, will end up costing more than $18.9 billion over 10 years, about the same amount as the recent Medicare “doc fix, ” which blocks cuts to doctor reimbursement rates.

Tea Party conservatives would undoubtedly be outraged by this suggestion, arguing that Republicans need to retain the debt ceiling threat if they are to get the best possible deal from the Senate and the president. But taking this crazy threat away from a group that just might use it is precisely the point.

By undertaking this act of unilateral disarmament, Mr. Boehner and whichever Republicans had the courage to join him would be signaling that they’re willing to engage in the serious discussions the country needs, and to put pressure on Democrats to do likewise. Anyone who has a large bomb and is threatening to push the button doesn’t deserve to be a party to these discussions.

Richard H. Thaler is a professor of economics and behavioral science at the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago.

Richard H. Thaler is a professor of economics and behavioral science at the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago.

View the original article here

Seeking more luxury suites, DNC might move Obama convention speech to stadium (Daily Caller)

With Democrats struggling to reach their $36.6 million fundraising target for the Democratic National Convention  in August, plans have emerged to move the event’s final day to the 74,000-seat stadium where the NFL’s Carolina Panthers play, reports the Charlotte Observer. That move will allow fundraisers to sell access to more luxury suites.

Democratic sources told Bloomberg News that Obama advisers are conscious of the political downside that could be associated with the move, but not because of the spectacle of a big-dollar cash grab. Party officials are instead concerned because Bank of America — one of the president’s most recent corporate whipping-boys — is the arenas named sponsor.

In October, Obama criticized the bank for its plan, which was later scrapped, to impose a $5 monthly fee on customers who use debit cards.

“People have been using financial regulation as an excuse to charge consumers more,” Obama complained on Oct. 6.

Charlotte businessman Cameron Harris, who is among the top fundraisers on the convention’s host committee, told the Observer that making Bank of America Stadium the site of Obama’s acceptance speech “was a possibility … from the very beginning.”

The committee is hamstrung by new fundraising restrictions, reportedly imposed by Obama himself, which prohibit them from accepting money from corporations and lobbyists.

But they still plan to raise up to $15 million in “in-kind” contributions from companies, and cash from wealthy individuals. The committee is also accepting unlimited funds from nonprofit organizations, including charitable foundations associated with the president’s corporate supporters.

Another member of the host committee, who spoke to the Observer on condition of anonymity, insisted that the Democrats will manage to meet their fundraising goals.

“Are they working hard and losing sleep over it? Yes,” the source said. “But they didn’t seem at all desperate. … I don’t have inside information, but I think they’re over halfway there, though.”

David is The Daily Caller’s executive editor. Follow him on Twitter

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Seeking more luxury suites, DNC might move Obama convention speech to stadium

Fashion world lines up behind Obama

Gore warns 'civilization is at risk' if global warming not a campaign issue [VIDEO]

David Cross hates 'Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked'

Happy Anniversary, us!

View the original article here

Romney Might Be Ideal Alternative for Calif. Democrats Tired of Obama (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Former Massachusetts governor and G.O.P. hopeful Mitt Romney launched a short private event tour in California Tuesday. According to the Associated Press, Romney started his trip at a hotel in Sacramento, where co-hosts of a private event were asked to raise at least $10,000. In 2008, Romney, who owns a beach home in San Diego, raised over $8 million from supporters in the Golden State -- more than from any other state -- and he hopes to capitalize on that again. He's going to have to if he wants to win the White House during an election year where the sitting president is expected to spend $1 billion.

Romney also has stopovers planned in Beverly Hills and San Francisco, all events private, with names on the invitation list including people like long-time friend Meg Whitman, former CEO of Ebay and recent gubernatorial candidate, as well as billionaire George Argyros, reports The Daily Beast. Whitman is helping the former governor with his national fundraising drive.

Romney should do well in California, a state that typically leans left but which maintains Republican hot zones such as San Diego County. In 1980, Democrats frustrated with President Carter banded together for former Republican governor Ronald Reagan, and many feel that it was the effort of the "Reagan Democrats" that pushed him over the top, compelling him to the White House, reports the Washington Post.

As the most moderate candidate running so far in the wide field for the GOP campaign, Romney will likely pick up typically Democratic votes from those less than eager to re-elect lackluster President Obama. In fact, because Christian conservatives who make up a large and noisy voting block are unlikely to support a Mormon for the White House, Romney has to pick up Democratic support to stem the tide. Romney, like John Kennedy in 1960, has repeatedly stated that his religion won't be a factor in his decision making.

Romney's biggest recommendation to California Democrats might be, however, that he successfully governed very Democratic Massachusetts, the first state to allow same-sex marriage, though Romney is himself, against it. Same-sex marriage is an issue dear to most California Democrats, and the Massachusetts stance may provide cover for the less accepting Romney. Massachusetts residents also enjoy a successful universal health coverage program. Health care is President Obama's Achilles heel; Romney has a leg up on the issue, at least among Democrats.

Possibly signaling to Democrats that he is interested in their vote, Romney recently refused to take the "pro-life pledge" that most others seeking the G.O.P nomination have taken, assuring voters that if elected president they would only appoint pro-life judges. Romney has said that he is against abortion and but also supports a woman's "right to choose." He has taken a different position since, saying that he's changed his mind, but overall, he is simply not a hardliner.

Romney may become the nominee to his party, but because he doesn't take the hard line on social issues that others in his party are taking, the more moderate Republican is going to have to cross party lines if he wants to be president of the United States. California, the largest state in the union, might just be a good place to start. There is a sense among some Democrats, including this one, that the current president is ineffectual and that with the absence of a challenge for the Democratic primary, we have to make a change; from a field of scary options, Mitt Romney is possibly the least scary of them all.

View the original article here