Vox

Musings, rants, rambling, general nonsense

AZ Proposition 121 (2012)

Posted on | October 11, 2012 | No Comments

Prop 121:  Creating an open primary giving all qualified voters the right to vote for the candidates of their choice, proposing an amendment to the constitution of Arizona; amending article vii of the constitution of Arizona relating to direct primary election law

Proposition 121 is an election system that would completely eliminate Arizona’s current system. Under Proposition 121, party primaries would no longer exist. Instead, Arizona would have one primary ballot in each district with the names of everyone running for an office in that district. In this “jungle primary,” the two candidates that get the most votes would then move on to the general election, regardless of party.

Not just NO, but hell NO.

Yet another crappy idea that has made its way from California. Under the guise of “increasing voter turnout” and “giving everyone a greater voice”, it dampens voter enthusiasm and eliminates choices from the general election ballot.

From an analysis at Sonoran Alliance:

Nor would this necessarily produce two Republicans in Republican-leaning districts or vice-versa. To the contrary, the more candidates who run in a primary from the same political party, the more they will split their party’s vote—improving the chances that the other party’s candidates will move on to the general election.

This year in Congressional District 9, which has a slight Republican registration edge, there were fewer Democrats than Republicans running in the primary, so that under Prop. 121 the top two candidates moving to the general election would have been two liberal Democrats, Kyrsten Sinema and David Schapira, rather than Sinema and her Republican opponent, Vernon Parker. Which scenario offers a real choice?

As noted in Ballot Access News:

Actually, in every single congressional race in which one incumbent was running, that incumbent came in first. In the races with two incumbents running against each other due to redistricting, one of the incumbents always came in first and the other incumbent always came in second. As has been shown in Louisiana and Washington, top-two systems make it far easier for incumbents to be re-elected than normal systems do.

It also makes it harder for Independent and other minor party candidates to make it to the general election. Rather than giving ‘regular people’ a greater voice, it has had the opposite effect.

Even the Daily Kos, with whom I likely disagree on nearly everything else, notes that the top-two primary, will likely result in more power given to major party bosses

And herein lies an institutional problem with the “top two” structure, one which might actually counteract one of the stated goals of the new system. If one of the rationales for this system was to weaken the influence of political parties, it may have failed miserably. Because one has to assume now that parties in 2014 will be working double time to clear the decks for their preferred candidates in the filing process. Whether it is indirect “take one for the team pressure,” or a raft of party assistance being dropped in the laps of the favored horses in the field, one has to guess that the sting of losing a winnable district will compel the Democrats (and the GOP, if they were paying close attention) to interfere more in the primary process, not less.

A measure has to be truly terrible to get agreement between me, Sonoran Alliance – and Daily Kos. Anything that bad should be a no, no, no, NO

  • A “yes” vote shall have the effect of replacing the current party primary election with a “top-two” primary election in which all voters, regardless of party affiliation, vote in a single, combined primary, and the top two vote-getters for each seat advance to the general election ballot. This “top-two” primary will not apply to the election of the U.S. President or to elections in which no party affiliation appears on the ballot.
  • A “no” vote shall have the effect of keeping the current party primary election in which each recognized political party selects a candidate to appear on the general election ballot.

Just in case there is still any doubt, this one is a NO

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta


✏

Category: AZ, Law, politics
Tags: >

Comments

Leave a Reply





Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.