http://www.youtube.com/user/noonprop14theatre

Check them out.

Sounds like this thread could use a bit of comic relief:)

Furthermore, in Washington’s first open primary election in 2008, two candidates from minor parties and one independent candidate made it to the general elections for the state legislature (though they didn’t win). They were Green Howard Pellet, Libertarian Ruth Bennett and Independent John Moyna. These candidates received 23.65%, 10.56%, and 25.48% of the vote respectively (source- Washington Secretary of State).

If the anti-Prop 14 campaign wants to gain any ground, I’d suggest they stop lying publicly.

How about you look up Duverger’s law and shut up?

The future of California is a difficult one. Wishy-washy professional politicians aren’t a solution. We need bold thinkers with new ideas. We don’t need ‘yes’ men or women.

Plus, this takes away the ability to write in a candidate. Where’s the increased freedom in that. It limits choices, not expands them.

Prop 14 is a ‘save the incumbant’ bill, written by politicians for politicians.

Vote NO on 14.

It will be like having two general elections. The costs to the counties will more than double according to Jill La Vine the Sacramento County Registrar of Voters. Taxpayers will have to pick up the tab. The candidates must now spend much more because they now need to reach all the voters in the so called primary.

As bad as that is, the main reason I oppose this deformof our voting system is because it limits the voters choices in November to only two. After being allowed up to eight choices, this is a real restriction. Currently, independent candidates obtain ballot status, between the primary and general elections, however, only two candidates are allowed on the general election ballot. The result is no independent candidates will be allowed. Of course, it goes without saying, there will not be any third party candidates either. To add insult to injury, write-in votes will not be allowed.

Now you tell me, which system is more democratic. One where all the voters of a party vote on who their nominee will be and then have a general election with the winner of each party’s primary, plus any independent candidates who qualify, and write-in candidates. Or, have everyone on the primary, hopefully not like the mess we had in 2003, and then when the big election comes up with only two candidates. What a scam. Pay more money to limit your choices

In 2008, Washington under its Top 2 election system had more candidates per race in its legislative general election than nearby and politically similar Oregon which maintains its system of partisan primaries. In fact, there were only two legislative races in Oregon with 3 candidates.

Washington did indeed have some races where both candidates were Republican or Democrats. But these were in districts where the Republican candidate might only get 15% of the vote in a Democratic v. Republican race, or where 5 Republicans filed and no others bothered. Washington conducts 3 legislative races in each district, so it is easy to compare races.

Since the 1970s California has had a total of NINE independent candidates for Congress in 900 races. Not elected, but merely candidates. It requires around 10,000 signatures to run for Congress as an independent (this is over half a million for a statewide slate of independents). Even more signatures are needed to run for senate, and 1000s to run for the House. If Prop 14 is approved this would be lowered to 40. The minor parties don’t want competition any more than the major parties do – which may explain their opposition.

http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/articles/general/634-dangerous-proposition-to-limit-voters-choices

We published this even before the proposal had a proposition number.

I fear that this may be packaged and sold to the voters as an ‘improvement’ and it may get voted in through ignorance of the real effect. I see this as one step short of voting to cancel elections altogether.