To: The California State House, The California State Senate, and Governor Gavin Newsom
A petition to restore genuine choice for California voters
All elections to political office in California shall be my majority vote. In cases where no candidate receives a majority instant run offs as are currently the case in some California cities will decide the winner.
Why is this important?
Most Progressive initiatives are oriented towards specific policies the legislature has failed to address when what we really need is a change in the constitutional rules of the game. Preferably a seemingly small change that is easily understood and that radically changes the political landscape in a way that undermines centralization is what is needed.
We need a state initiative in every state with initiatives, an initiative proposal that basically can be said in two sentences:
"All elections to political office in California shall be my majority vote. In cases where no candidate receives a majority instant run offs as are currently the case in some California cities will decide the winner."
Imagine the difficulty of the two main parties arguing against majority rule when most Americans hold both of them in contempt. If these initiatives were on as many ballots as possible, and repeated regularly until passed, the issue would remain in the public eye.
As both gay marriage and marijuana legalization demonstrate the more these issues are in the public eye the more receptive the public becomes. But unlike gay marriage and marijuana legalization, majority rule is already regarded as legitimate.
Advantages
I. With majority vote rules for elections a vote for a third party candidate will not help your opposition politically in any sense. If one of the two main parties gets a secure majority, compared with a plurality election the outcome will be the same. But when majorities are not secure the dynamic changes.
II. A candidate may need another party’s voters to win. In order to get them he or she has to treat the issues they raise explicitly and would be well advised not to trash their candidate. As a result issues will be discussed that normally would not get discussed. Further, the third party will be treated with a degree of respect, legitimizing it in otherwise skeptical eyes.
III. Voters will be encouraged to vote their real preferences, and make the main party candidate a second choice. In doing so I predict we will rapidly see that third parties have a lot more support that currently seems to be the case. This is because under current rules I may prefer Greens or Libertarians or something, but never vote for them because I don’t want to help the other main party. As third parties become more competitive they become more interesting to undecided voters.
IV. Because they have a chance, third parties will attract candidates who are in it for more than ego and feelings of self-righteousness. We will get a pool of more competent candidates. This will make them more effective in attacking the positions of main parties. There are no strong progressive organizations with much public visibility in the way a strong third party would be visible.
V. Over time ‘third parties’ will get more strongly established in the public eye, win elections, and provide genuine competition to the corporatists. Given current levels of disgust with corporations, banks, and the main parties it might not take much time.
VI. Majority vote elections will also be cheaper. Currently most states help finance party primary elections. Primaries were established because we have a two party oligarchy and it is only through primaries that much democracy exists in the US at all. But when many parties exist they can pay for their own primaries if they want them. The financial savings would not be negligible.
Here in California as best I can tell a primary costs about $70 million. Let the parties pay for one if they want one.
We need a state initiative in every state with initiatives, an initiative proposal that basically can be said in two sentences:
"All elections to political office in California shall be my majority vote. In cases where no candidate receives a majority instant run offs as are currently the case in some California cities will decide the winner."
Imagine the difficulty of the two main parties arguing against majority rule when most Americans hold both of them in contempt. If these initiatives were on as many ballots as possible, and repeated regularly until passed, the issue would remain in the public eye.
As both gay marriage and marijuana legalization demonstrate the more these issues are in the public eye the more receptive the public becomes. But unlike gay marriage and marijuana legalization, majority rule is already regarded as legitimate.
Advantages
I. With majority vote rules for elections a vote for a third party candidate will not help your opposition politically in any sense. If one of the two main parties gets a secure majority, compared with a plurality election the outcome will be the same. But when majorities are not secure the dynamic changes.
II. A candidate may need another party’s voters to win. In order to get them he or she has to treat the issues they raise explicitly and would be well advised not to trash their candidate. As a result issues will be discussed that normally would not get discussed. Further, the third party will be treated with a degree of respect, legitimizing it in otherwise skeptical eyes.
III. Voters will be encouraged to vote their real preferences, and make the main party candidate a second choice. In doing so I predict we will rapidly see that third parties have a lot more support that currently seems to be the case. This is because under current rules I may prefer Greens or Libertarians or something, but never vote for them because I don’t want to help the other main party. As third parties become more competitive they become more interesting to undecided voters.
IV. Because they have a chance, third parties will attract candidates who are in it for more than ego and feelings of self-righteousness. We will get a pool of more competent candidates. This will make them more effective in attacking the positions of main parties. There are no strong progressive organizations with much public visibility in the way a strong third party would be visible.
V. Over time ‘third parties’ will get more strongly established in the public eye, win elections, and provide genuine competition to the corporatists. Given current levels of disgust with corporations, banks, and the main parties it might not take much time.
VI. Majority vote elections will also be cheaper. Currently most states help finance party primary elections. Primaries were established because we have a two party oligarchy and it is only through primaries that much democracy exists in the US at all. But when many parties exist they can pay for their own primaries if they want them. The financial savings would not be negligible.
Here in California as best I can tell a primary costs about $70 million. Let the parties pay for one if they want one.