establishment candidates mainstream parties primary election ballot proposition

Attempts to Squash Challenger Political Parties
party primary freedom of association

Proposition 14 on the California ballot

by Fred E. Foldvary, Senior Editor, 7 June 2010

When Americans vote for candidates, most of them think they are choosing between Republicans and Democrats. The more fundamental choice is between the challenger parties and the establishment parties. When one votes for a Republican or a Democrat, in effect on is accepting the status quo, and is choosing among currents in the political mainstream instead of a different river.

In California, for example, besides the Republican and Democratic parties, there are several challenger parties: the American Independent Party for right-wing conservatives, the Green Party for radical environmentalists, the Libertarian Party for tolerant free-marketeers, and the Peace and Freedom Party for state-socialists.

Even though the small challenger parties seldom win elections, they offer a meaningful choice for voters who fundamentally reject the status quo. The policies of the establishment mainstream have resulted in the outcomes that are ruining the planet and the economy: massive pollution, a depressed economy, Grand Canyon sized budget deficits, high unemployment, and endless war.

Despite the small party membership and votes of the minor parties, the establishment feels threatened by the ideas generated by the challengers. They seek to stifle the voices of protest and radical change. An example is Proposition 14 on the California ballot on 8 June 2010. Proposition 14 would replace the party primary elections with an election in which voters could select from all the candidates from all the parties. The top two vote getters would then be on the ballot for the general election, even if both are in the same political party.

This proposition is bad on many dimensions. First of all, it violates freedom of association. Voters should be able to associate in a party of common interests, and then choose the candidate from their party. Why, for example, should those not in the Green Party be able to vote for a Green candidate, drowning out the voices of the party members? This constitutes party crashing.

Secondly, the voices of the challenger party will be extinguished in the general election. Even write-in candidates would not be allowed for state and national candidates. Not only that, challenger voices would be stifled even in the primary election.

In California, minor political parties retain their ballot status by polling at least two percent of the vote in a midterm (not presidential year) general election. Under Proposition 14, since only the major party candidates would be on the ballot, the challenger parties would lose their ballot status, unless the party membership is relatively large. Candidates of some of the smaller challenger parties would not be able to include their party affiliation in the primary election. Those not familiar with the party candidates would not know which candidate is in the Peace and Freedom or Libertarian parties.

Who is in favor of Proposition 14? The big moneyed interests. The establishment parties get their funding from special interests and in return, provide them with subsidies. Our social problems can only be remedied with radical changes that would eliminate these privileges. Proposals to eliminate party voting would stifle these choices and voices.

We have today the forms of democracy, but not the substance. The establishment party bosses set the agenda by backing the establishment candidates. Occasionally a challenger within a party will win, such as the political upsets that occurred in the spring of 2010. But these candidates usually move towards the center in the general election.

Only the challenger parties can provide an alternative to the status quo in the general election. But the voters may not fully understand the effects of voiding party elections. They may not understand that the elimination of party primary elections would further demolish the substance of democracy, leaving a shell, an illusion of choice, that would be even more deeply exploited by the special interests.

-- Fred Foldvary


Copyright 2010 by Fred E. Foldvary. All rights reserved. No part of this material may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, which includes but is not limited to facsimile transmission, photocopying, recording, rekeying, or using any information storage or retrieval system, without giving full credit to Fred Foldvary and The Progress Report.

Also see:

A look at mass protests during the past 500 years

To get more elections and better branches

Why are we raising the pay of big wasters?

Email this articleSign up for free Progress Report updates via email

What are your views? Share your opinions with The Progress Report:

Your name

Your email address

Your nation (or your state, if you're in the USA)

Check this box if you'd like to receive occasional Economic Justice announcements via email. No more than one every three weeks on average.

Page One Page Two Archive
Discussion Room Letters What's Geoism?

Henry Search Engine