We kicked off this Top Two debate reset with opening statements from Solomon Kleinsmith and William Kelleher. Now, in debate format, we have the first rebuttal from Kelleher. Kleinsmith will follow then with his responses.
Bill’s Responses to Sol’s Arguments
This is in two parts. The first part consists of Sol’s points to which I have a response. The second part has Sol’s points for which I need clarification or more information before I can respond.
Part 1: responses
A. Sol: [Opposes Top Two because it] “gives general election voters much less choice.”
Bill: Well, “much less choice” than what? True, at the top, Top Two only lets the general election voter choose between two candidates. But at the bottom, in the primary, the voters can choose from among as many candidates as you can shake a stick at – 10, 20 whatever they want.
B. Sol: [Opposes Top Two because it] “hinders underdog candidacies.”
Bill: There is no way, of itself, that Top Two hinders underdogs. If there is any hindering, then it must be done in the bottom part of the system, where the selection of the final two is made. Parties or a dictator can hinder underdogs in the primary, but not in the final vote of itself.
Some folks say that not allowing write-in candidates in the final vote somehow disadvantages certain people. But who might these people be? Some rich guy or celebrity who doesn’t want to participate with the low-lifes in the primary might want to run a write-in campaign. They are afraid they couldn’t win in the primary contest, but they might win by out-spending the other two in the final vote. I think it’s good that such candidates are kept out. If they can’t win fair and square in the primary, then by trying to butt into the final vote they are not “underdogs,” but dirty dogs.
Another type who might complain about no write-ins, are late deciders. Everybody has to follow the same deadline rules for filing their application to run with the Secretary of State. Some indecisive or forgetful guy might say “oh, I missed the deadline to file. Let me be a write-in. No fair excluding me from the Top Two vote!” I say, sorry Charlie, try again in two years.
C. Sol: [Opposes Top Two because it limits] “the choice of general election voters to an artificial number.”
Bill: It is not “artificial.” It is the very best way to assure that the winner will have a majority of the vote; thereby preserving the legitimacy of the election system.
D. Sol: “Top Two and Open Primary are two very different things.”
Bill: I can say, without lying, that I fully agree with that statement. Top Two is the top of the process, and an Open Primary is one form, among many, for the bottom part that feeds into the Top Two. (Like I said, a dictator could pick who will go into the Top Two. Thus, a Top Two with an undemocratic bottom will itself be undemocratic. You have to consider the process as a whole to make judgments about it.)
E. Sol: “Top two can be described as a run off election, moved from the general election, where all other forms of run offs are, to the primary.”
Bill: I think I get it. California has a special election process for vacancies in some offices. If nobody gets a majority in the first round of voting, the top two will engage in a run off. But if one candidate gets a majority in the first vote, then there won’t be a run off.
F. Sol: “However, there are at least a half dozen other forms of run off election that accomplish the same goal, of making it so the candidate that wins in the end got 50 percent or more of the final vote. To say it is the only way is, to be very kind, a joke.”
Bill: Nice joke, Sol. I agree, lots of different ways to do things.
G. Sol: “There is also this idea that Choke Point Primary supporters push that it somehow takes power away from partisans.”
Bill: Well, I don’t know about those other morally suspect “Choke Point Primary supporters,” but I DO NOT think that Top Two, of itself, “takes power away from partisans.” I try to look at the system as a whole, with a top and a bottom. If in the primary, partisans control who the last two candidates will be, then having Top Two at the top won’t limit their power. But if the bottom part of the system gives every one who wants to run an equal opportunity to get on the ballot, like California’s Prop 14, then the power of partisans is reduced.
H. Sol: [Opposes Top Two because it] “puts more power into the hands of party insiders.”
Bill: Actually, the exact opposite is true. As I wrote in The Hankster, at http://bit.ly/fdsh6R , the California GOP is in a panic precisely because they have just realized that Prop 14 takes away some of the special privileges it once had as a so-called “qualified” party. Party elites and insiders can’t control who gets on the ballot or who uses the label “Republican.” Anybody who registered to vote as a “Republican” can use that label on the ballot.
This reduces the significance of the Party’s precious label. So now, they are no more than one private organization among many. They realize that if they are to have any chance of their official “Republican” candidate standing out among all the other “Republicans,” they have to agree in the primary stage on one candidate per office and back him or her to the hilt.
This is their response to their loss of power, and it does not make up that loss. The Republican Party is a wounded lion in California, and desperately struggling to survive. Prop 14 is working extremely well!
Part 2: needs something
A. Sol: [Opposes Top Two because it] “aids parties.”
Bill: How does it aid parties, in specific?
B. Sol: “In fact, there are only two states that have top two rules for major races, and over a dozen states that have open primaries without top two.”
Bill: I don’t think this statement of fact is accurate. Washington, Louisiana, and California make THREE states with “top two rules for major races.” Anyway, I don’t know what implication Sol is trying to make with this statement. Maybe he can spell it out.
**************************************
To subscribe to this page and be notified of each rebuttal in this debate, follow this link.
Comments