This is a insanely long post… but well worth the read. The issue of Top Two “Choke Point” Primary rules, which are being pushed by organizations like CAIVN and IndependentVoting.org are a major and direct threat to the possibility that the center of the American electorate will be able to form an opposition in coming years. The following is a nearly picture perfect example of how those that are pushing Top Two rules are more than willing to lie, spin and distract people from the facts to try and push this farce upon us. -SK

This debate on the merits/demerits of the Top Two electoral process has not gone according to schedule but we’re ready to go now with the first round of rebuttal. The plans are for a second round of rebuttal followed by statements of where the two see common ground. The two debaters are, on the pro side, Nancy Hanks, who runs The Hankster blog and is affiliated with the Committee for a Unified Independent Party. Speaking for the con side is Solomon Kleinsmith, who operates the Rise of the Center blog. As before, Nancy leads off.

Why Top Two is Good for the Independent Movement and Good for America: It Makes Elections More Democratic

Top Two, a law that has recently been implemented in California under voter referendum Proposition 14, the mechanics of which have been upheld by the US Supreme Court [Washington State Grange v.  Washington State Republican Party, et al.] allows independent voters (referred to by the state of California as “decline-to-state”) to vote in the first round of voting — whether or not a party invites them to participate.

If voters who are not tied to the current partisan system (a system that involves two major and several minor parties that work in tandem) are not allowed to participate fully in our electoral system, there will be no development of our democracy and no innovative solutions to the current economic, social and political crisis we face as a nation and as a people. After all, it is the parties who got us into this mess. Why would we think they can get us out? From Washington to Wisconsin, the parties seem more interested in exploiting political opportunities than in attempting to solve the country’s problems.

When Ken Bingenheimer invited me to do an online “pro and con” that would lead to “common ground” with Solomon Kleinsmith on the issue of Top Two, I was intrigued — and challenged.

I’m a long-time activist in the independent political movement. I’ve done it all: petitioned to put independent candidates on the ballot from New York to Texas and points east, west, north and south; fundraised for the independent think tank, the Committee for a Unified Independent Party (CUIP), and its online counterpart, IndependentVoting.org; run as an independent for New York City Council from Queens, New York City’s most diverse borough — and currently serve as the duly elected Treasurer of the Queens County Committee of the Independence Party of New York (of the IP NYC Organizations); conducted research for the Neo-Independent, a magazine that addresses the concerns of independent voters.

I’ve spoken with and helped organize hundreds of thousands of Americans over the span of more than two decades about the crisis in our democracy and the need for the voices of ordinary people — largely unorganized — to be heard. Surely I could I engage Solomon on this critical reform issue?

Well, not so much.

And I have to ask myself, “Why is it that third party loyalists are not listening to millions of Americans who want a transparent open democratic process?”

I think the issue is power.

Third parties have traditionally advocated (sometimes successfully) for reforms that have been adopted by the Dems and Repubs. Abolition of slavery, civil and women’s rights, social security — all reforms centered around human rights and workers’ rights issues.

Mission Accomplished! Job well done!

In America circa 2000, voters — many of them young, many of them people of color, progressive and anti-establishment — are no longer satisfied with marginal third parties who articulate their peculiar positions on various issues. They want full control of the political process.

Isn’t that the very definition of democracy? What can be done now is to develop democracy, advance the process whereby the people — not “some people” but all the people in our collective activity — determine how we are to live.

Our political parties have far too much control over the political process in a nation founded on the notion of inalienable human rights; a nation founded by common farmers, slaves and landowners.

And for anyone who believes that California’s Top Two referendum is illegal, unconstitutional or born in another country, please see Harry Kresky’s most recent HuffPo article on open primaries and democracy and his defense of Top Two. Kresky, a leading national  expert on election law and an advocate for independents, concludes in a recent article:

In this moment of possibility, it is important to remember what independents and minor party members have in common: a recognition that the major parties have too long placed partisan interests over the national interest; a belief that the existing two party arrangement keeps the policy dialogue within too narrow a framework; and a commitment to leveling the electoral playing field. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harry-kresky/californias-top-two-prima_b_7…

To take this sentiment further, I believe we have gone beyond a moment of possibility — we are entering an arena of the inconceivable.

Is it inconceivable that ordinary Americans will collectively take charge of our history? Look at what happened in Egypt.

************************************

Sol provides the opposing point of view.

Choke Point Primaries – Part Duex

Please forgive the cheeky title to this post, obviously referencing the parody film “Hot Shots – Part Duex” from the early ’90s, but Nancy’s posts are so terrible that they seem like a parody of sophomorically bad political spin.

Having read the talking points Nancy Hanks, and folks at IndependentVoting.org, have been using to talk about Top Two over the last year or so, I knew she was going to try and cover up the lie that Top Two was the same as Open Primaries. I will say though… I wasn’t expecting it to be so blatantly obvious.

For those of you unfamiliar with argumentation, this is what is called a red herring – when someone doesn’t have a response to the actual issue at hand, one way to attempt to distract the audience from this is to bring up something else that is eye catching, then move on, hoping that the audience won’t notice.

One doesn’t need to know the technical term for this variety of rhetorical obfuscation to see that Nancy totally ignores Top Two in both of these posts. She knows that I couldn’t be more of a supporter of Open Primaries, as much as she knows the difference between the two election rule changes. Its a shame that she’s stooping to the level of so many other partisan political hacks, to whom this type of underhanded rhetorical tactics are a staple.

Nancy is correct in saying that we need “new leadership, new ideas and innovation across the board that does not rely on current political alignments and the established institutions.” Unfortunately the data shows that Top Two makes it more likely that we’ll get more of this, with states that have these rules in place showing higher rates of incumbents keeping their seats than other states. Again, supporters of Top Two think they can lie to you and get away with it, because most people don’t follow election reform issues very closely.

You see, I actually want to see independents in office, representing independents. To get some perspective on this, I spoke with Eliot Cutler, independent candidate who ran for governor in Maine. He was, in my opinion, the prototypical example of the kind of candidate independents need to rally around in coming years, and he only lost that race by a mere 2 percentage points.

As I do, he thought it made much more sense to put a run off AFTER the general election (which is what Top Two is), not before it. Cutler’s campaign, which notably didn’t stoop to negative advertising, didn’t begin to really catch on until later in the campaign, as most of the general public really doesn’t pay much attention to campaigns until the general election nears. Limiting how many people can make it through the primary to two is the equivalent to kneecapping non-major party candidate campaigns that don’t have a wealthy and/or famous candidate.

Nancy’s second post is even worse than the first, in that she stoops even farther than merely dodging the issue. She continues with the red herring arguments, trying to shift attention to Open Primary rules, how bad the system is now, an ego trip about what she has accomplished as an independent activist over the years (commendable to be sure, but has nothing to do with Top Two) and attacking third parties. But goes over the line even further when she stoops to lying about me, saying that I’m a member of a third party – which she knows I am not.

Personal attacks, obfuscation, dodging, distraction, spin and lies… these are not tactics that are used by those who are worthy of our support, no matter their political affiliation – or lack there of. California will be the last state that these people are able to pull this wool over peoples’ eyes.

About Ken Bingenheimer

• More Posts (27)