This pertains to the California primary, so if you don't live in California, or a state or country that might follow California's lead someday, you can ignore the rest of this.
"Never buy a pig in a poke". Something most of us learned when we were quite small.
For those of you too young to have heard this before:
poke
/poʊk/ Show Spelled[pohk]
–noun
1. Chiefly Midland U.S. and Scot.. a bag or sack, esp. a small one
You don't want to "buy a pig in a poke" because you have no idea whether you're getting a pig or an alley cat. Which is why proposition 14 makes bad law.
The backers of Prop 14 are trying to sell it as some sort of "reform", telling us we don't get the best quality candidates to solve our problems, and that Prop 14 would get us a better variety of candidates.
When, of course, the exact opposite would occur. A perfect example of this is taking place in the Democrat Senate primary. As we noted before, front runner Barbara Boxer refuses to even debate challenger Mickey Kaus. Now, I don't have a dog in this fight, but it's awfully heard for me to believe that sending the two top vote getters to duke it out in November would ever give someone like Kaus a chance to even express an idea of reform, much less act on it. What if someone like Kaus represents genuine reform but because he doesn't have deep enough pockets or the backing of special interest money to get name recognition in the primary, what are the odds of him representing the people of California no matter how good his ideas are?
Prop 14 backers tell us that the political parties and "special interests" are in favor of the status quo. But, special interest candidates and multi-millionaires will be the only viable candidates who can flood California with advertising from Oregon to Mexico and have a prayer of finishing in the top two.
Boxer's refusal to debate Kaus borders on criminal, but what if the stratagem for winning future elections is to just keep your mouth shut, say as little as possible and try to win a popularity contest? How does that get us better candidates, when by ducking debates, we may not have a clue as to what they believe or who might be the better candidate?
To make matters worse, under prop 14, "write ins" would not be permitted in the general election. I'm not sure that this would pass Constitutional muster, but it certainly is against the spirit of democracy! If two pro-choice or two pro-life candidates were running in the general election, many people would feel that they could not, in good conscience, vote for either of them. A "write in" seldom has a chance of winning, but it allows the voter to register his or her protest against the people or the policies represented by the mainstream.
And what about candidates who might be, shall we say, less than forthcoming about what they believe? What if candidate "A" gets one of the top two slots for November and then it comes out that the candidate lied or misrepresented his position. Maybe it is revealed that the candidate associated with some unsavory characters. If the candidate is not properly vetted in the primary, why should the voter be banned from selecting someone else and mounting a write in campaign for them?
What if both candidates lied or misrepresented their positions? There are no "do overs". There's no mechanism to impeach a candidate for public office. And prop 14 takes away your right to write in an alternative.
We have a viable two party system where like minded people can put forth a candidate that at least has a theoretical chance of winning. Prop 14 could silence a large segment of the population and leave them without a choice whom they could in good conscience support.
Here's another old saying: Don't throw out the baby with the bath water! The system we have isn't perfect, but it has served us fairly well over the years. And it accommodates a wide variety of beliefs: Communists, Greens, Peace and Freedom, Libertarian, Republican and Democrat to name just a few. Prop 14 gives you two choices: Like it or lump it.
Whatever California needs, it is not fewer choices of who will fill our public offices.
Proposition 14 may not be the worst amendment to the constitution of California ever presented, but it certainly is in the running!
Vote NO on 14.
Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel, Say Anything
Update: And because great minds think in similar ruts, here's another yet similar perspective on Prop 14 Viewed From the Right
Posts
From what you say Prop 14 sounds bad for CA. You have only one thing that I like and it is the Proposition votes your constitution allows. I wish all states had such a measure.
ReplyDeleteRon: It's a mixed blessing. Yes the people can have a voice in the governing of the state, but all too often, the proposition process is used by the legislature to rid themselves of any hard governance choices and by folk with deep pockets who can flood the state with advertising and signature gatherers.
ReplyDeleteWhat we sometimes end up with is the state Constitution amended with a bad law,by simple majority, that it takes a 2/3 vote to undo.
Often times, the bad legislation is sold to the people via Hollywood celebrities and over simplified slogans. Once the constitution is amended, then the courts are free to work their mischief on any loopholes in the text.
We pay a full time legislature to write the law. Too often, they kick the can down the road and it's a crap shoot what we finally end up with!