home

California's Abyss Due To This?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 11:59:17 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The fact that California passed a budget is good news. That a Republican state senator refused to vote for the budget and sent California into the abyss unless he got these changes is a disgrace to the GOP state senator:

[I]n the witching hours of Thursday morning, lawmakers caved to some of the demands of State Senator Abel Maldonado of Santa Maria, a Republican who wanted state constitutional amendments establishing an open primary system and banning legislative pay increases during deficit years, and the elimination of a 12-cent increase in gasoline taxes from the plan.

What a pathetic man.

Speaking for me only

< WaPo Op-Ed Page A Fact-Free Zone? | Obama's Most Successful Cabinet Pick? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    California's Abyss Due To This? | 104 comments (104 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    He had a nice lunch with Arnold, (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:03:50 PM EST
    they smoked cigars, and, presto-magico.  But I wouldn't put the entire blame on Maldanado.  GOP coup, and new leader sd.--got to start over.  

    The 2/3 requirement (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:18:41 PM EST
    for raising taxes is the real problem.  

    There aren't that many elected Republicans here, and rooting out the last of them is not really do-able...those that remain are in safe districts....

    It makes the 60% threshold of the filibuster in the U.S. Senate look easy by comparison....    

    Not having a gas tax (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:26:24 PM EST
    Is a tax increase to those people who live in cities.  The urban population continues to pay taxes on things they don't use (all that much)- roads to suburbs and gasoline subsidies.  

    To me a gas tax is a great tax that should be high enough to pay for roads as well.  If you CHOOSE to live 30 minutes outside a city so your family of 3 can have a 5000 square foot house on the cheap, I don't see why I should pay for you to drive in on gas I am subsidizing and on roads I don't use at all.

    I don't even see it has a tax increase.  You use it, you buy it.

    They are buying it... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:33:37 PM EST
    and paying existing gas taxes...the question is should the vig go up another 15 cents a gallon out in Cali.

    As a non-Cali resident, I leave that up to Californians...but isn't everything expensive enough out there already?  You already have some of the highest at the pump prices in America.

    Besides, I thought you needed a car out in Cali...it ain't like Manhattan where public transport goes everywhere.  Seems like another way to part the poor, along with the rich and middle, from their money on the sly.

    Parent

    Roads (none / 0) (#58)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 01:16:23 PM EST

    Is a tax increase to those people who live in cities.  The urban population continues to pay taxes on things they don't use (all that much)- roads to suburbs and gasoline subsidies.

    Those roads go right past those suburbs to the country where food for the city comes from.  If you eat food from the country, you are using those roads even though you don't drivr on them.

    Gasoline subsidies!?  What ever are you talking about?  There are gasoline taxes not subsidies.  Do you mean ethanol?

    Parent

    Food comes from the burbs? (none / 0) (#71)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 01:56:36 PM EST
    Really?  

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 02:07:35 PM EST

    The road goes from the country through the suburbs to the city.

    Are you aware of a road that goes directly from country to city without going through a suburb?

    Parent

    Huh? What gas subsidies are you paying for? (none / 0) (#60)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 01:18:32 PM EST
    Do you eat? Wear clothes? Sit on furniture?  Listen to CD's? Etc. Do you think that stuff doesn't use roads to get to you?

    But I do get your point.

    Like with UHC, why should I, a non-smoker, pay for the chemo treatments and hospitalization you got from the cigs you chose to smoke?

    Why should anyone but parents with school-aged kids pay for our schools?

    I assume you use LA public transpo. I don't. Why should I subsidize your use?

    Parent

    In this case (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 01:40:48 PM EST
    Why should anyone but parents with school-aged kids pay for our schools?

    Because those kids will be trying to get jobs and paying into the Social Security system (assuming it's still around) when you retire.  You want a bunch of people making minimum wage paying in, or people making more than that.

    But your point is well taken.

    Parent

    It's not at all about Social Security; (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 02:23:43 PM EST
    it's about public education being in the public good.  Speaking for myself, I would prefer that the work force be reasonably well educated, because even if you do not have children who need schooling, you encounter in your day-to-day life people who are the products of public education.  For some people, that's all the education they get, because they either cannot afford to take it to the next level, or aren't cut out for college, or don't aspire to a career that requires a college education.

    So the people who ring up your groceries, or serve you in a restaurant, or drive the public bus, or service your car, or work in any number of jobs that do not require a college degree - a great number of them are products of public education, and you contribute to that education because ultimately, you do derive a benefit.

    Parent

    Are you concerned (none / 0) (#80)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 02:44:06 PM EST
    enough to be for school choice?  Of is that just for the rich?

    Parent
    I dunno dude (none / 0) (#82)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 03:08:18 PM EST
    Are you concerned enough to be for house choice?  For car choice?  For vacation choice?  Or are those things just for the rich?

    Parent
    Excellent reply, (none / 0) (#88)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 04:27:35 PM EST
    you have bested me.  Shows me who in boss.  Car Choice?  All for it.

    Parent
    Good (none / 0) (#92)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 05:23:23 PM EST
    because I hear this stimulus bill will be providing you with a voucher!

    Parent
    Big ole (none / 0) (#97)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 06:35:55 PM EST
    honkin SUV.  
    Good car choice.  After all our kids will pay for it.

    Parent
    School choice (none / 0) (#83)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 03:17:53 PM EST
    Does not work.  The whole premise that schools should be run like businesses, and that competition will make the "bad" schools go under is a complete myth. Since public schools have to accept ALL students, all it does is make "bad" schools worse, because only the "bad" or "dumb" kids are left.  The better teachers won't generally stay, but guess what?  There are still kids that need to have a school open, so they won't close it down.  Maybe you end up with two "bad" schools combining, but that won't bring up achievement and test scores.

    See, the problem is, unlike businesses, which can reject defective raw material coming in their doors, schools deal with 100% defective raw material (people) and yet the public expects them to turn out 100% perfect end product.

    Parent

    First, I pretty much hate any (none / 0) (#84)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 03:29:04 PM EST
    argument that ends with, "or is that only for the rich," because it avoids the issue.  The rich have always had choices that those of lesser means do not, but that doesn't exempt the government from making sure that those who don't have that array of choices get the best education possible for the dollars we are all, as taxpayers, contributing.

    Second, I think all children are entitled to a quality education, regardless of their station in life.  I think public schools should strive to provide that education, but we know that quality education is often a function of where you live, what your socioeconomic status is, and what kind of supportive family structure you have.

    I live in an area where the public schools are considered to provide the equivalent of a private-school education, and many people who moved here who had been sending their kids to private schools opted for public because the quality was so high.  Only 25 miles away is the public system of the City of Baltimore, which has struggled for years to provide public school kids with even a marginally acceptable education.  A concerted effort has been made to raise scores and implement programs to improve things, and they are improving.  They have a new superintendent, who appears to be moving things in a better direction.  All good.  Still not good enough.

    Third, I don't like the idea of any child essentially being a prisoner of a bad school or a bad system, but I don't think the answer is to abandon the system through vouchers; there has been no proof, that I'm aware of, that draining the best students from the worst schools ends up improving those poorly performing schools.

    Finally, I would love for the inner city child in Baltimore to be getting the same quality of education my own kids did out in the country - but I don't have the answers for how to accomplish that.


    Parent

    I would like taxes to be just (none / 0) (#91)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 04:37:14 PM EST
    for the rich, personally.

    Parent
    "What a pathetic man." (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 01:03:20 PM EST
    Well...those of us here in CA seem to go to the edge of this "abyss" every single year, so the situation may not be quite as dire as some out-of-staters might think.

    Of course Senator Correa (D, OC) was also quite happy to refuse to vote for the budget and send California into the abyss - unless the Dem leaders made a special deal to send more pork to the OC, which they did, but hey, iokiyad I guess.

    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 01:30:44 PM EST
    What a pathetic man

    That is silly rhetoric on your part.

    You seem to think you own some moral high ground even though California democrats and the republican govenor have governeed recklessly the last few years with taxpayer money and have no one but themselves to blame for this budget problem.

    Is no tax increase unfair?  When do you draw the line on government spending?  Is there a ceiling or should we all work for the government?  Is no republican or democrat justified in saying simply, "i've had enough".

    Of all states to take such a highly emotional and partisan stand CA is a poor choice.

    There is simply no defense for the reckless government spending and high taxes.  

    Some facts, instead of ideology (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by cenobite on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 01:46:35 PM EST
    Do you live in California? I have, for over 40 years.

    Increases in California's state spending, adjusted for inflation, have averaged about 0.2% for the last decade or so.

    The problem we are having now has been building for years, and the guy who lit the fuse was the governor, when he repealed the vehicle license fee (the "car tax") and didn't do anything to replace that revenue.

    The state had the same obligations and had already been ravaged by prop 13 for decades, so for several years the governor played tricks with bond issues and borrowing from other parts of state government to cover up the structural deficit.

    Finally, this year, with revenues plunging, there was simply no more putting it off. The bag of tricks was empty and people were going to die (seriously) unless some deal was made that increased revenue.

    It's a dirty, ugly deal, but the republican alternative was unacceptable: a Year Zero (which would no doubt have been a triumph lauded in Sayings of Chairman Grover)


    Parent

    Here are some facts (none / 0) (#102)
    by Slado on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 09:09:30 AM EST
    When the Governator rode into office in 2003 the budget was around 100billion.

    As of yesterday the budget is 142billion.

    That's ridicluous.    

    Have government services gotten better by 40%?

    California is losing population that isn't illegal aliens.  

    You will be right back in the same place next year and more poeple and more buisnesses will leave the most liberal state int he union.

    Cut government spending or face fiscal disaster.

    Parent

    Ahem (none / 0) (#104)
    by CST on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 10:53:13 AM EST
    "the most liberal state in the union"

    I resent that :)

    My state has a dem congress, dem house, dem gov., gay marriage, no death penalty, and some type of (imperfect but better than nothing) uhc.

    Oh and our unemployment rate is a lot lower than California's, and South Carolina's is just as high.

    California has got plenty of issues, but being too "liberal" isn't one of them.

    Parent

    I like what he got (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:08:13 PM EST
    State constitutional amendments establishing an open primary system and banning legislative pay increases during deficit years, and the elimination of a 12-cent increase in gasoline taxes from the plan.


    Well, he hasn't "got" the (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:11:52 PM EST
    state constitutional amendments yet.  Will be on statewide ballots.

    Parent
    I like that EVEN better! (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:12:49 PM EST


    Parent
    You like (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:14:07 PM EST
    that he sent California tumbling into the abyss for THAT?

    Well, different strokes I guess.

    Parent

    Threatened abyss (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:16:56 PM EST
    But BTD, you know that the abyss waits for all of us.  It is only a matter of time, short time too. I know you know this because you wouldn't already be fighting for HOLC the way you do if you didn't.

    Parent
    Ashes to ashes and dust to dust? (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:19:22 PM EST
    What a downer.

    Parent
    Evolution, not burning down (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:26:34 PM EST
    Imagination, not stagnation.

    Parent
    I don't really like open primaries.... (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by gtesta on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:15:48 PM EST
    I think that political parties should be free to nominate their candidates without undue influence.  I think open primaries make for too many centrist candidates.
    Now, I do think that Instant Runoff Voting should be used in closed primary elections.
    And I think that general elections should be open, with easier ballot access for third parties and independents, but not for primary elections.
    If we had closed primaries last year, Hillary would be president now, which I think is a more accurate reflection of what the Democratic Party wanted.

    Parent
    My state has closed primaries... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:25:17 PM EST
    I find it so anti-democratic having no say in who the two choices with an actual chance of winning will be in Nov....Independents are Americans too, and we have no voice in deciding who the big 2 are if we live in closed primary states...it's wrong.

    It's not about what loyal party members want, be they D or R...it is about what the majority of Americans as a whole want.  

    ***Full Disclosure....I'm still pissed I couldn't give Kuchinich or Paul a little love at the polls last primary:)

    Parent

    My view (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:32:33 PM EST
    has always been that if a political party wants to have closed primaries, or pick a candidate in a smoky back room for that matter, it's their call, but they shouldn't expect taxpayer dollars to fund anything that isn't an open election.  If you and I and MT sit down to decide who the candidate of the TalkLeft Rabblerousers Party will be for the next election, I'm pretty sure the government won't be sending us a check to pay for the meeting!

    Parent
    Does it work that way in any states? (none / 0) (#33)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:38:16 PM EST


    Parent
    I think all elections at every level (none / 0) (#48)
    by gtesta on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    should be publicly financed.
    If we really want to take special interest money out of elections, I can't think of a more democratic way.
    Reminds me of that one Grisham book about the Judicial election....you can manipulate campaign finance reports so many ways...

    Parent
    I'm against open primaries. (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:39:20 PM EST
    Belonging to a party should have some meaning.

    And, Kdog, in no system proposed could you have voted for both Paul and Kuchinich.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by daring grace on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:55:08 PM EST
    Belonging to a political party should have some meaning.

    And in New York state where I live and vote political parties lose all such meaning when I am coerced by closed primaries to register as a Democrat or a Republican because that is the ONLY way I am granted meaningful equal access to the electoral process.


    Parent

    Huh? (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:59:19 PM EST
    Why should you have a say in a private organization to which you don't belong?

    Parent
    But I Do Belong (none / 0) (#53)
    by daring grace on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 01:06:46 PM EST
    I knuckled under to the backward NY state law and registered as a Dem to vote in the gubernatorial primary years ago.

    I'd be happy to have no say in the process of who the Dems or Repubs  as 'private organizations' choose to run in primaries.

    I simply want the right as a voter to voice my choice in the primaries. I don't think primaries should be run as if they are merely the business of 'private organizations'.

    Parent

    Even in open primaries ... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 01:27:09 PM EST
    you can only vote in one party primary.

    If you want to decide on the direction of one political party, why not register with that party?

    Parent

    See #53 (none / 0) (#66)
    by daring grace on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 01:39:48 PM EST
    I am registered in a specific party.

    You're right. By my standards, an open primary as practiced today would only be the beginning.

    Take my situation in New York. Here I am registered as a Democrat.

    Suppose the Republicans have a primary where there is a right wing blowhard (say Al D'Amato) against a Northeast style moderate.

    I will never be registered as a Republican, but I want a say in that race. And even if I wanted to play games and register Repub just for that race, I'd be out of luck because in New York I have to change registration so long in advance to be eligible in the primary.

    This system does not serve the voters or any idealistic sense of partipatory democracy. It serves the purposes of the two major parties and, yeah, to me, that stinks.

    Parent

    For those of us who want clear differences (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 01:45:26 PM EST
    between the parties, the problem you describe is not a bug, it's a feature.

    Parent
    Exactly! (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 02:03:03 PM EST
    And, again, in the scenario suggested above you could simply register as a Republican for the sake of that primary, and then re-register as a Democrat after.

    Parent
    I know... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 01:17:51 PM EST
    I was on the fence and would have choosen one...probably Paul.

    Parent
    If you want to have a voice in the parties (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by MrConservative on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:43:50 PM EST
    then join one.  The parties are private organizations and have the right to exclude people who don't want to associate with them.  If you are truly an independent, vote for independents in the general.  You act as if you have some sort of right over other peoples business.

    Parent
    I Don't Question (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by daring grace on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:57:51 PM EST
    the right of political parties to exclude people from their ranks.

    I question the right of political parties to deny access to the nominating process by limiting it to their members.

    Parent

    Sorry, but that's exactly the point (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 01:13:47 PM EST
    If people wanted to break the duopoly of the two major parties, they'd form other parties. So far, that has been almost universally unsuccessful.

    Parent
    That's One Way To Do It (none / 0) (#64)
    by daring grace on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 01:31:59 PM EST
    Another way is to take the existing system and make it more accessible to the electorate at large.

    It's not as if New York and other states with closed systems would even be breaking new ground. Other states have open primaries, and same day registration and early voting; all of which make sense if you're truly interested in encouraging citizen participation.

    And as far as more parties are concerned, that's fine with me. But in my neck of the woods (upstate New York) smaller parties on the ballot have just served too tempting for operatives from the two major parties to co-opt in primaries---mass registering their people so that their candidates get the extra ballot line.

    Parent

    I want to encourage citizen participation (none / 0) (#65)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 01:35:44 PM EST
    but in MY PARTY. So if you want to vote in my party's primary, join it.

    Parent
    :SIGH: (none / 0) (#68)
    by daring grace on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 01:41:03 PM EST
    Like I said above, andgarden, I did, I did already.

    I knuckled under.

    Parent

    YUP! (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:28:47 PM EST
    And there's few better ways for special interest to end up owning all of our destinies and controlling the public debate than closed primaries.  And HARD questions?  Not asked, not needed.

    Parent
    One of the things that gave the GOP (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 02:16:21 PM EST
    the real edge in the South was passing open primary laws.  Between the Blue Dogs and the GOP, liberals haven't a chance in a state like Alabama - and it isn't because they don't exist.  If a liberal runs on the Dem ticket in a district that leans Dem the GOP finds a Blue Dog to defeat them in the primary complete with voters on the GOP side instructed to cross over and vote for the Blue Dog.  In other primary election fun and games, the GOP voters will be instructed to cross over to vote for their weakest challenger when there is a viable candidate who could pose a threat to a sitting GOP candidate.  Open primaries are Karl Rove's dream come true and he realized his dream across the Southern states.  I think that party members should be allowed to select the candidate that best represents them without interference from the opposing party.

    Parent
    The two major parties (none / 0) (#45)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:54:42 PM EST
    command a supermajority of support. Pick one.

    Parent
    Nobody is stopping you (none / 0) (#95)
    by joanneleon on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 06:19:12 PM EST
    from voting in a primary.  If you want to vote in the Dem primary, declare as a Dem and if you want to vote in the Republican primary, declare as a Repub.  If not, then work on organizing Independents and put up your own candidates and hold your own primary to choose the best of the bunch.

    If you don't support a particular party, there's no reason why you should have a right to help choose their candidate.  There is a ton of infrastructure required to have a party, and a ton of people, paid and unpaid, who maintain it every single year.  You choose to sit in the middle and support no party, yet you want to step in when it's time to choose candidates and have your say?

    For the last twenty years I've felt more like an Independent than anything else, but I declared as a Dem.  Why?  So I could be part of a party and so I could vote in a primary.  If you want that, then do the same.

    Anti-democratic?  I just don't see how you could see it as anti-democratic?  Do you feel that you should be able to vote in any party's primary?

    Parent

    The Tension Between Private and Public (none / 0) (#103)
    by daring grace on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 10:22:54 AM EST
    Over and over in this thread people are defending the rights and privileges of the PRIVATE political parties.

    I think that may be at the core of my disagreement with the system--that we have these (allegedly) private organizations positioned to exert so much public authority and enjoy such public privilege.

    That the political parties must invest in so much infrastructure etc. is not such a big deal to me, because in the process they reap so much in return--and from the pockets and lives of people other than their own supporters. And that means there is every reason for unaffiliated Americans to question the system and ask that it be more answerable to the needs of the general public.

    And I say this as someone who, like you, remained an Independent for years and who, in the last ten years has been registered as a Dem.

    And, yeah, ideally I would like to see much more radical change that I am ever likely to see in this system. But for now, I would settle for New York state emulating other states where there are more open systems in primaries, registration and early voting.

    Parent

    I agree... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:12:25 PM EST
    I really don't have an opinion as to whether it was worth holding up the budget or not, but it sounds like good stuff....it is not like he asked for a pound of bacon.

    Parent
    He actually asked for stuff that the little (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:14:21 PM EST
    people will most need heading into the full force gale of this economic crisis.  Is he really a Republican?

    Parent
    Oh, yes he did! (none / 0) (#10)
    by atdleft on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:16:19 PM EST
    Maldo originally wanted the open primary initiative to be on this year's ballot so it can be effect in 2010 when he runs for Controller. OK, so he didn't get his ideal date. Still, my Senator (Correa, Blue Dog Dem from OC) got our pound of bacon in terms of additional money for Orange County while Cogdill and Ashburn (the other two GOPers to vote for the budget) got plenty of money for their own districts.

    Parent
    Don't be too happy. (none / 0) (#6)
    by atdleft on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:13:40 PM EST
    First off, we needed that tax money for our transportation funding. And secondly, open primaries don't operate as well as they sound. That's why the federal courts have declared them unconstitutional. Oops, did I let the cat out of the bag on the upcoming lawsuits to challenge it?

    Parent
    The way of life we all had (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:22:48 PM EST
    is a thing of the past.  The existing transporation structure is probably going to change dramatically in the wake of this economic crisis that is going to be a meltdown it looks like anymore.  California isn't the only state facing this, just one of the most noteable first.  Incumbents have to start serving the people again and with open primaries that is much more encouraged.

    Parent
    How do open primaries help (none / 0) (#18)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:24:54 PM EST
    serve the people?
    I don't get it.


    Parent
    It gives Independents.... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:28:06 PM EST
    who may like a D or R candidate the chance to have a voice and help put them on the ballot...a very good thing, imo.

    Parent
    It let's Republicans choose the (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:30:28 PM EST
    Democratic candidate for President, which I strongly object to.

    Parent
    If people want to play... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:42:09 PM EST
    Machiavellian games with their vote, I believe it is their right.  It certianly is not enough justification to shut out all those independent or line-crossing voters with the honest intention of picking the best man/woman for the job.

    Parent
    Why can't Democrats choose (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:33:37 PM EST
    the Republican candidate?

    Parent
    Supposing they do, I don't see how (none / 0) (#32)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:37:36 PM EST
    that improves the selection of candidates at all.
    There are lots of election reforms that make sense to me, but a constitutional amendment for open primaries to get a budget passed?
    Why couldn't he do something useful, and get an amendment passed which would eliminate the Inititiave/Propostion process?
    That would be a great idea!

    Parent
    How is not opening the debate up (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:42:34 PM EST
    not an improvement of the selection of candidates?  Protectionism leads to disfunction.  I'm still struck by what the American's abroad in 'Sicko' had to say about their country verses the European countries.  The European governments fear their citizens and in America citizens fear their government.  Why shouldn't our leaders have to earn their positions every single election just like the rest of us have to earn our way?  Do you notice how little they fear any of us or what we think?  I believe we need to stop sheilding them so much.

    Parent
    How do open primaries (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:45:31 PM EST
    open the debate? I don't get it.
    MORE parties open the debate, probably.

    Parent
    And incumbents are easier to challenge (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:49:32 PM EST
    That needs to happen in order for special interests to stop running all of our lives.

    Parent
    A lot of states have open primaries (none / 0) (#77)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 02:18:21 PM EST
    already. Are those states exemplars of responsive government?

    Parent
    Oops, how is opening the debate up? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:47:43 PM EST


    Parent
    Because particularly in the South (none / 0) (#78)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 02:18:28 PM EST
    they are too busy trying to get enough votes for their own candidates.

    Parent
    Bright still got in (none / 0) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 04:20:26 PM EST


    Parent
    Sparks declined to run because (none / 0) (#96)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 06:21:54 PM EST
    Fingers refused to stay out of the Senate primary race.  Did anyone talk about even a slight threat to the GOP Senate seat up for re-election this year? No.  And Sparks was right not to waste his time and money in a primary battle even though he actually could have given Sessions a run for his money.  

    In my parent's Democratic leaning district the candidate who won the primary to compete against Alderholt - a supremely worthless nutcase who is NOT a beloved character - promptly disappeared after the primary contest.  I was told that people suspected that he was the GOP plant and that it was too bad because he beat a much better candidate.

    A lady on the town council where my parents live is considering running for the state legislature.  We asked my aunt if she is a Democrat and my aunt said, "She's a Republican, but she'll probably switch.  That's what all the Republicans do in this area now you know."  Lovely.  This is how and why people in the South rarely even hear from people who offer up an alternative more liberal or progressive view of the world.  They never even have the chance to really choose.

    The open primary system undermines the ability of voters to opt for one clear choice or another.  I know most people love to hate parties, but I think distinct political parties are good for America.  It is about the only thing the Founding Fathers and I disagree on.

    Parent

    And Dems And Indies Pick The Repub Candidates (none / 0) (#35)
    by daring grace on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:40:11 PM EST
    which might inject a little more moderation in there.

    Parent
    The Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MrConservative on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:46:28 PM EST
    as a private organization, have a right to decide how moderate or extreme they want to be.

    Parent
    Yes They Do (none / 0) (#50)
    by daring grace on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    And they are free as a 'private organization' to field a slate of candidates in a primary that suits their aims.

    And then, in an open and public primary election, the citizens who are registered to vote get to select one they like.

    Works well all the way around.

    Parent

    You have to admit though (none / 0) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 04:21:45 PM EST
    open primaries discourages them from being able to ignore the mainstream.

    Parent
    It depends on how you define mainstream. (none / 0) (#98)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 06:40:37 PM EST
    If mainstream is defined as where the majority is, then I guess in a way you could make that argument.  But if mainstream takes account of the views of the minority, then open primaries have proven themselves to be largely devoid of that imo.  If you look at trends in the South over the past 40 years all you see is more and more extremism.  Moderates simply do not exist except where the Democratic Party has a traditional strong hold and even those so-called "moderates" are not actually all that moderate.

    I was very happy to hear that the Mississippi Dem Party won their battle to close their primary.  They have a chance at building a real Democratic Party again.

    Parent

    So, what you're really saying - (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 01:57:49 PM EST
    or at least this is how it's starting to sound to me - is that you want the option to pick a Republican who's more like a Democrat or a Democrat who's more like a Republican.  I fail to see how useful it would be to then have two candidates in a general election who appear to have been separated at birth.  I can hear it now: "I forget.  Which one is the Democrat again?  I keep getting them mixed up."

    Maybe you need to start the Bland-as-Oatmeal Party, because that would pretty much describe the candidates we would end up with.

    No, thanks.

    And isn't all of this at all reminiscent of the push to get Dems to cross over and vote Republican in the Michigan primary?  

    Parent

    Probably not (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 01:03:32 PM EST
    Dems who are enthused about voting will vote in a Democratic primary - if you vote in one party's primary, you can't vote in the other.  Dems who aren't enthused just don't seem to be that committed that they will actually take time off work to go vote in a Republican primary.

    Republicans, on the other hand, seem to be more organized, and would have a better turn out, IMO, at crossing over in a primary.

    Parent

    Why Not? (none / 0) (#56)
    by daring grace on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 01:10:53 PM EST
    Why not open the process all the way so that all registered voters can choose the candidates they want from all sides?

    In fact, why not have a primary day that is like general election day with a ballot that lists all candidates for each office and let the voter decide that way?

    Parent

    We tried that. Result: Arnold. (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 02:07:32 PM EST


    Parent
    Because I don't really fancy having the (none / 0) (#99)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 06:43:28 PM EST
    American Nazi Party for instance messing with the integrity of the process of selecting my party's candidate.  I have no desire to build a "coalition" with the American Nazi Party.  It is an extreme example, but I think it does make the point of why not.

    Parent
    Yes, and the debate blooms (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:31:20 PM EST
    into fullness with all sides getting checked out, and it invites much better overall solutions to our very real problems!!!!!  And our very real problems are growing rapidly.  California may end up far ahead of the rest of us with its citizens able to demand real solutions at the ballot box.

    Parent
    From a state with open primaries (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 01:28:32 PM EST
    and crossover voting by Republicans that has messed up many elections -- pushing forward the likes of George Wallace -- including this one, they're not all they're cracked up to be. . . .

    That said, I don't like the idea of having to register for one political party or another, since I no longer belong to one.   I'd just register as an Independent, anyway, and work for a law that would allow me to still vote in a primary.

    But it's not going to happen here, anyway.  The Republicans won't let it happen in Wisconsin, where they have so much fun messing with Democratic slates.  Why?  Because Democrats are less organized and more likely to have more candidates, so early in the process when we have our primary.

    Today is the anniversary, after all, of the primary in my state that proved a turning point in last year's campaign -- when Republicans, in a conservative squawk radio and print and blog campaign of their own, crossed over en masse here.  

    Parent

    Ugh. The main problem is the (none / 0) (#12)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:17:06 PM EST
    abuse of power by Maldonado, but do you really think that constitutional amendments are in order for these things?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:24:20 PM EST
    And he is granted a vote and he used it. How is that an abuse of power?  He was given the power to use it as he saw fit and he did.  And he even crippled himself as an incumbent doing it.

    Parent
    Maldanado is a termed-out (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:25:05 PM EST
    state Senator.

    Parent
    He fell on a plastic sword? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:31:52 PM EST


    Parent
    ...who has aspirations (none / 0) (#54)
    by cenobite on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 01:10:12 PM EST
    Of seeking higher office, but in California, republican statewide primaries are brutal affairs that will only pass on the most unelectable extreme acolytes of Chairman Grover.

    Thus, this is the "elect Abel Maldanado initiative."


    Parent

    Here are... (none / 0) (#15)
    by atdleft on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:20:06 PM EST
    My thoughts on the budget.

    http://www.theliberaloc.com/2009/02/19/and-we-have-a-budget-yuck/

    All in all, it's a craptastic deal that he were forced to pass in order to prevent the complete collapse of the world's 8th largest economy and the union's most populous state. Still, it's all around disgusting... Environmental laws weakened, drastic cuts to social services that working people actually need now, tax breaks for the ultra-rich that they don't need. It's awful, and it should be a warning to all of us in CA that this system can't go on any longer "as is".

    We need to start by ending the 2/3 rule.

    Big tax break for corporations (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:26:45 PM EST
    coupled with 1% sales tax increase for all and decreasing tax exemption for dependents.  

    Parent
    The 2/3 rule (none / 0) (#44)
    by MrConservative on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:50:05 PM EST
    is definitely retarded.  I think it's one of the problems with direct democracy - people start passing populist measures to "get back" at the legislature and force them "to work together instead of playing all those partisan games", when some things just come down to ideology, and there isn't a simple solution for it.  Huge super majority requirements just ensure that every measure displeases everyone.

    Here's to partisanship!

    And while you're at it, you need to pass a law for non-partisan apportionment of districts.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#93)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 05:24:37 PM EST
    with this

    And while you're at it, you need to pass a law for non-partisan apportionment of districts

    It will never happen, of course, but the logical thing to do would be to take a map of a state and start drawing gridlines vertically and horizontally.  Each district should have a straight edge and be as square/rectangular as much as geographically possible.  Then, you can look at population and combine those regions that have smaller populations - but no drawing weird shapes to fit demographics in.

    Parent

    But then we might end up with (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 05:43:41 PM EST
    2/3 GOP!

    Parent
    Then (none / 0) (#100)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 08:30:23 PM EST
    that's the way the cookie crumbles! :)

    Parent
    Gas tax hike isn't in (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:43:35 PM EST
    the final budget deal.  

    I guess it (none / 0) (#81)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 03:00:04 PM EST
    doesn't matter that CA ranks 48th in Cost of Doing Business, 48th in Business Friendliness and 49th in Cost of Living?  

    Additionally:

    More are moving out of California than in

    Not one bit (none / 0) (#85)
    by cenobite on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 03:45:53 PM EST
    If you're in California and you don't like it, please leave as soon as you can. Houses are cheaper in Nevada because they're in Nevada.

    Parent
    And Oregon, Washington (none / 0) (#89)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 04:29:13 PM EST
    Arizona, Utah, Colorado, etc, etc.

    Parent
    See, CA (none / 0) (#90)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 04:33:05 PM EST
    doesn't miss the people. It is the taxes leaving the state misses.

    Parent
    The man has a point (none / 0) (#101)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 08:46:33 PM EST
    ... though his preferred solution is a few degrees off the mark.

    Top-two primaries will tend to produce less polarized legislatures, in which opportunities for brokerage are amplified.

    Open primaries are a boon to the GOP (none / 0) (#105)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 11:33:51 AM EST
    and a huge barrier for progressives.  Here's why they're such a terrible idea:

    1)    The potentially positive effect of Indies choosing a more progressive candidate in the Dem primaries is hugely outweighed by the negative effect of crossover Republicans deliberately spoiling the chances of our best progressive candidates.  Rush Limbaugh has some 20 million listeners, and he specifically directed his brainless followers last year to crossover and vote for who he thought was the Dems' worst (most easily beat) candidate.  States with closed elections showed increases in Dem party enrollment.  This is not even a "hint, hint" strategy, it's blatantly destructive of the election process and hinders our party in every state that allows it, especially in the South.  
    2)    People are more inspired to vote if they're acting out of negativity.  It's sad, but true, and is why wedge issues work so well for the right wing. ("Go vote against that liberal candidate who supports baby killers and queers," is a much more motivating message than "Here's our Repub candidate, he's a good guy, please don't notice that he's funded by big oil or war profiteers...").  Last year, we saw this in action when the GOP realized they couldn't even get their people to the polls for the primary, so they engineered a huge GOTV effort to vote against us in our Dem primaries.  The GOP has nothing to stand on anymore, they have deserted what few enlightened goals their party used to represent (e.g.: small, efficient government).  Their only chance of coming back into power is to attack and destroy the left.  Open primaries give them a tool to do just that, because their own candidates are not inspiring or motivating enough to get their voters to the polls.  Our candidates, on the other hand, get them talking about politics and calling in to talk radio and reading right wing blogs, etc. etc.  
    3)    Encouraging voting for the right wing's idea of our "worst" candidate (which is actually the best candidate for most progressives) is a blatant attack on our party and it's beliefs.  But even worse, it denigrates the entire democratic process.  It not only forces centrists on us, it turns our elections into a joke, with the "politics of distraction" succeeding over the concept of personal responsibility for our government.  Remember also that until last year, our biggest problem was just getting our side to vote.
    4)    The right wing cheats more than our side does.  Try to get a bunch of liberals to register as Republicans and you'll see what I mean.  On the other hand, open elections are a winning strategy for the GOP.

    DaringGrace, I usually completely agree with you, but on this one, I think the potential danger to progressive goals and even to our democratic system hugely outweighs any good that can come from the possibility that Indies could swing our party more left.  

    California's Abyss Due To This? | 104 comments (104 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment