The November 2014 ballot could bring us the opportunity for a massive change in our elections laws. If one proposed measure passes, the taxpayers will no longer pay for partisan presidential primaries. Instead the political parties will pay for them. But, they have a choice, instead they could create a Caucus situation. Instead of spending money on mailers and media, it will be grass roots that count—real people.
This is going to be a major measure on the 2014 ballot, if it gets enough signatures. It could change California politics as much as the Hiram Johnson reforms a century ago.
What do you think? Do you support the current election methods and procedures?
Stephen Frank, California Political News and Views Editorial 8/9/13
Democrat former State Senator Steve Peace and former Republican Assemblyman Jeff Marston have submitted a ballot measure to the Secretary of State that would end partisan presidential and Central Committee primaries and elections.
“The proposed initiative, which is pending at the state attorney general’s office, would discontinue the use of public funding to hold party elections, such as county central committee and presidential primary elections.
By cutting off the public funding, Peace hopes political parties would open their primaries to all voters, not just members of their own party. The secretary of state and elections officials currently use public funds to certify candidates, draw up ballots, run polling places and tally votes.
If they have their way, Political Parties would have to spend millions to hold partisan presidential primaries. For California Republicans, at first blush it is a disaster. Where would the Party get the money, just to hold a primary, that since it is held in June, usually has very little meaning to the final determination of the national Nominee for President.
For years I have been supportive of the idea of holding Caucuses to nominate our presidential and legislative candidates. Instead of folks using money to buy elections, how about using the nomination process to build a grassroots organization instead? The Democrats already have the forced labor and money of union members. Our political workers are volunteers and donors voluntarily donate to our candidates. Democrats have paid leadership—Republicans do not pay its leaders, they volunteer.
In Texas, they hold conventions with more than 10,000 attending. States like Iowa hold Caucuses with tens of thousands participating. Why not use the Caucuses to stop the rich millionaires and billionaires from buy elections and then selling out GOP values and principles (i.e. think Meg Whitman). Instead really make it one man, one vote—show up at a caucus and vote—a true democratic action in a Republic.
Current campaigns are based on mailed brochures, TV, radio and newspaper ads and the candidates meeting with the special interests to get money, instead of walking precincts and greeting and responding to the average, non connected, voter.
This will be a radical approach to campaigns—answering voters in a personal way—using the Caucus to build organizations, precinct operations, individual use of the Internet and social media instead of the professional slick efforts we see today in many campaigns.
Is it the role of government and the taxpayers to finance the election process? Elections are important for a Republic. Maybe the General Election is a responsible expenditure. But, the choosing of candidates to represent a Party—or to be in a runoff—let the candidates pay for that or create a Caucus system, so that at the lowest level folks can vote. We already have a law that says initiatives may only be on the General Election. So for November and have the Parties pay for the Primary—or hold a Caucus.
Thanks to Peace and Marston, the debate has begun. It is time political parties stop using tax dollars for elections.
Would you attend a Caucus? Do you prefer to have tax dollars and the very rich and special interests select the candidates (we actually no longer have Party nominees)
