Prop 14 Creates Dem on Dem Violence

I want more Dem-on-Dem fights (0.00 / 0)

Two chances to vote against incumbents while holding the seat!

Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 00:48:01 AM UTC

Prop 14 stomps on liberals -- and is meant to. (0.00 / 0)

In seats where two Dems make the runoff, the Dem who appeals more to Republicans will win, defeating the one who appeals more to Democrats.  In a district split 60/40 for Dems, more than three-fourths of Dems could agree on a candidate, but that person would still lose to the person drawing Republican votes plus the most conservative one-fourth of Dems.  In such districts, Prop 14 would be an anti-labor, anti-gay, anti-choice wet dream.  If this passes, progressives will rue the day.

---

by: DavidT @ Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 01:04:10 AM UTC

It's actually conservative Reps who should fear Prop 14 (0.00 / 0)

There's no question that there are more "safe" Dem seats than "safe" Rep seats, so there's nothing in this for Dems, on a purely partisan basis, whatsoever.

But any analysis which suggests that every safe Dem seat will necessarily have a contested runoff election is pure fantasy.  There's no chance most Dem incumbents will be subject to a serious challenge in either the primary or the runoff election.  And not just Steinberg or John Perez but the vast majority of incumbents (of both parties) who are usually free from a serious primary challenge.  Once in a decade you'll have a serious primary challenge, as we saw with Migden and Bronshvag before that, but it's very rare and will stay rare, given the advantages of incumbency.

The only serious concern is with in open seats, the legitimate concern being a rerun of the primary campaign but now with independents and the "minority party", which would be no doubt expensive and, from a party perspective at least, pointless.

Lest Dems be horrified by this prospect, Prop 14 actually works to their advantage by virtue of the overwhelming numbers of Dems in "safe" Dem seats versus the less overwhelming numbers in "safe" Rep seats.  Because there are so few of them, there is no chance Rep voters will upend the progressive Dem in most Bay Area and LA City seats -- whereas the majority of Rep seats can be upended to the more moderate Rep by Dems, if in the first place that seat can support a two-Rep runoff, which in most cases will not be the case as the numbers for Dems in most Reps is actually respectable.  Not all, but most.

This all assumes that the redistricted seats ends up with roughly 70 "safe" seats out of 80 and roughly 35 "safe" seats out of 40.  If the Prop 11 commission can somehow generate 40 competitive seats out of 80 and 20 of 40 (which I don't believe will be possible but we'll find out soon enough what the census says) then it's a different ballgame altogether.  But IF we assume the redistricting generates roughly 45 "safe" seats for the Dems and 30 "safe" seats for the Reps, with 5 partisan competitive seats; and IF we assume no changes to term limits, Prop 14 should actually be a field day for the Dems as it will produce more "moderate Reps but no more "moderate" Dems -- confounding expectations which is usually how "reforms" like this go.

In short, there are very few Dem seats where there's a large enough Rep voter base to throw the runoff election to the moderate Dem.  Some for sure, such as in the Central Valley and an isolated pocket here and there.  But in those districts you're likely to see the Dems nominate a more moderate nominee in the first place.  Those who should fear Prop 14 are the more conservative Rep candidates in "safe" Republican districts, who can in fact be effectively ganged up on by moderate Reps and moderate and progressive Dems, in contrast to the prospect of progressive Dems being ganged up on by independents and Reps in the vast majority of safe Dem seats.

For what it's worth, Prop 14 would have a substantially more negative impact on conservative Reps than progressive Dems.  It may or may not be good policy on other grounds, but not on the ground that it would set back the progressive policy agenda.

---

by: Centrist @ Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 01:44:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I actually disagree with this (0.00 / 0)

The primaries will feature the same low-information voters - and very few DTS voters - as there are now.  As a result, power and the ability to get out voters in a low-turnout primary will be based on your institutional ability to get endorsements, volunteer support, etc.  Therefore, these Dem-on-Dem fights will, in most cases, be between two almost identical candidates from an ideological perspective, and the subsequent fights personality-based.  That's pretty much how it's worked out everywhere this has been tried.  Open primaries simply do not moderate legislatures.  Abel Maldonado is wrong.  But you knew that.

---

by: David Dayen @ Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 01:51:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Depends on the specific district and dynamics. (0.00 / 0)

Mostly, I hope we don't have to find out.  But it is whistling past the graveyard to  think that a candidate who currently would win the general because he is the only Dem on the ballot in a heavily Dem district, will not change behavior if required to face a Dem opponent in a general election with a significant Republican turnout.  (And the reverse in Republican districts).  There will be higher motivation for challengers; the effective center of gravity on issues will be different; and the parties will be forced to spend money to defend districts they currently can assume victory in.

To take one issue:  same-sex marriage.  Many legislators were able to vote for this when they did because the electorate that mattered to them was the Democratic primary.  If they had to look over their shoulder at a possible challenge from a more conservative Dem who would have cross-party appeal in a general, the progress on that legislation would have been much, much slower.

Of course, the design of districts has a lot to do with outcomes also.  

---

by: DavidT @ Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 04:29:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Prop 14 lets candidates hide Party affiliation, and promote back-room deals! (0.00 / 0)

Propostion 14 lets candidates hide their Party affiliation from voters--and yes, most voters DO want to know a candidate's party affiliation.  This will encourage candidates to mislead voters even more than they already mislead them.  

Proposition will also encourage backroom deals by the most well-heeled interests in the district and state.  A likely scenario is as follows: Since the top two candidates make it to November, parties and certain interest groups will not want too many of their preferred party's candidates running, risking that the final two candidates might both be from the 'other' party.  So, legislative leadership, party big-wigs, large contributors and various corporate interests will try to create back-room deals to narrow down the number of candidates before the voters get a chance to weigh in.  Remember, there is no ranked choice voting here.  IF Reeps are successful in keeping their list of candidates to two in some districts, and the less-disciplined Dems have 8 candidates running, we could have two Reeps in November for a somewhat Dem-leaning district.  

Prop. 14 is a horrible idea that is only on the ballot because Abel Maldonado knows (by his own admission) that Latino Republicans generally have a tough time winning partisan Republican primaries.  

Finally, Prop. 14 could drive UP the cost of elections.  Not a good thing for those supportive of grassroots politics and good government.  

VOTE NO on 14 please.

---

by: DanKalb @ Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 02:06:44 AM UTC

democratic financing arrangements? (0.00 / 0)

would it be legal for two democrats, when running against each other in a runoff, to agree to cap out their campaign spending at an amount reasonable to reach the voters of the district, and then do the rest of their fundraising to help democrats elsewhere?  it seems like refusing to do so, if this became standard, could become damaging to candidates in progressive districts like the bay area where people want to see dems win broadly, not just in their own district.

---

by: MikeD @ Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 02:36:05 AM UTC

The less gridlock in elections, the better (0.00 / 0)

I don't see this as reform, it doesn't make anything better. Maldonado is making the election system the problem, when it is his party that doesn't support moderates anymore. If he wants change, he should work on his own party as opposed to turning our elections upside down.  

---

by: D-Westlake Village @ Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:53:24 AM UTC

i'm not sure that can be done. (0.00 / 0)

the moderates have largely been driven out of the party, and the ones that are left - campbell, mcpherson, etc - have to kowtow to the right in a way that the democratic moderates don't have to kowtow to the left.

---

by: aphrael @ Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 19:18:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]