[Lnc-business] Top Two

Fri Jul 18 20:07:56 EDT 2014

Daniel,

There are some crucial differences between the Louisiana system and that of
California and Washington.  In Louisiana your primary is really the general
election held in November, and a candidate can win with 50%+ of the vote.
If no candidate gets over 50%, there is a special run-off only a month
later between the top two candidates.  So the election that really counts
-- the one that will attract the most voters and provide the most
visibility for the ballot-qualified candidates -- is in fact that regular
election which occurs simultaneously with the rest of the nation.
Furthermore, the filing fees or in-lieu-of-filing-fee petition requirements
for candidates are not out of reach for LP candidates in Louisiana.  So
it's feasible (even if not necessarily easy) to get your candidates on the
ballot.

In California our jungle primary is a true primary, held in June, and the
top two candidates must meet in November regardless of their vote
percentages.  The fees and petitioning requirements for minor party
candidates, which used to be very attainable, are now the same as those of
the major party candidates, i.e., very high (since all of our districts are
so large).  So getting an LP candidate on the June primary ballot is
expensive and serves very little purpose: There is almost no chance that
the LP candidate will appear on the November general election ballot, which
voters still think of as the "real" election.

If California's system matched Louisiana's system, with much more
reasonable fees and petitioning requirements, I probably wouldn't mind it.
We'd be able to field a good number of candidates for the November ballot,
and their presence would impact the races.  I'd be fine with following the
November general election with quick runoffs in those instances where
nobody received an outright majority.  But as it is now, the
California/Washington jungle primaries are disasters for minor parties, as
well as for voters whose choices are not infrequently limited to two
candidates from a single major party in an election held five months later.

Dan Wiener

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
wrote:

> Members,
>
> As to Top Two, Louisiana currently has a non partisan open blanket
> primary…or as we call it..a jungle primary. All affiliations run at the
> same time and if nobody gets over 50%, the top two go to a run off.
> We were the 4th fastest growing affiliate last year in states that have
> party recognition.  Our Executive Director got nervous when a bill was
> proposed last year that would have moved Federal Elections to closed
> primaries.  One of the sticking points for a lot of people to switch is
> because they are worried the Libertarian candidate will cause one of the
> big two to lose the race.  What having a top two system allows us to do is
> overcome one of the biggest sticking points people have by saying…vote your
> conscience in the primary and then do what you feel you gotta do in the run
> off.
>
> I just related this all back to Wendy(our ED) about how you guys are all
> worried about it.  She LOLed. She was freaked out because she was scared it
> was going to mess up our recruitment when a Republican Rep put up a bill
> about moving to closed Federal primaries in La. He never brought it to
> committee .Myself..I can grow the party in any climate..its all about
> altering and tailoring the message.  Though when its working…don’t try and
> fix it…wait a second…
>
> HELP!!! Louisiana suffers from TOP TWO!! Send us money!! Send us MONEY!!!
> HELP!!!!…
>
> https://secure.piryx.com/donate/3rejnkrb/Libertarian-Party-of-Louisiana/
>
> Did it work?
>
> Daniel Hayes
> LNC R7 Alternate
>
>
>
> On Jul 17, 2014, at 4:32 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:
>
> > The LNC can, I believe, spend money to oppose top-two in Oregon.  It
> > is simpler, if the Libertarian Party of Oregon is FEC filing to
> > transfer funds to them to spend in Oregon.  That's my read on it,
> > though I'll defer to our lawyer and/or FEC consultant if they believe
> > my interpretation is incorrect.
> >
> > The Libertarian Party of Oregon has placed language in the voter guide
> > before to argue for or against initiatives, and can do so in this case
> > as well.  It costs $1200.  I believe we would also be able to place a
> > separate argument as the LNC, though if we choose to do so, we should
> > coordinate with the Libertarian Party of Oregon to ensure we're not
> > making the same arguments in both.
> >
> > If top two passes, the Libertarian Party of Oregon would still be
> > recognized as a political party, it would just become much less likely
> > that their candidates would appear on the November ballot.  See, e.g.
> > California.
> >
> > -Nick
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Joshua Katz <joshua.katz at lp.org> wrote:
> >> Is it within the jurisdiction of the LNC to take action to oppose
> top-two in
> >> Oregon, perhaps by setting aside money for a legal challenge or
> advertising
> >> before the vote?  If so, I suggest someone with the ability move to do
> so,
> >> as I do not think our affiliate there is in a position to fight it,
> being
> >> somewhat busy with other things?
> >>
> >> As a side note, does if top-two passes, does that impact the JC
> decision?
> >> Will there still be such a thing as SOS recognition for a party?
> >>
> >> Joshua A. Katz
> >>
> >> Region 8 (Region of Badassdom) Alternate
> >> Libertarian National Committee
> >>
> >> Chair, Libertarian Party of Connecticut
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Lnc-business mailing list
> >> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lnc-business mailing list
> > Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>

-- 
*"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we
guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we
compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if
this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare
the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or
experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it
disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key
to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it
doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”*
-- Richard Feynman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20140718/76e36c0b/attachment-0002.html>