[Lnc-business] Top Two

Daniel Hayes danielehayes at icloud.com
Thu Jul 31 19:18:16 EDT 2014 

Ron,

I am in a state that has top two the way people should want it.  The trick for top two to be a positive so they tell me is for it to be a non partisan open blanket primary in which if someone gets over 50% then that person wins.  It makes people pay attention to the election. Apparently top 2 the way it is proposed in Oregon there is no chance for someone to win outright in the primary and that makes interest poor and libertarians don't get noticed. I dunno...I am still not there thinking it's the end of the world...I think it's better opportunity for  libertarians to break through in a low interest election...but..I don't have to live that one.  Now if this threatens ballot access...that's a bigger deal and another matter.

Daniel Hayes 
Region 7 AR

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 31, 2014, at 3:38 AM, Ron Windeler <rowindeler at aol.com> wrote:
> 
>     I see "top two" laws as reducing the abusive power of BIG GOVERNMENT to interfere with the election process.  It eliminates the justification for government to regulate political parties, which they have done abusively despite no Constitutional enumeration since the beginning of political parties.  I don't know about your state, but Alaska's Constitution doesn't mention political parties or primary elections either. 
>     Closed or open primaries provide huge subsidies to the incumbent parties (and tiny subsidies that we don't need to third parties)  I don't care how comfortable you may be with the known evil, it is the tool that the incumbent parties are using successfully to neutralize our best efforts. They hope that you will be fooled into trying to win a game where your enemies make all the rules. 
>     I know because I was involved when Alaskan libertarians elected the highest percentage of high office holders ever back in the 80's. (3 legislators out of 60).   (during our brief 15 minutes of fame, we did eliminate the state income tax and institute the permanent dividend savings account thereby slowing the growth of the most socialist state government in the nation).  
>      In response, the incumbent parties changed the rules and made us into their lapdogs. Since then, we haven't elected anyone to high office or passed any laws because we do what they want us to do.  When the State Supreme Court legalized possession of marijuana, we were even unable to prevent the Legislature from unconstitutionally re-criminalizing it.  
>     We waste all of our resources to get over 8,000 fake registered libertarians  and then have nothing left to reach out to them and attempt to influence their votes or their opinions.  We have no resources left to attract good candidates or support their campaigns. Partly because of my influence, we have begun to break out of that purgatory, but have a long way to go to become effective again.
>     We should favor "top two" because it is easily converted into instant runoff or approval voting and creates a better situation for libertarian candidates.  In typical elections, it removes the threat that voting for the libertarian candidate will spoil the lessor of two evils' chances. In the unlikely event that our candidate actually comes in 1st or 2nd, it removes all other spoilers and increases our chances of winning. What's not to like?
> Ron Windeler
> rowindeler at aol.com
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Norm Olsen <region1rep at doneDad.com>
> To: lnc-business <lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> Sent: Wed, Jul 30, 2014 1:12 pm
> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Top Two
> 
> With regard to "Top Two":
> 
> Oregon is not the only state where Top Two is a threat to existing ballot
> access for Libertarians.
> 
> ARIZONA:
> The Republicans repealed their midnight "pseudo Top Two" legislation only to
> preserve their ability to introduce similar legislation in the future.  If
> the recall of this bill by the general electorate had succeeded (as the
> polls showed it would), the legislature would be prohibited from ever again
> passing similar legislation in the future.  Thus the "repeal" was not so
> much a gesture of futility, but more an act to keep their powder dry.  It
> can be expected that similar legislation will be proposed in the future.
> 
> MONTANA:
> The "Top Two" initiative in Montana was taken off the 2014 ballot only
> because the initiative title exceeded the constitutional limit of 100 words.
> The Republicans will likely try again and not make the same mistake twice.
> 
> Top Two in both cases above is more like that which exists in WA and CA,
> which means that there would be an open primary and then a general election
> where only R's and D's would appear on the general election ballot.
> 
> Top Two and "pseudo Top Two" is alive and well in many states.  I call it
> ballot access in reverse.  That is losing ballot access in states where it
> previous existed (to a reasonable degree anyway).
> 
> I support (and would appreciate like minded members of this committee to
> identify themselves) making "confronting reverse ballot access" a core
> function of the LNC.
> 
> Norm
> --
> Norman T Olsen
> Regional Representative, Region I
> Libertarian National Committee
> 7931 S Broadway, PMB 102
> Littleton, Colorado  80122-2710
> 303-263-4995
> Norman.Olsen at lp.org
> 
> "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then
> you win." -- Gandhi
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of
> Daniel Hayes
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 5:12 PM
> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Top Two
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20140731/1e61fa50/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Lnc-business mailing list