Prop 14 - Unfortunate Outcome

The worst result of yesterday's primary was the passage of Proposition 14. Washington state passed a similar law in 2008, and ended up with zero minor party candidates in November 2008. Further, the law, denies political parties the right to organize themselves as they see fit. In my opinion, this violates the freedom of association that political parties should have to nominate their own candidates, as they are specifically prohibited from nominating candidates. Over at Temple of Mut, Mutjodnet had this to say in recommending a No vote:

14 – NO: Passage of this proposition will lead to a system that tampers with the will of people registered and involved with a specific party while hindering the ability for third party candidates to compete. Furthermore, additional elements of the proposition will prohibit write-in candidates in the general election and allow candidates to conceal their party affiliation from the voter (undermining the transparency needed in a healthy democracy).

No write in candidates either? I am sorry I missed that, Quixotic though it may be, it also seems un-American to prohibit write-ins. Unfortunately, I am not sure what constitutional remedies are available. At the Election Law Blog there is an excellent explanation on the likely failure of a court challenge.

Possibly, the minor parties will have to get together with the major parties to mount a repeal effort down the road. The six parties held a joint press coverage on May 11 in Sacramento to express their mutual opposition to Proposition 14. In the mean time, I think the lack of third party challenges or write-ins in the November election will have the effect of relieving candidates from considering issues important to smaller groups of voters.

About That Third Party

I have seen some discussions about conditions being favorable for a third party in the United States to rise up and challenge the Democrats and Republicans. Much is made of the rise of Nick Clegg and Britain's perennial third place finishers, the Liberal Democrats. Miscues by the Tories and Labour's Gordon Brown, who famously called a long time Labour party voter bigoted, would seem to have put the wind at the back of Mr. Clegg, who performed well in televised debates. Additionally, references are made to Ross Perot, and his self financed campaign that garnered just under one fifth of the vote in 1992 and may have cost George Bush the election.

However, I think the results that are coming in from Britain, and Mr. Perot's efforts show what an uphill battle it is for a third party to make enough in roads to be more than a bit player. The Lib Dems seem set to place a distant third in these elections despite polling very close to 27% of the popular vote in the run up to the elections. They may yet be part of a coalition formed by the Conservatives, but if so, will be a very junior partner.

What is the lesson? I think that the Tea Party can be very effective at driving the direction of the debate and adding energy to politics, but forming an independent political party actually fritters away our strength. By shaping primaries and forcing politicians to cater to our concerns, we have more influence than through actually electing candidates. I think Sarah Palin has missed the boat on this by endorsing Carly Fiorina. We should use our influence to move all politicians in our direction. I know that Temple of Mut is disappointed by Sarah's endorsements. But when the general election comes around we need to unseat liberal Democrats, even with moderate Republicans. Look at how Nancy Pelosi passed Obamacare with Blue Dog votes. I think fears that Carly won't be Republican enough if she wins the nomination aren't well founded.

Click here to stay up to date with electoral returns from "across the pond."