Arizonans Disappointed With Election Results – an informal coalition which until now was not even named – are back on the ballot this November.
Of course, they don't call themselves ADWER. This time they're calling themselves the Open Government Committee and they're touting the Open Elections/Open Government Act. That sounds good until you realize that general elections will be closed to all but two candidates on the ballot. That means many voters will not have any candidates of their own party to vote for and that independents and third parties will have limited or no access to the ballot.
We've been to this rodeo before. The Clean Elections initiative in 1998 was also concocted by a coalition upset that more people like themselves couldn't get elected. The shiny name notwithstanding, Clean Elections was just a grab of taxpayers’ money to fund political campaigns.
But Clean Elections has been a colossal failure. The number of legislative candidates running for office failed to increase as was promised. There was no spike in the number of successful challengers, while incumbents were more than happy to take the “clean” money and the protection from being outspent. Most observers believe the political effect of “Welfare for Politicians” was to make the Legislature more dominated by the extremes.
ADWER moved on. The Independent Redistricting Commission was designed to remove partisan influence from that most political of all exercises, redistricting. That didn't happen of course, although in the latest cycle it did change the dominant party in the process from the majority Republicans to the Democrats. Still, the maps aren't really different from what a partisan legislature would have drawn except that more incumbents are running against each other. Big whoop.
When campaign finance reforms also failed to transform anything, it's on to Open Elections. Once again, their motives are pure. The initiative itself claims its purposes are to "ensure that every person… has the right to vote at any election for any candidate" and to "provide more choices to all the candidates and voters of Arizona." That's a real head-scratcher, since it actually does the opposite.
The advocates are more forthcoming. "The election system should be reshaped to encourage a greater level of moderation," according to David Berman of the Morrison Institute. Phoenix lawyer Danny Ortega is supporting the initiative because it will elect fewer Republicans like those from the "extreme right" who supported SB 1070. (Yes, that 1070, the bill supported then and now by a majority of Arizonans). Yep, certain people need to be excluded from the process.
California has done us the great favor of showing us what not to do. Their first "top two" primary was in June and the results weren't pretty. Just seven independent or third-party candidates made the legislative or congressional ballots as opposed to 192 in 2010. Fully 28 general election contests will feature candidates of only one party, mostly liberals vs. liberals and conservatives vs. conservatives. So much for inter-party competition and the rights of minorities to have any influence in the process.
Voters apparently weren't too excited over the new system. Just 18% bothered to vote in these newly important elections. The law of unintended consequences also prevailed in California's heavily Latino 69th Assembly District where a white Democrat and Latino Republican will square off after four Latinos cancelled each other out. On the other hand, several capable independents went down and no third-party candidate will be around to influence any election.
If minorities of all stripes will be the losers in Open Government, who will be the winners? It will be political organizations with power and discipline. The major parties will soon learn the folly of having several attractive candidates in the same race. They will select their chosen candidate behind closed doors rather than in an open election and the key to electoral success will be enforcing the decision. Challenges against incumbents will be hopeless. Sham candidates will become common.
ADWER organizers are once again attempting to manipulate the political process to their own advantage. It's doubtful they will even achieve their desired results. But we do know that we'll be left with an election process that's less open and less democratic. This time, let's just say No.
Arizona Willie posted at 7:48 am on Sun, Aug 26, 2012.
If Patterson is against it --- well that is the perfect argument FOR it.
chatmandu002 posted at 10:25 am on Sun, Aug 26, 2012.
Vote NO on the open initiative and the tax increase initiative.
Richard Winger posted at 10:56 am on Sun, Aug 26, 2012.
This op-ed didn't mention Washington state, or Louisiana, the only other two states that use this system besides California. In Washington, the state's own expert witness in defense of the system published an article in the California Journal of Public Policy early this year. He studied how that system has worked in Washington state, and concluded it hasn't made the slightest difference in who gets elected, or in how they behave. His research matches the research of the other two political scientists who have done the most work studying polarization and partisanship in state legislatures, Boris Shor and Seth Masket.
This op-ed also didn't mention that the ACLU of both northern California and southern California opposed the system when it was on the ballot in California, because they knew it would cut the the amount of political dialogue in the general election season. And this op-ed didn't mention that the only two state Leagues of Women Voters who have studied the system, the Leagues of Washington state and Arizona, both oppose it.
IceCat posted at 11:00 am on Sun, Aug 26, 2012.
Earth to Patterson; this initiative didn't qualify for the ballot. You might just want to keep up with the news.
Sam Wercinski posted at 5:03 pm on Sun, Aug 26, 2012.
Dr. Patterson made some incorrect statements that need to be corrected. I appreciate the mention of Arizona’s Citizens Clean Elections Act and the TOP TWO primary initiative (it MIGHT STILL make it onto the ballot if the new court challenges swing the proponents' way). It gives me the opportunity to invite him and you to our forums on the 2012 Ballot Measures and Clean Elections. Details at www.AZadvocacy.org.
Readers deserve to get the facts about Clean Elections.
FIRST, Clean Elections has never used taxpayer money. Those who say it does are mis-informed or worse, lying to mis-inform others. Since 1998, the Clean Elections Fund has actually given over $64,000,000.00 to the General Fund (by definition and AZ Supreme Court affirmation, taxpayer money gets deposited into the General Fund and then is appropriated by the legislature). The Clean Elections Fund is public money but it is not taxpayer money. This is an important distinction. Voters intentionally established non-taxpayer money sources to fund the provisions of the Act so that other programs would not be negatively impacted fiscally.
Dr. Patterson probably recalls why voters passed the Clean Elections Act in 1998 - in response to AZSCAM, the impeachment of Gov. Mecham, removal from office of Gov. Symington and a number of other “money corrupting politicians” scandals in both political parties. Immediately after passage of the Act, Big Money began to attack the system because it reduced their dominant influence over elected officials, as the primary source for campaign cash.
Opponents of Clean Elections have spent millions over the past 14 years attacking the system and trying, unsuccessfully, to overturn what voters continue to support (78% of likely 2012 voters approve of the Clean Elections system and public financing option). Because of Big Money’s PR advantage, their mis-information is often repeated by other political insiders and the media. Clean Elections remains Arizona’s toughest anti-corruption law, passed by voters to hold politicians accountable to the voters, not donors. It's the only campaign finance law that allows an elected official, who must voluntarily participate in the system, to be removed from office for cheating and breaking campaign laws. Those running with private, lobbyist and corporate money can break the laws and, as a cost of "doing business," get a fine, but not be removed from office for cheating.
Americans know that Big Money uses campaign cash to gain access to elected officials (who need more campaign cash to get re-elected). Then, they get access to taxpayer money for greater profits at the expense of job creation and other voter priorities. The continuing Fiesta Bowl scandal, felony convictions of the CEO and COO, and indictments of legislators in other money scandals this year is more proof.
Lying about Clean Elections is protected FREE SPEECH but it is neither civil nor good for Democracy. Let's not blame Clean Elections for all the extreme legislatures across the nation or members of Congress - they don't have Clean Elections after all. Many others would say all the lies and mis-information put out by Big Money and insiders are the reasons extreme politicians keep getting elected. Clean Elections does allow ordinary citizens to run for office who aren't political insiders or have access to Big Money, special interest support. That opens the playing field, increases competition and provides voters with more choices on Election Day. What's wrong with that? But most importantly, Clean Elections remains our toughest anti-corruption law and reduces the impact of money influencing elected officials. We need to strengthen this law.
Please join us at an upcoming forum to learn more about Clean Elections and the 2012 Ballot Measures. Details at www.AZadvocacy.org. We'll deliver facts so you can make an informed decision and vote.
Respectfully,
Sam Wercinski
Executive Director
Arizona Advocacy Network
samkat posted at 7:02 pm on Sun, Aug 26, 2012.
Since almost all of our state republicans are against it, I am inclined to say it is a good thing. I am sick and tired of having our mainstream citizens governed by a small minority of flat earth religious nuts. Its time the middle class regained the initiative as opposed to the big money interests.
chatmandu002 posted at 11:51 am on Mon, Aug 27, 2012.
Still voting "NO" if it does shows up on the ballot.
mrconservative posted at 12:40 pm on Mon, Aug 27, 2012.
Same here, chat.
Engaged Voter posted at 2:05 pm on Tue, Aug 28, 2012.
" I am sick and tired of having our mainstream citizens governed by a small minority of flat earth religious nuts"
Me too, samkat...notice the flat earther comments right after yours. ;)
mrconservative posted at 10:47 pm on Thu, Aug 30, 2012.
Willie writes -
"If Patterson is against it --- well that is the perfect argument FOR it."
You're an idiot, Willie, for disagreeing with Tom. This means that it's possible that none of your liberal canidates will make it on the ballot. Do you really want that?
I doubt it.
mrconservative posted at 10:49 pm on Thu, Aug 30, 2012.
"notice the flat earther comments right after yours."
What does that have to do with "flat earther?" Chat is hardly a flat earther. He's a conservative, like me. That makes him smart.
Engaged Voter posted at 4:37 pm on Fri, Aug 31, 2012.
I wonder why mrconservative is so afraid of me?
He won't answer any questions or back any claims he makes, he just weaves, lies, dodges, and insults. And he thinks that makes him "smart".
What a pathetic excuse of a man.
mrconservative posted at 10:12 pm on Fri, Aug 31, 2012.
I have something that you have too.
It's called a heart. I know how to use mine; I've had it for almost 28 years.
I have backed up my claims. You can't accept it. Call it intuition. I just know the truth. That's all. I really can't "prove" my claims based on the way that you demand it. You'll never accept it. That's why I don't bother.
But I will continue to fast and pray for you, EV. You definitely need it.
Intuition - "the state of being aware of or knowing something without having to discover or perceive it, or the ability to do this"
Centrist posted at 10:16 pm on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.
Mr c can't "prove" anything he says. So we are asked to believe in his "intuition". Does he just not even read what he writes?