What's cute is how this is covered like news, rather than the normal course of business. (See: Pescetti, Anthony; Briggs, Mike) Maldonado has always been relatively moderate and was ripe for the picking by his cannabalistic party. Let no good deed go unpunished, y'all! Such political theater, no? Somehow, the "Legislature's" failure to act is felt as a Democratic failure (see e.g. - and don't even get me started on that being in the Capitol where it is) while no press pays attention to this equally valid counter-argument.
But nevermind all that now. It's done. Until voters kill the necessary ballot measures they'll face in May, of course. Eek! Remember how well the last measure-only election went. Doh!
The Bad: Mr. Maldonado, an Open Primary again, really? Really! Really:
A proposed constitutional amendment would go before voters in June 2010 instituting a "top-two" primary system, which would effectively eliminate party primary ballots, erase candidate party labels in primary elections and allow voters to choose the two candidates - of whatever party - who would compete in the general election.Could it get us more moderate candidates? Maybe. And yes, that would be great. Seriously - it would be really, really great. But we just revised the redistricting system, so should we see if that works first? When conducting experiments in democracy, let's decrease the variables in any given election.
And I'll never support removing party ID from ballots. Non-partisan elections are a fiction helping no one.
Of course, I understand why this policy change is important to him now (see above). And I don't think he deserves what he's about to get from his own party (which needed him to vote for that budget, make no mistake). I probably wouldn't help him (or his party) anyway:
Political consultant Paul Mitchell ran the numbers on which primaries would have moved on to a runoff under the Maldonado's "top two" plan:So it's not going to help him. I still wish he wasn't facing certain replacement, however. Hats off to you, for taking one for the team.
"The biggest effect is the “Top Two” twist. With Top Two you would have districts in which either two Republicans or two Democrats move on to the General against each other. Then the Republicans have to chose among two Democrats – probably giving the election to the more moderate candidate.
"Just looking at the 2008 primary elections, and dismissing the “crossover” votes for this analysis, check out the wild General Elections we would have had this past November:
SD 3: Leno vs. Migden
SD 9: Hancock vs. Chan
SD 23: Pavley vs. Levine
SD 25: Wright vs. Dymally
AD 8: Cabaldon vs. Yamada
AD 14: Skinner vs. Thurmond
AD 19: Hill vs. Papan
AD 46: Perez vs. Chavez
AD 52: Hall vs. Harris-Forster
AD 62: Carter vs. Navarro"
Interestingly, no Republican races would have gone to a runoff.