Effort in South Dakota Aims to Drop Parties

[think]

Effort in South Dakota Aims to Drop Parties

By KRISTINA PETERSON - March 28, 2016 7:57 p.m. ET

Voters to consider initiative to largely end party labels on ballots, set up open primaries

SIOUX FALLS, S.D.—In South Dakota, where the shadow of Mount Rushmore’s presidents looms large, political parties could become nearly invisible on ballots.

The antiestablishment anger helping to propel the presidential campaigns of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders across the country is taking a different twist here: fueling support among disenchanted voters for a ballot initiative with the lofty goal of getting rid of both political parties—as much as possible, at least.

When South Dakotans turn up at the polls in November, they will be asked to decide whether to eliminate party labels next to most candidates’ names on future ballots. The amendment to the state constitution would also establish open primary elections, with the top two vote-getters from any party advancing to the general election in most races.

The proposal is controversial among the state’s politically connected, but has resonated with some voters tired of partisan bickering. South Dakotans already vote for many local city and school officials without party labels, and some are ready to extend that practice well up the ticket. The ballot initiative would remove affiliations for all federal, state and county elected offices, but not presidential candidates.

“It would make people look for something different: what does [the candidate] believe in?” said Sioux Falls resident Regie Poppenga, a Democrat who supports Mr. Trump for president. The two political parties “haven’t been serving our purpose,” said Mr. Poppenga, a paint contractor. “That’s why Trump and Sanders are doing so good.”...

Read more:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/effort-in-south-dakota-aims-to-drop-parties-1459209463

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. Works well in California, though it does not apply to Presidential elections.

[still_one]

3. California has a modified open primary to avoid Constitutional issues

California has adopted a new modified open primary that only applies to office holders rather than Presidential delegate selections.

A third alternative is the "modified closed primary", as has been in effect in California since 2001. In California's primary since 2011 the voters are allowed as individual citizens to vote for any candidate, and the top two candidates regardless of party will advance to the general election. The Presidential election is exempt as it is a contest for delegates rather than a direct election for an office.

Prior to the California election reform of 2011, each political party could decide whether or not they wish to allow unaffiliated voters to vote in their party's primary. This appears to avoid the constitutional concerns of both the open and the closed primary. In the 2004 and 2006 primary elections, the Republican, Democratic, and American Independent parties all opted to allow unaffiliated voters to request their party's ballot. However, since the 2008 presidential primary election, only the Democratic and American Independent parties took this option, while the Republican party did not.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_primaries_in_the_United_States

For Presidential elections if you are registered with NPP(no party preference), before the primary, they will send you a card to select which ballot you want, a republican, Democratic, or independent ballot, etc. There is no mixing parties within a ballot for Presidential election primaries

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

11. ^People don't understand how things work in their own states, and playing it out will help expose

this.

In California, almost 3/4 of people registered in the ultra-right wing Independece Party, did so mistakenly. They thought they were registering Independent. That means more than 300,000 Californians will be shut out. They didn't know any better, I'm not convinced you know any better, either. Play it out. People need to learn the mechanics. And if you're uncertain, this gives Hillary a gigantic advantage. I'm sure she's kind of anxious about how it will play out when people find out they can't participate.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/360000-californians-register-for-wrong-party.html

[still_one]

2. SC has already ruled what SD is doing violates a party's freedom of association

California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000),[1] was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that California's blanket primary violates a political party's First Amendment freedom of association.

As I read the OP they are proposing more than an Open Primary. It sound like a blanket primary to me

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Democratic_Party_v._Jones

[Stallion]

5. Thanks I Thought that was the Case

nm

[still_one]

6. At least that is how I read it. If this passes in SD, it will be interest if they try to get it to

the SC

[FlatBaroque]

4. The party labels have been the MOST effective method for the elites

to keep us fighting each other.

[Hortensis]

7. Unfortunately, lack of them will be even more helpful.

Maybe you like the idea of taking on Charles Koch on your own. I do not. You might want to consider that laws like Citizens United were instrumental in transferring power from political parties to people so wealthy they could install a congressman in office with their chump change.

There were already various other reasons that political parties have lost a tremendous amount of their power to control elections, and I can't be sorry for that, but if we do not organize to work together for what we believe what will happen to what we believe in?

Also, please note that the tea-partiers were organized, funded, and directed by operatives working for the Kochs and their associates. They enthusiastically lined up to get a ring stuck in their nose and be organized to fight for goals directly contrary to what they thought they believed in.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

17. As a South Dakotan...

... I agree. We have dildo Thuney, corrupt Mikey and narcissistic Krissy as representatives in D.C. They are all listed as GOP. People out here vote for whoever has the, "GOP", or "Republican", label by their name on the ballots. Nevermind whether or not they get anything done for the state, (ie... Daschle and Johnson who did). It will take a generation or more to clean up that thinking among South Dakotans, especially those in the outback and west river.

[Hortensis]

20. Hey, we really should have more reports from the states.

That's where those like the Kochs have won most of their battles. Not just putting their selections in offices, but corrupting universities with donations, interfering with and oversetting the decisions of local residents, arranging to alter state laws and even state constitutions to transfer power away from their citizens, and on and on.

IThink, your comment is no surprise. It's clear to me after years of observation that strong conservative ideologues are intrinsically incompetent to lead diverse and extremely complex modern societies. Even as dictators, they may be considered successes by maintaining themselves in office for some years, but as in democracies they invariably run their nations into the ground and, like the idiots running the auto companies invariably eventually derail their own gravy trains through astonishingly stupid decisions.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Good

If parties chose close primaries, let them pay for it themselves. And stop pretending it is democratic with a small d of course

[Wellstone ruled]

9. Interesting point of

view. Some states in the past did use closed Primaries,and Utah still has a closed Primary for Rethugs and
of course their state funds the Primary with zero funding going to a Democratic Primary if needed.

Many of the closed Primaries were discontinued with the ideal of more people would participate in a Caucus system. Jury is still out never to be seen again.

[Buzz cook]

10. In South Dakots that would mean two republicans running against each other

in the general election.

At best if the Democratic party could organize itself (need I go on?) it could hope for a split in the republican vote while the democrats rallied behind a single candidate.

[saidsimplesimon]

14. buzz cook, you nailed it.

It is the goal of folks like Cruz to create a voting system that favors the Koch brothers and other 1% friends. imo

"I don't belong to an organized party. I'm a Democrat." Will Rogers

[LiberalArkie]

12. Arkansas has non-partisan judicial elections. You have no idea if the person is a R or a D.

Generally all R's since they have the money to run. We used to have a pretty balanced supreme court until this came about.

[SoapBox]

16. Exactly why I want to know their party affiliation...

Judges are another bunch that I want to know about...it sets the basis for their decision making.

[L. Coyote]

13. It is not the job of the state to assist political parties to operate.

And, it could even be judged unconstitutional.

[SoapBox]

15. I like to know who these candidates affiliate with...

I think every person running for ANY position, should have to be identified, if the are affiliated with any party.

It gives me a starting point to look at...and I can tell you if the person running for Dog Catcher or Librarian has a (R) next to their name, it's pretty much going to make up my mind. They can try to Weathervane or Flip-Flop their platform/message all they want (mayors for example) but it speaks volumes about where they are going.

[jwirr]

18. Two top candidates - what if both are affiliated with the same

party nationally?

I absolutely hate not having a political designation on down ticket candidates - and the answer is go to some party internet site and they will tell you who to vote for. The establishment is going to explain who to vote for? That does not sound like an answer - it sounds like surrender.

[Jubilant18]

19. Top two vote getters elections are HORRIBLE!

I live in a conservative part of California. Before this new system, I at least was able to vote for a Democrat, even though she/ he lost the election.

Now I have a choice between two Republicans who were naturally the top two vote getters. I don't vote for either. I don't see how a Dem has a chance in my area.

I don't mind party labels.

I would like to see it easier for candidates from more parties on the ballot. This is an area where Dems and Republicans have no trouble cooperating to keep out other parties and to keep it a two party "monopoly."