In response to the veto, Assembly Speaker Jason Frierson was quoted in the Nevada Independent;
“Nevadans agree that we need to have a voting system that protects the fundamental right of every eligible voter— Democrat, Republican, non-partisan or otherwise. Voting is a right, not a privilege and we should make it easy for Nevadans to hold their own government accountable. While I’m disappointed by the governor’s decision to veto IP1, I look forward to the people having the final say in 2018.”
Does the Speaker's statement imply support for SB 103? In a top-two open primary election the right of every voter, regardless of party affiliation, to participate in publicly funded elections is protected. In a top-two open primary election the right of every candidate to face the voters in all phases of the election process is protected. With full participation as provided for in a top-two open primary, the opportunity for Nevadans to hold their elected officials accountable is maximized.
"..a voting system that protects the fundamental right of every eligible voter— Democrat, Republican, non-partisan or otherwise."
"Voting is a right, not a privilege.."
"..make it easy for Nevadans to hold their own government accountable."
In their Nevada Blueprint for the current session of the legislature, the Democratic Caucus is clearly focused on voting rights. "We also need to protect our heritage. That means preserving Nevada’s natural environment, protecting our constitutional rights, and making it easier for our citizens to participate in the democratic process."
"..making it easier for our citizens to participate in the democratic process."
Reading these statements I find it difficult understand Democratic opposition to SB 103. The only concerns I have heard is that a top-two open primary will not benefit the party and that if voters want to participate in the primary they can register in the party.
Benefits to the party? Yes. Voters have left and continue to leave or not affiliate with both major political parties because the parties do not represent them. This trend continues every month and is most pronounced among voter between the ages of 18 to 34. Under a top-two open primary, candidates must reach out to a broader range of voters. As this happens, the parties will return to representing those voters. Because the desire to belong is human nature, voters would most likely return to the parties. Also as the parties and their candidates demonstrate more inclusiveness they would most like draw more support.
Parties rights of association; voters can register if they want to participate in the primary? The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld that a top-two open primary where the top two vote getters, regardless of party affiliation, move forward to the general election does not violate a political party's right of association. Saying voters can join a party also ignores why voters are knowingly withdrawing from the process and why Non-Partisan is the only category gaining voter share across all demographics month after month while both the Democratic and Republican Party lose voter share.
Reading Speaker Frierson's statement on Governor Sandoval's veto of IP-1 and the Democratic Caucus' Nevada Blueprint, the assumption would be that the Democratic Caucus in the Nevada legislature would be in full support of SB 103. Instead it appears efforts to block even a hearing are in full swing.
Reading these statements I find it difficult understand Democratic opposition to SB 103. The only concerns I have heard is that a top-two open primary will not benefit the party and that if voters want to participate in the primary they can register in the party.
Benefits to the party? Yes. Voters have left and continue to leave or not affiliate with both major political parties because the parties do not represent them. This trend continues every month and is most pronounced among voter between the ages of 18 to 34. Under a top-two open primary, candidates must reach out to a broader range of voters. As this happens, the parties will return to representing those voters. Because the desire to belong is human nature, voters would most likely return to the parties. Also as the parties and their candidates demonstrate more inclusiveness they would most like draw more support.
Parties rights of association; voters can register if they want to participate in the primary? The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld that a top-two open primary where the top two vote getters, regardless of party affiliation, move forward to the general election does not violate a political party's right of association. Saying voters can join a party also ignores why voters are knowingly withdrawing from the process and why Non-Partisan is the only category gaining voter share across all demographics month after month while both the Democratic and Republican Party lose voter share.
Reading Speaker Frierson's statement on Governor Sandoval's veto of IP-1 and the Democratic Caucus' Nevada Blueprint, the assumption would be that the Democratic Caucus in the Nevada legislature would be in full support of SB 103. Instead it appears efforts to block even a hearing are in full swing.
It certainly seems to me that he’s got this in mind with such a response. Otherwise, why even mention “non-partisan and others”, much less seek to give them a voice?
ReplyDeleteThe statement sounds very positive to me personally and I strongly hope Speaker Frierson is indeed thinking along those terms.
"The only concerns I have heard is that a top-two open primary will not benefit the party"
Not at all surprising, but still an incredibly narrow-minded perspective on the part of those who are reacting to SB 103 negatively; especially given the display of utter disregard for the people’s choice this past November, a response to which people are calling for dismantling of the Electoral College in the strongest movement I can recall ever seeing before now.
Statements such as these are actually very revealing as to a politician’s true alliance. They’re almost always slips in their strategic self-presentational reasoning in which their normally planned responses are not well thought out. In other words - it’s truth instead of imitated truth always used to falsely convince the listeners that the speaker is speaking in the people’s best interests.
Truth is almost always present and accounted for in unplanned remarks, the very reason one should look well beyond press releases and news conferences for the real candidate in his/her actions of past.
This statement openly belies the incessantly touted reasons politicians are spewing for becoming involved in politics to begin with; “I’m running to serve the great PEOPLE of my district/state/nation, giving them their voice in our government for the people”. When in fact, they’re simply pushing the party line despite the poor selection of the candidate(s) that party is offering.
Personally, I see SB 103 in the precise opposite light. That it will indeed “help the party” - either party in fact, IF they provide truly high-quality candidates to select from. It will provide a means for voters to select truly qualified candidates with the voters interests in mind.
If SB 103 is passed, anyone can vote for any candidate despite their partisan affiliation, for it gives the voters the power to select candidates based upon quality rather than strict partisan affiliation. SB 103 will end pushing poor candidates to the top of the party despite the voice of the people, simply because that’s what the party wants.
We’ve just witnessed the very epitome of this lack of “the people’s voice” in our candidate selections this past November and people are finally waking up to the reality of how partisanship rules and determines who is to be our candidates “of choice” and who is not.
Their shrinking numbers are sending them a very clear message; that it’s time to put the candidate selection back into the people’s hands, not in the hands of the parties and if they want to maintain any power at all, I strongly urge that they truly listen and change with the times.
Or they may find themselves on the outside looking in.