I was disappointed to see that my friend and colleague Ralph Nader recently spoke out against Proposition 14, the California ballot initiative that proposes to reform the electoral process in America’s most populous state.
If passed, Prop. 14 would allow all voters, whether affiliated with a party or not, to vote in an all-inclusive first round in which every candidate is on the ballot with their party preference next to their name. The top two vote-getters go on to the general election which is also open to every voter.
Nader believes California voters should reject this reform in order to guarantee third parties a spot on the general election ballot at the expense of millions of independent voters who will be empowered if Proposition 14 passes.
In 2004, Ralph faced an organized conspiracy by the Democratic National Committee and the John Kerry presidential campaign to keep his name off the ballot in as many states as possible. Leading Democrats held Nader responsible for Al Gore’s defeat in 2000, and justified their assault on his right to run for president and the right of Americans to vote for him with the need to defeat George W. Bush by any means necessary.
I am proud that I volunteered my efforts to represent Nader in courts in West Virginia and New Mexico, and that in both states his name remained on the ballot.
Recently, Nader made the following statement in opposition to Proposition 14: “Unless defeated, Proposition 14 would establish a two-party tyranny that prevents other candidate choices for California voters from the November election ballot. In short, Proposition 14 wants to shut you up if you disagree with the arrogant, big two-party politicians.”
Nader, not unlike other third party advocates who oppose Proposition 14, seems to discount that many “arrogant, big two-party politicians” have been outspoken and aggressive in their opposition to open primary reforms. When voters in Washington state adopted the system on which Proposition 14 is modeled, the Democratic and Republican parties went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in an unsuccessful effort to overturn it.
Since Proposition 14 is an attempt to loosen the hold that the major parties have on our democracy by their iron-fisted control of the nominating process, it is no surprise that the major parties – whose tyranny Nader denounces – are doing everything they can to defeat it.
Proposition 14 will give the 3,466,855 independent voters in California who are not enrolled in a political party the right to participate in the primary elections that determine who will appear on the general election ballot. If Prop. 14 passes, independents will be on equal footing with other voters.
Proposition 14 is an important step towards nonpartisan governance. Voters will be voting for candidates, not parties, and there is a real opportunity for coalitions of independents, parties (minor and major) and party members to join together to support reform-oriented candidates. Under Proposition 14, an effective coalition can propel a candidate not favored by the party establishment (major and minor) to round two, with a real chance to win.
For those concerned with party building – major or minor – having strong spokespersons in the first round will help parties enlarge their base, arguably much more effectively than running what often amount to fringe candidacies in the general election that do not have an impact on either the election or public policy.
Third-party advocates argue that they function as incubators for political and social change. Yet since World War II, social movements have been more effective in producing sweeping change than third parties. The civil rights gains of the sixties came about through a mass movement that forced the Democrats and Republicans in Congress to take long overdue measures to redress discrimination, including passage of the Voting Rights Act. Three decades later, the Perot movement forced the major parties to do something about America’s growing national debt and to at least consider (as in Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract with America) a series of political reforms such as term limits and opening congressional committee meetings to the public. When the Perot movement reorganized itself as a third party, the Reform Party began its descent into political irrelevance. I know, because I was there. I participated in the formation of the Reform Party and witnessed the events that led to its decline.
Ultimately, though, the reason to support Proposition 14 in California is tactical.
The most effective way for “outsider” movements for innovation and progressive change to transform the political mainstream is for third parties and social reform groups to come together to nurture the development of a mass movement.
It’s particularly disturbing that at a moment when millions of independents are knocking at the door of an electoral process from which they are excluded, Ralph Nader and the third party movement would want to slam it shut.