An Analysis of Proposition 198
The purpose of this paper is to serve as an analysis of proposition 198. It will include an objective summary of the proposition, a summary of the major arguments both for and against the proposal, and a conclusion conveying the results of the election as well as my own opinion on the issue. In order to produce an accurate summary of the proposition, however, I feel that some background discussion of the California primary is necessary. Basically, California has three types of elections: primary, general, and special. Primary elections are held for both partisan offices and nonpartisan offices (1996 California Voter Guide). According to the California Journal, prior to the Progressive reformation in California, "slates of candidates were determined by party bosses and activists at state conventions." The Progressives changed the California primary in such a manner that it gave ordinary citizens and rank-and-file members of political parties a say in which candidates were put up for election in their parties. A feature known as "cross-filing", which allowed candidates to file for office in multiple parties, favored incumbents (mostly republicans) because the candidate's party affiliation was not listed on the ballot. An initiati
Those against Proposition 198 argue that the sole purpose of primary elections is for registered voters of each political party to select nominees from their party for the general election, and that an open primary would invite "political mischief" by allowing self-serving politicians and special interest groups to manipulate the system through the use of "specialized targeting." Voters registered to one political party should not be allowed to interfere in the nominations of candidates of another party, they say, just as private clubs and organizations do not allow non-members to participate in their internal affairs. The measure is unconstitutional, they add, citing a ruling by the United States Supreme Court that political parties have the right to determine who votes in their primaries (1996 California Voter Guide). Finally, opponents of the proposal suggest that rather than increasing voter choice, Proposition 198 would limit it, since outside interference would diminish the importance of joining a political party. Major opponents of Proposition 198 included the officials of both major political parties, as well as former GOP U.S. Senate candidate Bruce Herschensohn and former Democratic Attorney General John Van de Camp (California Journal 2/96). The only candidates immune from these provisions would be those candidates running for office in political party committees. These elections would still be restricted to voters affiliated with each party. The Legislative Analyst determined that Proposition 198 would have no fiscal impact on California, other than possible minor savings to counties, since they would not need to prepare and print as many ballots (1996 California Voter Guide). ve succeeded in abolishing cross-filing in 1959, resulting in a closed California primary, in which only candidates affiliated with a particular party are listed on
Some common words found in the essay are:
California Journal, Secretary State's, Guide Proposition, Guide Proponents, Radke Radke, Guide Finally, , Costa College, Legislative Analyst, proposition 198, Basically California, political party, 1996 california voter, political parties, voter guide, primary elections, california voter, 1996 california, california voter guide, california journal, california primary, party vote, 2/96 proposition 198, political party affiliation, voter guide finally,
Approximate Word count = 1260
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
