It’s already an uphill battle for Libertarian and Green party candidates in Arizona, but no matter what they have a place on the ballot. However, leaders of both parties say Proposition 121 threatens to butt them out of elections for good.... Read more»
Natasha Khan/Cronkite News Service
Warren Severin, chairman of Arizona’s Libertarian Party, says Proposition 121′s plan to eliminate partisan primaries in favor of a single primary for all candidates would hurt third parties.
1112111111I want to help TucsonSentinel.com offer a real news alternative!
We're committed to making quality news accessible; we'll never set up a paywall or charge for our site. But we rely on your support to bring you independent news without the spin. Use our convenient PayPal/credit card donation form below or contact us at donate@tucsonsentinel.com today.
Subscribe and stretch your donation over time:
Or give a secure one-time gift with PayPal or your credit card:
TucsonSentinel.com is an Arizona nonprofit organization. Your contribution is tax-deductible.
Please be respectful and relevant. Thought-provoking. Or at least funny.
We want comments to advance the discussion and we need your help. Debate, disagree, yell (digitally) or laugh, but do it with respect.
We won't censor your comments if we don't agree with you; we want viewpoints from across the political spectrum. We're dedicated to sparking an open, active discussion. We believe people with differing opinions can spark debate and effect change.
Comments are open to registered users of TucsonSentinel.com.
Keep in mind:
TucsonSentinel.com does not allow:
Comments that violate these guidelines may be removed. We reserve the right to make up the rules as we go along.
Commentors are solely responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. Users who violate these standards may lose their privileges on TucsonSentinel.com.
Sentinel editors can't read every comment. Trolls, spammers and other troublemakers can slide under the bridge. We rely on you to help maintain a healthy conversation - more than likely, you're reading these comments before the editors.
What if you see something inappropriate? Use the 'Flag' button to send it to a moderation queue. Help us out and tell us why you're reporting it; please don't report someone just because you disagree with them. Boy who cried wolf and all that. We'll take appropriate action on violations.
We will not edit comments to alter their meaning or censor comments because of political content.
We will not remove comments solely because they are heartless, cruel, coarse, foolish or just plain wrong. Your disapproval can maintain a decent signal to noise ratio. Ultimately, however, self-policing is the best method.
Bottom line, don't be a jerk.
4 comments on this story
I have heard both Democrips and Rebloodlicans oppose this measure. Any measure that they’re both against must be worth serious consideration.
I am not going to comment one way or the other on the Libertarian Party. But, as to the Green party…they come up with candidates like Dave Croteau and Mary DeCamp, and then ask to be taken seriously enough to engage in debates? Really? Candidates like that are a hindrance to the third-party movement, and the less opportunities they have to embarrass our community the better.
As an independent, I like the top two. I refuse to change my registration just to vote in a primary, because I don’t want to participate in the harmful two-party-politic crap. This will give me better choices, and reduce the likelihood that someone will be on the general ballot unopposed.
A top-two system might also wake up this sleeping, brain-dead electorate that exists here in Southern Arizona. We all know that under the current system, most of them just go numb as soon as they see the big “D” at the end of a candidate’s name. And, in far too many cases, the voter’s brain goes even more dead when they see a HIspanic surname on the ballot in front of that “D”. But, let’s examine some current and recent races, shall we?
Last year, 2011, one of the many tragedies that happened in the City Council elections was that ReHEEEEEEeeeeeeEEEEEEEEeeeeeeEEEEEEEEna Romero ran unopposed in the general because, for some reason I still don’t understand, the Repubs didn’t field a candidate there. But, if we had the top two, ALL voters, not just Dems, would have had a choice between Romero and Flores. The Democratic party’s attempts to sabotage Flores would have been irrelevant. Romero is so bad that even a lot of Dems-and most independents (remember that we indies now outnumber the Dems in Arizona) see that she has to go. Had the whole City of Tucson had a choice between Flores and Romero in the last general election, it is very possible that she would be gone now. And, of course, that’s better for our whole community.
Perhaps the top-two can finally end the embarrassment and harm of having Grijalva in office. Perhaps a fellow democrat can get him out of there, if that’s what it takes. I legitimately think we would be better off with a potted plant in that office then Grijalva…at least the plant would keep it’s mouth shut.
A YES Vote for Prop 121 is a vote for all voters of Arizona.
A YES for 121 will allow:
1. All voters to have EQUAL ACCESS to be placed on all
ballots.
2. All voters to have EQUAL ACCESS to vote all ballots.
3. All political parties to work hard to support issues and
candidates that support their ideas and beliefs.
Its true that the Libertarians, Green and other small parties
have had to work harder than the “big” parties…and now if
121 passes the small parties will now have the advantage
over the “big” parties….because the small parties are use
to working hard for their candidates/issues.
Good Luck to the voters , the parties, and the YES vote for
121.
To FrankHenry and BretLinden: These same argument were offered in support of CA’s prop 14 but they have not delivered. Meanwhile in WA where TopTwo has been in effect longer the minor parties, and the ideas they contribute to the discussion, have been virtually silenced.
There are real reforms which can be instituted without harming alternative voices. These include instant runoff (ranked choice) voting and proportional representation. Top Two sounds good but it doesn’t deliver. We need to hear more voices not less and Top Two will silence all but two voices during the important general election period.
Please visit http://www.fairvote.org for more information.
@junegenis
I could be inclined to agree with you…if I didn’t live in Southern Arizona. Before I rant here, keep in mind that, as of last year (or the year before) There are more Republicans than anyone else, then independents, then Democrats, in that order. Yes, even we indies outnumber the Dems. OK, here we go with my rant…
Grijalva is slovenly and unkempt, and called for an economic boycott of his own state during an economic crisis, and he gets reelected. Does that sound right to you?
The City Council has mismanaged millions. $230 million disappeared under the guise of Rio Nuevo, and they insist on building a choo choo train while thousands of potholes go unfilled…yet every incumbent who ran last election got reelected. Does that sound right to you?
Considering what I told you about the voter split before this rant…Democrats have a stranglehold on this region, despite them being the state’s minority party even behind indies. Does that sound right to you?
What the City Council, Grijalva, and also Dupnik and Barber conclusively and abundantly show us is that whatever we’re doing now with elections isn’t working. When what you’re doing isn’t working, you try something else. We need to try something else…ANYTHING else. The Top Two is something else.
Again, I’ll concede it is not an ideal system, but what we’re doing now is obviously horribly broken, and I’ll take pretty much anything over our current system.