The measure would amend the way California voting works by creating a single primary open to all voters, and then sending the top two vote-getters in the primary election into a run-off election. Candidates would have an option to designate a party affiliation, but it would no longer be a requirement.

If approved, the new system would go into effect in 2012.



Q: What are the benefits if it passes?

Proponents of the bill reference a culture of extreme views in Sacramento. The proposition would push for more moderate candidates that could better work together in the state legislature.

For instance, candidates could no longer just appease to Democratic voters because they don't have to be the top Democratic vote-getter, but they instead have to be one of the top two vote-getters overall. 



Q: What are the opponents of the prop saying?

They say it would make races more expensive because candidates would have to run two full races. If Governor Arnold Schwarznegger could run for re-election this year, he would likely run without opposition but would have to spend enough money in the primary cycle to ensure he made it to the run-off. Under the current system, he would need to get his name out only during the general election.

There are a lot of concerns about if it really would lead to moderate legislators. Opponents say that there is no reason why extremism would stop if it's popular right now because it would still be popular in this design.

There is also concern about the general play-out of this system in terms of political parties losing power.

However, the biggest issue is mostly if is this going to be effective in changing the way Sacramento operates? Does the state government really have a problem of extremism and will moderate views really help? The nature of partisan gridlock in California's government is a huge
problem, but there hasn't been as much discussion as necessary out there
to be certain that this change will really promote moderation. It isn't
clear if extremism is really the problem.


Another big concern in trials of this system elsewhere has been the huge extra advantage incumbents receive. Name recognition already benefits incumbents, but parties could generate insurgent challengers. Candidates for Governor Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman are battling right now for the Republican Party endorsement, so they gain the eye of Republican voters.

If Schwarzenegger was running for re-election, Poizner would have little effect in the race. The battle would simply come down to Whitman's ability to spend and the abilities of Democratic candidate Jerry Brown and Schwarzenegger to sell their names. Where would insurgent candidates like Poizner come from if they couldn't get attention from a party?


Q: Which groups are in support?

The California Chamber of Commerce, the major California newspapers and most major California business groups support the proposition. The California Dream Team, closely associated with Schwarzenegger, has been the main contributor to Yes on 14 committee. 

Q: Who doesn't want the proposition to pass?

All six California political parties, Meg Whitman, the American Civil Liberties Union, the national Center for Voting and Democracy (FairVote) and the California League of Conservation Voters.



Q: If the proposition doesn't pass, what will happen?

Prop 14 is a major change in ballot structuring and we'll see more of these sorts of experiments regardless of whether Prop 14 passes or not.



Q: What are the chances of the proposition passing?

There is a reasonable chance. Prop 14 has some logical appeal to voters and that should play out well in this primary.

To experiment in public funding of campaigns. The proposition would repeal the ban on public funding of political campaigns.

It's a limited experiment, however, because it would only affect the race for Secretary of State in 2014 and 2018. If it works, the proposition would have to be re-authorized. The public funds would be raised from fees assessed to lobbyists and at least 7,500 individual contributions of $5 to each candidate using the public funding.



Q: Where did the idea come from?

The idea is modeled on the presidential funding system that gives candidates an option to publicly finance their campaign. If they do so, they accept more restrictions on what they can raise privately.



Q: What are the benefits if it passes?

There are a lot of lobbyists in California, and this proposition presents one way of trying to limit the weight of their support. Lobbyists and that model of campaigning are a big concern.

Folks in favor say it could create better competition and level the playing field in campaigning. A candidate could promote a reasonable campaign without pandering to donors or worrying about fund raising. 



Q: What are the opponents of the proposition saying?

The concern for those against the proposition is the premise of moving toward public funding for all races because it opens the door to future experiments. There's a perceptual barrier because people usually see public funding as a tax. 


Q: Which groups are in support?

The major California newspapers, the California Nurses' Association, the NAACP, the AARP, the California Labor Federation, the League of Women Voters of California and the California Democratic party.

These groups prefer organizing through their membership using voter advocacy rather than focusing on fund raising. In other words, they would rather write voter guides and lead voter turnout drives than host dinners and events.



Q: Who's opposed?


The California Chamber of Commerce, the California Fair Political Practices Commission and the California Department of Finance. 



Q: If the proposition doesn't pass, what will happen?

We are seeing what can happen right now with Meg Whitman spending millions in the race for governor. This will not be the last time that you see measures attempting to limit campaign financing in California. Election campaigns are becoming too expensive.



Q: What are the chances of the proposition passing?

Given this year's governor's race, there's lots of appeal for a different system. It will be interesting to see how frustrated voters actually are. Public financing measures tend to have a bigger barrier to cross, so you can't be as certain that this will experiment will be approved.