View source for Electoral and Campaign Finance Reform

'''Background:''' Democracy refers as much to a lively political culture as to a system of government. A diverse society needs a pluralistic structure to allow the widest possible range of people to have their voices heard. To truly enfranchise citizens, we must ensure that everyone has their say.

Greens believe that all voters can cast a vote towards actually electing someone who represents their views — and where as many parties have a real chance at winning seats, as represent the full electorate.

 — a system of multi-seat districts with proportional representation for legislative elections, and ranked choice voting for single-seat executive office. To promote government for all, we need to ensure everyone has a seat at the table of our democracy. What’s happening to smaller parties is a canary in the coal mine. The current system is incapable of representing our diversity. Something more inclusive needs to take its place.

'''Voter turnout''' - Voters participate in elections in direct proportion to the degree that they believe their vote will count towards reflecting their views. The United States has one of the lowest voter turnouts among established democracies -- consistently ranked worse than 100th among all nations. This is because the U.S. single-seat, winner-take-all system of elections greatly limits voter choice and representation and hence is a disincentive to vote -- especially when combined campaign finance laws that give disproportionate influence to big money over the average voter.  Too often under this system, voters are primarily driven to vote to prevent the election of someone they oppose most - the 'lesser-of-two-evils' dynamic -- rather than to elect someone who truly reflects their views. 

California's failed experiment with top two elections has only made this worse. Offering even less choice to voters while increasing the cost of elections to candidates, top two has led to the lowest primary election turnouts in state history, and decreased turnout in general elections when voters discover they only have two choices.In November 2010, California voters had a choice from six parties for the statewide offices, whereas in November 2014, only two. Among those that do go to the polls, many are left to vote for what they are against, because there is no candidate on the ballot that they can vote for.

 - The average turnout of eligible voters in Presidential election years is about 53%, and in non-Presidential elections years about 43%. (THIS NEEDS CITATION, ISN"T CLEAR WHETHER STATE OR FEDERAL, AND FOR WHAT KIND OF RACES) This means, in a two-way, winner-take-all race, the winning candidate for a state-level office needs only an average of about 27% of the eligible voters to win (53% x 50.1%) in a Presidential election year, and only about 22% (43% x 50.1%) in a non-Presidential election year. (ALL OF THIS IS TOO SPECIFIC ON NUMBERS. SHOULD BE REWRITTEN TO MAKE THESE POINTS MORE GENERALLY). It is difficult to believe that elections where so few participate or vote for winning candidates can be considered legitimate or representative.

'''Redistricting''' - Much debate around redistricting focuses upon who should draw districts lines and how to make districts competitive. These are not the primary questions to answer. Competitive districts don't mean representative elections. More important are 'how many are elected per district' and 'what is the per-capita presentation for Californians overall'.

Representation requires multiple voices from within a given district. By definition, single-seat, winner-take-all districts are not capable of representing the diversity of the voters.  At the same time, the number of seats intersects with how many are elected per districts. California has the lowest per-capita representation for its state legislature in the United States. The number of seats was set in 1878 when California's population was . As of 2016, it is how many.

An 


So whether we elect our representatives from single-seat or multi-seat districts must be answered first.



Tehre can be value in geogrpahic represetnation, if part oa systme tha tmixes districts and  But if distircts, number should be incresed, to amek smaller and hence cost les.  Any districts should be elected by ranked choice voting, to give fullest voice the voters.

Additionally, the effects of redistricting and partisan / incumbent gerrymandering produce insidious distortions of 'democracy'. A study by the non-partisan Center for Voting and Democracy showed that redistricting turned 80% of congressional districts into non-competitive, one-party bastions where voters had little choice but to ratify the candidate of the major party that controlled that district. The situation has been made much worse with Top Two that disenfranchises all third parties and can even exclude major party candidates for the runoff election. In effect, politicians are choosing the runoff voters. 

'''Campaign finance reform''' - This reality also impacts campaign finance reform. Campaign contributors are simply responding to high incumbent re-election rates, more than causing them. Most big donors seek to buy influence, not elections. Minor parties lose elections not because of inequity in campaign contributions, they lose because they are a minority viewpoint within a majoritarian system. In a general election, the underlying partisan views of a district's voters are far more decisive than campaign spending. "Demography is destiny..."because gerrymandered districts creates such a large majority of a particular viewpoint.

Money plays a larger role in primary elections where voters are not choosing between parties, and candidates with more money can distinguish themselves from the pack. Thus, campaign finance reform can be more effective in primary elections, as well as in single-seat state-wide elections and municipal at-large elections. The California Clean Money  Campaign http://www.yesfairelections.org/ was formed in 2006 to redress the situation and to prevent undue influence of Big Money in California politics.

'''Proposals:''' The Green Party therefore proposes the following basic changes to in the electoral system to provide open and accountable government that is responsive to the needs of all Californians:

Electoral Reform
 
 1.  Replace the current system of with more seats including possiblity of a unicameral o

Abolish the Top Two system that perpetuates the major party hegemony and replace it with proportional representation (See 

a system of multi-seat districts with proportional representation for legislative elections,

 2.  Lower the signature and fee requirements to get on the ballot in the primaries. 


 3.  Restore write-in voting in General Elections

Financing of Elections

 4.  Public financing of elections and free media access to level the playing field for getting candidates' messages to voters.

 5.  Reject the notion that money in political campaigns is free speech, as interpreted by the Supreme Court decision in Buckley vs. Vallejo, and by the U.S. Supreme Court by its  support of no caps on political contributions 


 9. Combine voluntary campaign spending limits and public campaign funding to reduce money's corrupting influence on our political system.

Electoral Reform

 6.  Hold elections on non-working days. Saturdays and Sundays are the worldwide day of choice. Holidays, such as Veterans Day, should also be considered.  

Redistricting

 7.  Take the redistricting process away from politicians and place it under the control of elected citizen boards that represent the various partisan, civic and minority constituencies. Criteria for drawing the boundaries should be developed to make all legislative districts as competitive as possible.  

Supports more districts, better per capita, and a change with further census to keep ratio. Multi-seat districts.  Where a combination. 

 8.  Run candidates reflecting the diversity of the larger culture.  The Green party will strive to do this.
10. Allow eligible candidates to pay postage rates one quarter of the regular rate, as well as free access to the airwaves.

11. Establish contribution limits for Political Action Committees (PACs) with less than 50 members to prevent wealthy people from using their funds to unduly influence elections.

12. Prohibit political parties from using "soft money" - transfers from other campaigns or party coffers - to pay for any election-related activities.

13. State on political advertisements the sources of campaign funds in excess of $100.

14. Oppose the resignation of a legislator to become a lobbyist on the basis of conflict of interest
 
Other electoral reforms deserving our support in varying degrees are:
 
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)
 
IRV is an important reform for single-seat races such as mayor, governor, Congress and state legislatures. IRV allows voters to rank their choices first, second, third, etc., and operates like a series of runoff elections. If a voter's first choice doesn't win, their vote transfers to their second choice, and so on. IRV allows voters to vote their conscience without "wasting" their vote on a candidate not likely to win, or being forced in to choosing between the "lesser of two evils."
 
None of the Above (NOTA)
 
NOTA can be effective in party primaries. If none of the candidates seeking the party's nomination are satisfactory, party members can vote NOTA. If NOTA wins, no candidate advances to the general election. In a general election NOTA can have mixed results. NOTA would allow voters to express their dissatisfaction with all available candidates. However, a vote for NOTA takes away the "protest votes" that would otherwise go to minor party candidates. This perpetuates the two-party monopoly by increasing their share of the total candidate-votes, further reducing the share received by minor party candidates. Also, NOTA could force a second, expensive election where the party with the most money would likely prevail.
 
Fusion
 
Under fusion, one party can endorse another party's candidate. That candidate then appears on the ballot of all parties endorsing her or him. In winner-take-all systems, fusion can help smaller parties by allowing them to unite around a single candidate and combine their strength. However, a minor party could lose its independence by fusing with a major party candidate, thus failing to provide an alternative to the major parties.