CizekForAZHouse

Can you square your stated position here with your vote alongside the Democratic House Caucus in opposition to Approval Voting Bill HB 2518 during the 51st Legislature three years ago?

Proof of your voting against the measure: https://legiscan.com/AZ/rollcall/HB2518/id/244150

The bill to which I refer was a bill which allowed cities and towns to replace FPTP with Approval Voting, where a voter can vote for any number of candidates in a given election and the winner is the candidate with the highest number of votes. Sure, it's not a perfect bill and only applied to local bills, but it would have been a step in the right direction for empowering third-party candidates to run in city council & school board elections without worrying about the 'vote splitting' problem that Dem and GOP partisans like to hit third-party voters over the head with every election cycle.

The text of the bill is as follows:

1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
2 Section 1. Title 16, chapter 4, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended
3 by adding article 8.2, to read:
4 ARTICLE 8.2. OPTIONAL CITY AND TOWN APPROVAL VOTING
5 16-559. City and town approval voting; requirements
6 A. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER STATUTE, A CITY OR TOWN IN THIS STATE MAY
7 BY ORDINANCE ESTABLISH AND USE A SYSTEM OF APPROVAL VOTING IN THAT CITY'S OR
8 TOWN'S PRIMARY OR FIRST ELECTION. AN APPROVAL VOTING SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE 9 FOR THE FOLLOWING:
10 1. THE VOTER IN THE PRIMARY OR FIRST ELECTION SHALL BE PERMITTED TO
11 VOTE FOR AS MANY CANDIDATES FOR A SINGLE OFFICE AS THE VOTER CHOOSES TO
12 APPROVE.
13 2. THE TWO CANDIDATES WHO RECEIVE THE HIGHEST AND SECOND HIGHEST
14 NUMBER OF VOTES IN THE PRIMARY OR FIRST ELECTION SHALL ADVANCE TO THE GENERAL
15 OR RUNOFF ELECTION FOR THAT CITY OR TOWN WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER ANY ONE
16 CANDIDATE HAS RECEIVED A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST FOR THAT OFFICE.
17 3. THE BALLOT AND ALL OTHER VOTING MATERIALS SHALL CLEARLY INDICATE
18 THAT THE VOTER MAY VOTE FOR AS MANY CANDIDATES IN THAT ELECTION AS THE VOTER
19 CHOOSES, AND THAT THE CANDIDATES WHO RECEIVE THE TWO HIGHEST NUMBER OF VOTES
20 SHALL ADVANCE TO THE GENERAL OR RUNOFF ELECTION.
21 B. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS ARTICLE, CITY AND TOWN
22 APPROVAL VOTING ELECTIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
23 PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 8 OF THIS CHAPTER.
24 16-559.01. Approval voting; charter; ordinance
25 THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT REQUIRE A CITY OR TOWN TO ADOPT AN APPROVAL
26 VOTING SYSTEM, BUT A CITY OR TOWN MAY AMEND ITS CHARTER IF REQUIRED FOR THAT
27 CITY OR TOWN TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT AN APPROVAL VOTING SYSTEM AS
28 PRESCRIBED BY THIS ARTICLE.

It died in the Senate because it ended up getting swallowed up by a massive 'ranked choice voting' amendment which was internally contradictory and defied all semblance of math & logic.

"If you want more options, vote for the green party or libertarian party or whatever third party candidate in your local elections, all of them, all year round, not just every 4 years. And campaign for them. Make it your business to change the system. Because it's going to take decades for this system to change."

Thanks for that. That's why I'm running for the AZ Legislature. I realize that my preferred candidate (Stein) isn't going to win this election, and I probably won't win either. But it's about running and campaigning and building something to go forward, because I am unhappy with the status quo, and while I recognize that many people won't agree with me on policy, I still want a political system where Libertarians and more independent-minded voters can express their views and hopefully get some like-minded elected officials into office as well.

My take has been to vote for whomever you want at the top of the ticket, or just write in Scrooge McDuck or leave it blank if you can't stand any of the choices. But there's so many other things on the ballot, from a Senator to state legislators to County Supervisors and School Boards and Proposition 205 and 206, that it's just not a good idea to simply not vote whatsoever. Say what you will about the electoral process or any irregularities, but not casting a ballot is the surest way to not have your vote be counted.

Most likely, referring to the 'jungle primary' system that California uses (i.e. all candidates appear on the same ballot, top two candidates advance, regardless of affiliation or lack thereof). I also oppose this system because in practice, it contributes to entrenched incumbents - I'm not sure if there's ever been a sitting Congressperson in California who has lost reelection since their move to jungle primaries.

What I am proposing is a changing to the voting mechanism itself, so instead of voting for your preferred candidate, you vote for as many (or few) candidates from among them. So instead of having to vote for one candidate out of the D, G, L, R, and an independent, you might instead vote L, R, and the I candidate, but not the D or G, and someone else might vote G and L, but not D, R, or I (or so forth).

What happened with Lennie Clark in the Senate primary? I was excited to vote for a candidate who actually hadn't voted for the land swaps like McCain and Kirkpatrick did, but Mr. Clark ended up not even filing for the primary. Did he have issues meeting the petition requirement, or did the Dem establishment push him out to avoid a contested race?

I'm ready to replace McCain, but I can't convince myself to do so by voting for someone else who sold out Native land to the mining companies.