I was firmly for Proposition 60 (status quo) and against Proposition 62 when I first read through the voter information guide.

Proposition 62 is attractive, though, because it ignores party affiliations and just puts just the top two vote-getters on the final ballot. It's more of a municipal election model, where party affiliation doesn't matter. In fact, it reminds me of the old runoff arrangement in San Francisco. There, if no supervisor won a clear majority, the top two vote-getters would face each other in a second election.

In truth I am not a big fan of political parties or of primary elections. The old "closed" primary was particularly bad, because nonpartisan voters didn't get to participate at all. (In British parliamentary countries, it's even worse, because the primary "election" process is internal to each party, and only a select group of party insiders participate in the choice of the party's candidate.)

I am a non-partisan ("decline to state" or DTS) voter. In a primary election, I usually request a Republican ballot. I vote for Republicans from the religious right, in hopes of keeping moderate, electable Republicans off the general election ballot.

In a general election I don't vote automatically for Democrats. I do vote automatically for them when the other electable candidates are worse. I could definitely see myself voting for the odd true Republican (note: there are not many Republicans these days who favor true conservative ideas, such as individual freedom*), if the person were smart and charismatic and if her presence in government would provide a counterbalance. I think Santa Cruz City Council and the State Assembly are good examples of governing bodies that need more balance. In particular, they need more people who understand economics; aren't afraid of saying "no"; like to put a little money aside instead of spending it all on raises, tax breaks, and new programs; and want to get the bureaucratic parts of government out of our lives, while retaining the useful parts.

I would love to be able to vote for more independent candidates. I don't do it unless they are exceptional people (e.g. Robert Norse, who I am definitely writing-in for City Council) and/or are generally recognized as electable.

I can't put my finger on it, but I do have a lingering distrust for the small parties, including the Green, Peace and Freedom, Libertarian, and American Independent Parties. There seems to be very little uniformity within these parties, and I sometimes see, in a voter guide argument, something really unpalatable from a particular candidate. I remember seeing an anti-gay remark from a "small party" candidate (either Green or Libertarian) in San Francisco, for example. This showed me that the "small parties" weren't so "alternative" after all.

I suppose I'm now undecided on 60 versus 62, but leaning toward 62.

* I'm making a distinction that may not be clear. Here's an example. A Republican who is a true conservative will vote against the federal marriage amendment, on the grounds that individuals should be free to form whatever relationships they like. A naive Republican will vote to ban same-sex marriage, perhaps because he is affiliated with the religious right. The first type of Republican can be very useful to have around, especially when people propose legislation like the Patriot Act, that takes away individual freedoms. The second type of Republican is bad to have around.