What an election night. Lets review:

13 Property Taxes and Seismic Retrofit of Building passed with over 80% voting it in.

Everyone agrees on this, especially those in San Francisco and those along the San Andreas Fault.

14 Primary Election Participation looked to pass by a 60/40 margin, but it is getting narrower as the results flow in.

Personally, I voted no on this proposition for a top two primary regardless of party affiliation because it is not a reform beyond bucking the party primaries. The well financed and well endorsed will still place in the top two regardless of party affiliation. Maybe someone who is in favor of a top two primary can enlighten me on how this makes politics more fair for the average joe who is not well heeled by the monied interests?

15 California Fair Elections Act AKA reverse the ban on public funding of campaigns failed by what is looking to be a 57/43 margin.

This is the political process reform I voted for. Anything to help the average joe who is not well heeled get more money to even out the playing field is reform in my book.

16 Local Electricity Providers failed to pass thank God almighty!

Prop 16 would require local governments to pass a 2/3 majority voter approval before they could start up electricity services or expand them. This was pushed largely by PG&E who was reported to dump millions into this measure. With many retirees and soon to be retiring PG&E workers, PG&E saw this prop as their perfect way to get a legal monopoly so as to have a guaranteed source of income to keep up their monopolistic ways in a manner that allows them not to be overburdened by pension costs. Well PG&E, the California voter disagrees with you.

17 Auto Insurance Pricing would have permitted companies to reduce or increase cost of insurance depending on whether driver has a history of continuous insurance coverage, but it looks like it is failing and may not pass.

Prop 17 is the screw the poor man and the young kid in the butt type deal. It would legally allow them to place exorbitant rates on those who have lost coverage or do not have a history of continuous coverage. I and, for the moment, the majority of California voters is saying no to this craptacular ballot initiative.

Why would you want to subvert the dominant paradigm?

Top two would mean the two most popular candidates regardless of affliation instead of the hand-picked union guy vs. a puffball.

Good for those Kaleefornyans! Oregon is in the primary backwater. We need not only open primaries--and nonpartisan elected offices--but also a one-house legislature. Think of the savings!

How is any process that results in FEWER candidates good in any way? The Primary-system is classist in the first-place and the result of an attempted fix, gone awry. Not enough people vote, and elections with many candidates drawing significant votes creates a situation where winners don't win by legal margins, by way of for-instance.

To fix THIS problem is a simple matter of running fewer douchebags for office. Only 'douchebags' are ego-maniac enough to enter into a popularity contest for money. Candidates should be selected based upon merit. But in America, the land of boobs and brown first, meritocratic selection of our elected officials simply won't wash.

The fix caused the problem so-called 'open primaries' is trying to address. Primaries, in general, wouldn't be a necessity if everybody could vote.

I used to support the open primary - but I've come around to the idea that it'll simply move the decision-making process to the party caucuses.

Already, the California GOP is talking about holding endorsement caucuses where only the favored candidate would receive party support, infrastructure, and so on. (California Dems already do endorsement caucuses, but not often. Expect more.)

You can expect that, except in rare cases, all candidates except the endorsed candidate will drop out. In essence, that's moving the primary to a caucus system and the general election to June (or, in our case, May.)

If we're going to have an open primary, I think you have to pair that with instant runoff voting. That way, there's no concern about seven Democrats and two Republicans running (and seeing the two Rs win out with a combined 30% of the vote, while 70% of voters support the Ds.)

With IRV, voters can identify their ranked preferences - and outcomes will better reflect the will of the people.

I'm not necessarily comfortable with single-election IRV, but an IRV process that determines the top two would be excellent.

Nonpartisan elected offices! Nonpartisan elected offices! Get it, Blue? Yeah, I know, it may be easier to take the politician out of the party than to take the party out of the politician. But, hey, let's give it a whirl!