Shockwaves from the passage of Prop 14 in California are reverberating across the entire country, shaking political foundations and threatening to topple long-standing structures.

Called “Top Two,” the election reform creates an open primary system that advances the two candidates who garner the most votes — regardless of party affiliation – to face off in general elections. Although vehemently opposed by all six of the state’s ballot-qualified parties, it was overwhelmingly supported by angry, fed-up voters, failing in only the two, most doctrinaire of California’s 58 counties: conservative Orange and liberal San Francisco.

Among the state’s minor parties, the Libertarians mounted the most vigorous campaign against Prop 14, perceiving — rightly — that passage would mean the de facto demise of any alternatives to the majors.

The two, old parties already benefit from the (mis)perception they happily promulgate that ours is a “two-party system.” They also have the enormous fundraising advantage that comes with being essentially utilitarian coalitions of special interest groups, unconstrained by any coherent, unifying philosophy.  (Consider, for instance, what strange bedfellows environmentalists and labor unions make, given their sharply conflicting agendas; they have, nevertheless, consorted for decades in a marriage of convenience in the same major party.)

The inevitable consequence of this “top two” approach will be general election contests limited to the candidates of the duopoly.  Whether these are D vs. D, or R vs. R, rather than the traditional D vs. R, voters who have an actual philosophy — from small-government Libertarians to eco-conscious Greens — will ultimately be shut out of the process since their candidates will rarely make it to general election ballots.

We here in the Great Lakes State certainly feel the rumble of seismic events on the other side of the continent. Nor are we unmindful of the Tea Partying discontent that has been brewing among our own voters.

But there is a way to address dissatisfaction with the status quo while still respecting the right of political parties to both choose their preferred candidates and be assured a place for them on the general election ballot.

There is no need to alter our current nominating system. The major parties can continue to select candidates in partisan, primary elections (though it remains unclear why members of other parties should bear the associated costs), the minors choosing theirs at party conventions.

The reform — and here is the crux of the matter — is to prohibit all party insignia on general election ballots.

Simply present voters with a (randomly rotated) list of all nominated candidates for each office. In the gubernatorial race, for example, there would be a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Reform, Socialist, and US Taxpayers nominee, as well as any who attain a ballot position independently. However, none of the names would have party affiliation attached to them.

This would, of course, eliminate straight-ticket voting. But it doesn’t seem unreasonable to require those who wish to express a preference as to who should fill particular, elective offices to have some idea of the qualifications of their choice beyond mere party affiliation.

In theory such a change would benefit the two old parties. Unconstrained by philosophy as they are, they would still be for sale to big-spending, special interest groups. This gives them an enormous fundraising advantage over their “minor” party competitors whose value to PAC’s and lobbyists seeking tax breaks, regulatory favor, subsidies, etc., is sharply limited by their particular philosophies. Few would be interested in bankrolling Reformers or Greens. Fewer still Socialists or Libertarians. So the major party candidates should be able to fill campaign advertising war chests, permitting them to build substantial name recognition over minor party Pollyannas.

Further, the absence of party affiliation of candidates should, again in theory, disproportionately disadvantage the minor parties whose entire raison d’être is advancing a philosophy of government rather than providing a vehicle for ambitious individuals who have chosen “public service” as a career path. While straight-ticket voting may be a convenience for right-to-lifers or union members, it is all but essential for voters whose philosophy is green or libertarian.

For the old parties the advantages of this reform would appear to make it (appropriately enough) a no-brainer.

But would anyone care to wager which of Michigan’s seven ballot-qualified parties would support the idea of changing to a nonpartisan, general election ballot? And which would fight it with all their heart, soul, mind and strength? Hint: The split will be five to two.