The prospect of an open primary  in California should send shivers down the spines of millions: a forward-thinking  state taking a truly forward-looking step. Sadly, in recent years California  has been allowed to fall into a slump, while unrestrained spending and  little-to-no oversight, has forced many businesses and individuals to  pay the price... literally. With some of the highest taxation rates  in the entire country, and a state government going broke, it's hard  to swallow the age-old pill that higher taxation equates to strong economies. Come election time, a new idea on the horizon may force politicians to think outside of  the box.

The idea of an open primary  is in itself rather phenomenal: for California, the proposed open primary  amendment would do away with political party nominations. The people would be the nominating powers, not the party itself.

If passed, "The Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act" would award  the two highest vote-getters to be the nominees for a major political  office. Conventional wisdom tells us that in general, the "middling"  candidates have the upper hand. Ideally, at least one of the top two  candidates would be expected to move toward the center, to garner the  majority of votes. And California, despite its reputation as a haven  for out-of-the-box thinkers and extreme left wing politics, can be a  surprisingly pragmatic state when the time is right. Conservative Governors  Reagan, Dukmejian and Wilson were all products of the Golden State.

For the first time in a long  time, the California Republican Party has a chance to truly mobilize  and become a rallying force in statewide politics. Gov. Schwarzenegger  won the election because of his own efforts and his name recognition, not  because of the party. Looking at the past, one can see emerging patterns:  the most famous California governors of the last 40 years have been elected after statewide finances waned and irresponsibility reigned  supreme.

Suffice it to say, the election of conservative governors has been an answer to free-for-all and excesses.

In good  times, however, memories are short-lived and leaders are elected who  are not so careful about spending. The state Republican Party can take  this opportunity to gain pride in itself and boost interest in their philosophy of governing. Rather than settle for second best, or as the  party of reaction, the party should set itself up as a party of action,  just different from Democrats.

But there is a specific group of Democrats known for their  flexibility on social issues, but more hawkish views on international  relations. These Democrats are known as the Blue Dogs, and are a rare  breed in today's Washington.

In light of the benefits of the  open primary, if a Blue Dog were to be selected to represent California  in a federal capacity, there are potential issues. If a Blue Dog were elected as a California senator, with whom would they caucus?

As the  federal leadership has known, in the personages of Nancy Pelosi and  Harry Reid, disagreeing with the majority party is frowned upon. That's politics. But consider  the case of Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman. A longtime Democrat,  Lieberman was punished for his support of the Iraq War. In his most  recent reelection bid, Lieberman's own party refused to nominate him,  based on his Blue Dog status. Running as an Independent, Lieberman did  triumph, though after his support for Senator John McCain's presidential  run, Reid again threatened expulsion, and ultimately stripped him of  a position.

If a Blue Dog or liberal Republican is selected to represent  California in the Senate, for example, will he or she be allowed to caucus  with their fellow party members, or, like Lieberman, will they be shunned?  Could the Scoop Jacksons of today even make a dent in the far-left Democratic  Party? Even moderate Sam Nunn did not support President Obama's  run until well into 2008, while moderate Democratic senator Evan Bayh's  stance on the Iraq War was seen as a negative. Rumors flew that Obama  would select Bayh as Vice President, after claims of Obama's far left  record surfaced, but the moderate Bayh was not selected.

The Top Two Candidates Open  Primary Act does not specify that a candidate must list his/her political  party: if they do not openly affiliate with one party, who do they work  with, and how do they effectively get work done? As delightful as the  idea of a true maverick is, mavericks still need friends to fund them  and back their ideas.

Another unfortunate fact about  politics and political machines is that political parties are excellent  fundraisers. If parties are not at all involved in the selection and  nomination process, why should they be as effective at fundraising,  if they did not approve a candidate? Or if two candidates from the same  political party are the two top vote-getters, does that mean that the  party must split its funds between the two?

Many questions remain on exactly  how to keep the idealism of the primary act, while also assuring candidates  of funding without political pressure. If any state can figure out a  way, the Golden State can do it.