California newspaper reporters and political columnists have mentioned recently that Californians will be voting on the “top-two” system in June 2010. These articles constantly repeat the idea that the California legislature is now filled with ideologues of the left and right, and that “top-two” will replace them with “moderates” (these articles also constantly refer to “top-two” as “the open primary”).
History suggests that “top-two” won’t replace “ideologues” with “moderates”. In 1996, the voters of California passed an initiative for the “blanket primary”, and that system was used in the primaries of 1998 and 2000. The “blanket primary” is identical to the “top-two” system, in the operation of the primary and the primary ballot. In both systems, all primary voters get an identical ballot, a ballot that lists all candidates of all parties (although under the blanket primary, independents did not run in the primary). The big difference between the blanket primary and top-two is that in a blanket primary system, the top vote-getter from each party goes on the November ballot.
In the California 1998 primary, not one incumbent state legislator was defeated for re-nomination. If the proponents of a top-two primary were correct, there should have been many state legislators defeated in the 1998 primary. After all, the primaries of 1996 (which had elected all Assemblymembers) and the primaries of 1994 and 1996 (which had elected all Senators), were completely closed. Independent voters could not vote in those primaries.
Top-two proponents say that California legislative districts are so gerrymandered, the same party always wins the general election for state legislature. They also say that the “ideologues” win the primaries because the “moderate” independents are locked out of the primaries. But, the evidence from 1998 disputes that.
Another piece of evidence is found in the fact that California allows recall elections with the nation’s easiest procedures. Yet, there are no viable recall petitions proceding against any California state legislator, on behalf of the “moderates” who feel their own legislator is an “ideologue” or “extremist”. When California holds a recall election, it simultaneously holds an election to replace the office-holder, just in case the office-holder is recalled. These special elections that are simultaneous with recalls are conducted under the top-two model (except there is no run-off). Every voter receives the same ballot, and it lists the candidates from all parties. Whoever gets the most votes wins. The reason there are no recall petitions circulating is because people know that California state legislators, “extreme” or not, generally represent public opinion in their own district.
Almost all California Republican legislators are opposed to raising taxes. Their own districts support them. Almost all California Democratic legislators are opposed to cutting benefits for the poor, or for education. Their own districts support them. Changing to a top-two system will not cause state legislators to be replaced with different kinds of legislators.
A final piece of evidence that top-two won’t change the identity of California state elected officisls is that each of the two most recent Governors of California was elected in a system very like top-two, in their first election to office. Current Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected in the 2003 recall election, and previous Governor Gray Davis was elected in the blanket primary of 1998.
I agree that top two is unlikely to lead to the election of more moderate legislators. But the evidence from 1998 is not as convincing as you make it out to be. The relevant test would not be based on whether challengers can unseat incumbents, because the advantages of incumbency are so enormous. We need to look at open seats. Were those elected in districts with open seats in 1998 more moderate than those elected in districts with open seats in 1996 and 2000?
I don’t know the answer, and I suspect that there may not have been enough open seats in that one year to provide a good test. It may turn out that it would take several election cycles of top two elections to produce enough data points to settle the question. Has anybody done any careful comparisons of Louisiana election results with other states?
It is difficult to do that research without some sort of database to identify which legislators are “ideologues” and which aren’t. As to Louisiana, though, I will be working to get some data.
What is interesting is that proponents of “top-two” never are willing to list which California legislators they feel are “ideologues”.
*****”Almost all California Republican legislators are opposed to raising taxes.”*****
I totally disagree with the statement. The party should re-name itself: Liberal Republican Party of California. GOP legislators could have blocked spending but voted to put tax increase extensions on the ballot. Plus the state GOP donated about $1 million to buy TV and radio spots urging a yes vote on more taxes.
FACT: Every Republican Governor has refused to use their veto to cut spending. The state budget and taxes keeps growing with the full support of the two major parties. Both parties are bought and paid for by endless corrupt union and corporation money. A “top two” system just eliminates any possible opposition to the Fascist Union-Corporate State in the November election.
P.R. NOW.
Total Votes / Total Seats = EQUAL votes needed for each seat winner — using pre-election candidate rank order lists.
SOOOOO difficult — in this New Age of Math MORONS– especially in the media and the party hack courts.
Some regimes surviving with about 95 percent accurate P.R. systems (but with MAJOR separation of powers problems) —-
Germany, Israel, New Zealand.
—-
NONPARTISAN A.V. for elected executive / judicial officers.
NO party hack extremist caucuses, primaries and conventions are needed.
CALIFORNIA: In 2008 some 94 out of 100 state legislative “elections” were no contest. In almost every race the losing candidate did not even spend a dime, nada, nothing. The so-called elections are a fraud. They are kept in place to keep the Sheeple in line when they are instructed by their Masters on how to vote.
A top two system changes nothing.
If the “top two” is such a great idea, why is it that only two states– Louisiana and Washington– have ever used it to elect all of their state officials? And Washington’s “top two” is facing further federal litigation.
Washington alone now uses the “top two” for its congressional elections. Louisiana is the only other state that has ever used the “top two” for its congressional elections.
When a candidate gets 50%-plus in the first round of Louisiana’s “top two” (“open primary”), there is no second round of voting. In Washington and the California proposal, in contrast, there is ALWAYS a runoff.
Louisiana has used its “top two” (“open primary”) for state offices since 1975. That state used it for its congressional elections, 1978-2006, and restored party primaries for Congress in 2008.
What were the years in which the Democrats and Republicans were the only qualified parties in Louisiana?
Actually, in California in November 2008, four of the Assembly seats changed hands between the major parties. One went from Democratic to Republican; 3 went from Republican to Democratic.
#6 Before introduction of the Australian ballot, any voter could vote for any candidate they chose to. Many of those elections included provisions for a runoff, or even repeated trials.
You probably need to go listen to the oral arguments in Foster v. Love. Attorney General Ieyoub, representing the State of Louisiana (and Governor Foster), claimed that Louisiana’s congressional system was so unique that Congress could not possibly have been thinking of a system like in Louisiana. He even argued that it was mere coincidence that the runoff was held on the first Tuesday after the First Monday in November, and that Louisiana could hold its general election August with a runoff in September.
The lawyer for Love correctly noted that when Congress set the uniform national congressional election date in 1872, that all States had a system like that used in Louisiana (though not all had a runoff).
Mr. Love simply wanted to have a chance to vote for or against Billy Tauzin on election day. Now that Louisiana has retrogressed to using party primaries, a similarly situated voter had absolutely no say in the election of Charlie Melancon (who represents the same area as Tauzin did).
Further, Louisiana has had to implement a complex system of lockout devices on their voting machines, which nearly denied the right of a primary for smaller parties, and is used to deny constitutionally qualified voters from voting in its congressional elections.
#7 the main factor in AD 10, 15, and 78 was the massive increase in turnout, and the fact that there was no incumbent. AD 30 (the GOP pickup) appears to have a high concentration of Hispanics (turnout was less than 1/2 of the other districts) who might not have been as inclined to show to vote for Obama.
I suppose you could make an argument that given the large number of voters who come out to vote for president and have no clue who their legislators are, or what they do, it is best to let the party activists choose who is nominated.
The more compelling argument for Top 2 is simply that it permits all voters to choose among all candidates as to who their elected officials are.
Those who are trying to build a legal case against Top 2 may promote the issue of the moderating influence, since they know that the Supreme Court is unlikely to approve that as a compelling state interest.
They may also try to promote the idea that Top 2 is the same as a blanket primary – after all that tactic was successful in delaying implementation in Washington (eg the Grange was behind the blanket primary, the Grange was behind Top 2, therefore the blanket primary is the same as Top 2).
Any moderating effects, are more likely to be seen in a reduction in partisanship rather than in ideologues. After all the candidate may have to run on a platform of wanting to be the legislator for the district, rather than leading the district’s Democrats in defeating the district’s Republican’s on election day or vice versa.
And of course, one is unlikely to see much effect in a single election. In Ireland, redistributions sometimes cause a 5-seat constituency to be divided into 2 3-seat constituencies, or two 3-seat constituencies to be combined in a single 5-seat constituency.
At the next election, the parties tend to treat the election as if nothing had changed. Minor parties are less likely to contest 3-seat constituencies since under STV you need roughly 25% of the vote, vs. 16.6% in a 5-seat constituency. But when a 5-seat constituency is split, they may tend to continue to run in both of the constituencies.
And when constituencies are merged, parties may not field a candidate in the larger constituency, even though their opportunity for election is now enhanced. Meanwhile larger parties may run more candidates than is politically astute. If they had run two candidates in a 3-seat constituency, they may run 4 in a merged 5-seat constituency.
Under the current partisan system, candidates who might have been successful under Top 2 may be frozen out or lose, and switch their interest to other endeavors often completely outside politics. When a switch to Top 2 is made, they aren’t going to suddenly run. Similarly, those elected under a highly partisan system are not going to suddenly disappear. They have incumbency, name recognition, financial backing.