In October 2003, California held a recall election to determine if Governor Gray Davis should be recalled. As is normal in California recall elections, the same ballot asking voters to vote “Yes” or “No” on the recall also had a separate section, holding an election for the office, just in case the voters vote “Yes” on recall. That election was conducted with a single ballot that carried the names of all candidates, and all voters received an identical ballot. No majority was required to elect. It is not possible to know exactly how the members of any particular party voted, but it is possible to make an estimate.
The California October 2003 ballot is famous for having 135 candidates listed for Governor to replace Davis. Arnold Schwarzenegger won that election, with 4,206,284 votes. His nearest Republican competitor, Tom McClintock, only got 1,161,287 votes. The ballot carried party labels, and Schwarzenegger had “Republican” next to his name.
Recently a proponent of the “top-two open primary” ballot measure, set for the June 2010 ballot, wrote an op-ed that appeared in at least three newspapers. Here is the version that appeared in La Prensa, which is identical to the version that appeared in the Grass Valley Union and the Santa Ynez Valley Journal. It says “In the 2003 recall, an election very similar to how the new open primary would work, independent voters elected Arnold Schwarzenegger, a man who could never have won a Republican primary.”
A look at the 2003 election results shows that this claim is not true. In October 2003, 35.30% of the registered voters were Republicans, according to the Secretary of State’s registration tally for that election. Assuming that registered Republicans turned out in the same proportion as other voters, that means that 3,056,210 registered Republicans voted. In reality, the number was probably higher, because Republicans in California traditionally have higher turnout than other voters.
Now assume that the Republican candidates for Governor, other than Schwarzenegger, received all their votes only from registered Republicans. There were 1,229,240 votes for these anti-Schwarzenegger Republican candidates. That still leaves 1,826,970 registered Republican voters who must have voted either for Schwarzenegger, or for a Democrat, a minor party member, or an independent candidate. The only minor party or independent candidates who received as much as 15,000 votes were Peter Camejo of the Green Party (who got 242,247 votes) and Arianna Huffington, an independent (who got 47,505 votes). Even if 600,000 of the registered Republicans voted for a Democrat or for a minor party candidate (which is wildly unlikely), that means that at least 1,226,970 registered Republicans voted for Schwarzenegger. So, Schwarzenegger would have defeated Tom McClintock and all the other Republicans, even in a closed Republican primary, in 2003.
Proponents of the “top-two open primary” in California, in their writings so far, have not applied analytical rigor. No commentary yet published in California in favor of that system has yet mentioned that two states have already tried the system. One would think, if one were advocating an idea that had already been tried in two other states, one would point to what has actually happened in those other two states to validate one’s claims.
Maybe Jason Olson will chime in with a comment here?
Darrell Issa would have been less likely to drop out of a Republican primary, and there was certainly a concern that Cruz Bustamante would have been elected because of a split in the Republican vote. Two weeks before the election, Issa was suggesting a No vote on recall if one of Schwarzenegger or Tom McClintock did not drop out.
There were about 9.3 million voters. Based on shares of registered voters, this mean about 4.1M Democrats, 3.3M Republicans, 1.5M DTS, and 0.4M other (AI, G, P&F, NLP, L plus official Other).
If all Democrats voted for Bustamante (2.7M), abstained (0.8M), or voted for Schwarzenegger, then 0.6M voted for Schwarzenegger.
If all DTS and other voters voted for other candidates (0.5M) or Schwarzenegger, then 1.4M voted for Schwarzenegger.
You can rearrange the Democrat, DTS, and other vote, but you still end up with 2.0M votes for Schwarzenegger.
If all Republicans voted for McClintock (1.2M) or Schwarzenegger, then 2.1M voted for Schwarzenegger.
So the Schwarzenegger support would be 2.1M Republican, 1.4M DTS and other, and 0.6M Democrat.
To the extent that Republican voters voted for Bustamante, abstained, or voted for other candidates, their Schwarzenegger votes would be decreased, and the Democratic, DTS, and other support for Schwarzenegger would be increased.
So at least 1/2 of Schwarzenegger’s support came from independents and Democrats, with maybe 20% of Democrats supporting him, and a larger share of independents supporting him than did Republicans (they are at least comparable shares).
Schwarzenegger did not receive a majority, so either under the Louisiana system, or the Washington system he would have been in a runoff with Bustamante, and most McClintock supporters would have switched to him.
Of course the most important principle of the Open Primary is that all voters should be able to fully participate in the election of their officials. Why don’t opponents of the Open Primary address this issue? Perhaps they could publish an essay entitled “Why Democracy is Bad”.
Under present law in California, all voters are able to fully participate in all elections at which members of Congress and state officials are elected. There is only one election for Congress and state officials in California, and it is in November. California, like most states, doesn’t have run-offs for Congress or state office in cases where no one gets 50%.
Furthermore, all California registered voters are able to participate in the partisan primaries, which are not elections, since no one is elected at a partisan primary in California, even if only one candidate is running for the office. Also, any registered voter in California is free to sign a petition to get an independent candidate on the November ballot.
Also, any California voter can change his or her party affiliation from being a member of one party, to being a member of another party, only 15 days before any primary. A California voter can cast an early vote at any time up to 29 days before any primary or election. So any California voter who changes his or her mind as to which is the most interesting primary to vote in, can do so and then vote a minute later. So in what sense is the existing California system prevenging any voter from “participating fully in the election”?
California is far more free than Texas, where primary voters can’t sign for an independent candidate, and where no independent can enter the race for Congress or state office if they didn’t file a notice in January of the election year. Also Texas is one of only 5 states in which Ralph Nader wasn’t on the ballot in 2008.
P.R. and A.V.
Equal nominating petitions to get on the general election ballots.
NOOOOOOO primaries are needed.
SOOOOOOO difficult to understand — especially by the know it all media SUPER MORONS.
———
How about a few gigabytes of data in a zillion spreadsheet tables showing the zillion unequal party hack election laws on the various election law subjects ??? — especially relating to ballot access — for electors and candidates.
Schwarzenegger won 74% of Republicans according to the exit poll.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2003/recall/pages/epolls/governor.html
Now, there are a couple refutations to this. One is that the high turnout brought out more moderate Republicans than would have been seen in a straight-up Republican primary. That can be countered because 65% of self-described “very conservative” voters voted for Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger even won a 45% plurality among voters who believe abortion should be illegal in all cases.
The other claim, which is harder to refute, is that there was a “circle the wagons” effect among Republicans because they where afraid of the possibility that the recall would pass and Bustamonte would win because of a split Republican vote. In a straight-up Republican primary, they could have voted for whoever they wanted without fear because Bustamonte was such a weak candidate.
Thanks for that very interesting exit poll from 2003.
If another Republican had entered the 2003 race, it would have been Darrell Issa, as post #2 says. Issa is a conservative Republican, so if he had entered, probably the main effect would have been to weaken Tom McClintock, not Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Of course, in the 2006 Republican primary, Schwarzenegger had a very easy victory. He had 3 little-known Republican opponents in the 2006 primary, but he got 90.0% of the vote in that primary.
“Of course the most important principle of the Open Primary is that all voters should be able to fully participate in the election of their officials. Why don’t opponents of the Open Primary address this issue? Perhaps they could publish an essay entitled “Why Democracy is Badâ€.”
I’m sorry, but I don’t consider having only two candidates per race on my general election ballot to be very democratic.
arnold is a rino
# will bates: January 18th, 2010:
arnold is a rino
………. if only, if only!
Richard’s argument is heavily weighted with assumptions. When examined, those assumptions essentially make the argument fall apart.
Richard assumes that those Republicans who turned out in the recall are the same as those Republicans who regularly turn out in a partisan primary. Comparing the turnout among registered voters during the recall (61%) to the previous two Gubernatorial Primaries (35%, and 43% respectively) is a pretty stark example of this.
In addition, this type of “what if” analysis ignores the real political events that make up an election. In the days leading up to the election, Schwarzenegger was able to consolidate a lot of (but by no means all) Republican backing because he was doing so well in the polls – particularly with independents and Democrats.
What is Richard’s “predicted probability” of Schwarzenegger (or someone like him) even running in a closed primary situation?
I think a quick look at the 2002 Republican Gubernatorial Primary (the year before) in which Bill Simon defeated LA Mayor Richard Riordan is a perfect example of how the closed primary benefits the organized ideological extreme in the Republican Party.
I wanted to leave a separate comment to respond to the comments in this article.
Frankly, I find Richard’s assertions Orwellian. To assert that it is essentially the right of parties to control the first round of elections (yes Richard, the primary is an election, despite the tortured definition gymnastics you do) is contrary to the very founding principles of this country.
If someone can show me where in the US Constitution it references the right of parties to control who the people vote for, then I will gleefully submit.
The reason people are becoming independents is specifically a reaction against the partisanship that has plunged our Country and State into the mess we have today. To simply argue “well that’s the way that a small fraction of third party activists want it” and to rely on what is essentially a redefining of what election means demonstrates the corruption of the Third Parties themselves.
Frankly, I think the Open Primary would help save the Third Parties from themselves. But more importantly, it would empower voters – particularly independents, to have a voice in a process that is currently designed to minimize their input.
#11 In ALL govts since day 1 —
it is ALL about the tax/borrowed money $$$$$ — i.e. which leftwing / rightwing party hack gangs get such money — govt officers/employees, govt contractors, govt creditors (interest), govt welfare folks — i.e. govt subgangs within the larger govt gang.
Thus the worse and worse partisanship stuff.
Party hack voters in a party hack party are a subgroup of ALL voters.
Since when does ANY such subgroup of voters have a constitutional right to have ***its*** candidates on the general election ballots ???
See the 2008 WA top 2 case in the Supremes.
Spare me and the list any mindless comments about any pending *as applied* stuff in the case — with the FREE advertising given to the party hacks by the party hack labels on candidates in the primary and general elections.
Closer and closer to the CA June vote.
Are the CA leftwing / rightwing party hacks sweating bullets more and more ???
#5,6
There is a very strong relationship in the poll between a Yes vote on the recall and a vote for Schwarzenegger, and a No vote on the recall and a vote for Bustamante. This is much weaker among McClintock voters.
Among those who disapproved of the way Gray Davis was performing his job, and voted Yes on recall, Schwarzenegger had 4.5 times as much support as McClintock. Among those who disapproved of the way Gray Davis was performing his job, and voted No on recall, there was only 8% more support for Schwarzenegger than McClintock.
89% of Schwarzenegger voters voted for recall, while 72% of McClintock voters voted for recall. 18% of McClintock voters disapproved of Davis, but voted against recall, while 5% of Schwarzenegger voters did the same.
Some conservatives may be opposed to the concept of recall in general, or reserve its application to cases of actual malfeasance rather than mere incompetence. But other McClintock supporters may have perceived that a vote for McClintock and a Yes vote would increase the chance of a Bustamante election. They had three choices: (1) Vote for Schwarzenegger and Yes on recall; (2) Vote for McClintock and No on recall; (3) Vote for McClintock and Yes on recall. The first choice would be the most pragmatic, the second one somewhat pragmatic, and the 3rd least pragmatic.
In an ordinary Republican primary, the choice would not have been between Schwarzenegger and Bustamante, or Bustamante and Davis, but rather between Schwarzenegger and McClintock. While some primary voters would vote based on who they believed had a better chance to win the general election for the party, most will tend to vote more on ideology.
According to the poll, 44% of McClintock support came from non-Republicans, 25% from independents and others, and 19% from Democrats. 37% of Schwarzenegger support came from non-Republicans, 22% from independents and others, and 15% from Democrats. It is mainly these non-Republican McClintock voters that threw off my original analysis (I’d assumed 100% of McClintock voters were Republican).
Some voters will align their party with their vote, that is they said they were a Republican because they voted for a Republican candidate, even though in other circumstances they would not have reported themselves to be a Republican or voted in a Republican primary.
The poll reported 38% Republicans vs. 35% registration; Democrats: 39% polled, 44% registration; DTS/other 23% poll, 21% registration. This would seem to be a reasonable shift – Davis is not a particularly electrifying candidate, and registered Democrats who voted for recall might not have reported themselves as being a Democrat to a pollster, and some voters game the registration system in order to participate in primaries.
The poll under-reported actual support for Schwarzenegger support by about 2.5% margin and over-reported Bustamante support by about the same, which together compressed the Schwarzenegger plurality from 17% in reality to 12% in the poll.
The poll also had 4% of voters abstaining in the replacement race, vs. 8% in reality. They also did not provide the breakdown on these voters, even though there were 3 times as many abstainers as Camejo voters, and their were 65% as many as there were McClintock voters.
There may be some deliberate under-reporting of abstentions, and there may also have been some accidental abstentions – the double vote system used in recalls is not so easy to understand, and 135 candidates may lead to more confusion than some other elections.
Olson is apparently a Fulani/Fred Newman associate. Just saying…
Jim Riley and Jason Olson do not appear to distinguish between election and nomination. They argue that because primary elections are elections, any voter should be able to vote for any candidate. When this is the case, the primary is no longer a nomination procedure. Is that good or bad? It depends on (1) whether parties are allowed to use any other nomination procedure (convention, caucus, private primary), and (2) your view of parties in general. (Note: nomination and endorsement are not the same thing. Washington top two and Maldonado allow parties to endorse but not to nominate.) I believe that we need strong political parties, we just need more than two of them. And I believe that having political parties means having viable nominating procedures. Primaries — nominating elections conducted for the parties at public expense — have both pros and cons. But if you want to get rid of them you have to say what you would put in their place.
#7 In 2008 in California, in 29 of 53 Congressional districts (54%) there were 2 or fewer candidates on the general election ballot.
In 7 districts there was only one candidate, and in all 7 cases there only a single candidate on the primary ballot. Under the Top 2 Open Primary, an independent candidate only needs 40 signatures to get on the ballot vs. around 10,000 under current law. And a declare write-in candidate can qualify for the general election ballot merely by finishing 2nd. So in these cases there would be more choices in both the primary and the general election.
In 11 of the 22 districts with 2 candidates in the general election, there were only 2 candidates in the primary (eg both candidates were unopposed). So there would be the same amount of choice, unless the open primary induced more candidates to run.
But in the other 11 districts with two general election candidates, there were 49 primary candidates, or 4.45 per district. While under an open primary, there would be no greater choice in the general election, there would be greater choice for all voters in the primary.
There were 18 districts with 3 candidates on the general election ballot. The 3rd place candidate averaged 4.7% of the vote, about what a NOTA option would receive if there were only 2 candidates. The 3rd-placed candidate may have been squeezed, as voters perceived that it was a wasted vote. In an open primary, voters would feel freer to support their true choice, knowing that even if that candidate lost, the voter could vote in the general election. This could in fact make 3rd party and independent candidates more viable.
12 of these districts had 3 unopposed primaries. So they would lose a 3rd candidate who averaged 4.2% support in the general election.
The other 6 had 31 candidates or 5.1/district. So there would be greater choice for all voters in the primary.
There 5 districts with 4 general election candidates. The 3rd and 4th place candidates together averaged 7.2% of the vote. But there were 25 primary candidates or 5 per district. So there would be a loss of choice in the primary, for some marginal choices in the general election.
In the one district with 5 general election candidates, the 3 also-rans received 6.3% of the vote (2.2%, 2.1%, and 2.0%) respectively. There were 9 primary candidates in that district.
So in fact, the current system in most cases does not provide more than two candidates in the general election. When it does, these candidates tend to be quite marginal, and about as meaningful as a NOTA option. The system has extreme barriers against independent candidates and may squeeze support for 3rd party candidates. And it reduced overall choice in the system.
#16 Footnote. The two independent candidates for Congress were counted as general election candidates and as primary candidates. Though they did not appear on the primary ballot under the current system, they presumably would have run under the Top 2 Open primary.
ason Olson: January 18th, 2010
“What is Richard’s “predicted probability†of Schwarzenegger (or someone like him) even running in a closed primary situation?”
“I think a quick look at the 2002 Republican Gubernatorial Primary (the year before) in which Bill Simon defeated LA Mayor Richard Riordan is a perfect example of how the closed primary benefits the organized ideological extreme in the Republican Party.”
Whoa, whoa, whoa: and remember the IMMENSE sub rosa effort of the Democratic Party sitting California Governor to promote Simon as the WEAKER candidate!
#15 In many cases, “nomination” is effectively the same as “election”. In some States (Louisiana and Florida) the election is cancelled if there is only one nominee (Florida at least opens up the primary in such cases).
Prior to the introduction of the Australian ballot nomination and endorsement were the same thing. It was simply a statement of support, which might lead party supporters to actively support their candidate, print ballots, etc. It might or might not lead to the losing candidate bowing out of the race. And it could lead to all kinds of corruption, such as deliberately misprinted ballots, vote stuffing, vote buying, interfering with distribution of ballots, lack of secrecy, etc.
The Australian ballot was intended to reform this system.
When the Australian ballot was first introduced in South Australia, nomination required two persons, a nominator and seconder.
When the governor of New York vetoed the law introducing the Australian ballot to that State, he did so because he said it would eliminate the system of “self nomination” by which he meant a voter could place a candidate in contention for election by voting for him (before the Australian ballot, all votes were write-in – though the parties and others would prepare ballots with the names of their nominees already written/printed).
Supporters of the Australian ballot responded that to be included on the ballot would require a relatively trivial amount of support (IIRC, 15 signatures).
What happened was that the political parties took over the system, and made it relatively easy for their candidates to get on the ballot, and harder for others to get on the ballot. They introduced sore loser laws, so candidates who were defeated in the primary could not run in the general election.
So instead of party thugs preventing distribution of ballots, or “persuading” challengers from withdrawing, they would now use legal maneuvers and get the State government to keep challengers off the ballot.
The Top 2 Open Primary simply lets any candidate who can secure a modest number of signatures (40 for Congress in California, compared to around 10,000 for independent candidates under current law), pay a relatively small fee and will be placed on the ballot, where all voters can vote for any candidate they want to, just as they now do for city and county elections, or for the superintendent of public instruction. The two with the most votes will go on to a second round where all voters will make the final choice.
Newspapers, labor unions, professional associations, influential individuals, bloggers, etc. will be free to make endorsements just like they do now.
Qualified parties will be able to make endorsements and have those endorsements printed on sample ballots distributed as part of the Voter’s Pamphlet. Since about 50% of California voters are now permanent by-mail voters, many voters will be able to consult these endorsements as they fill in their ballot. In-person voters will be able to consult these before voting (in Texas, sample ballots may be taken into the ballot booth, is the same true in California?).
In Mississippi, there is a bill before the legislature that would make county elections non-partisan, but would require a majority election. The first election would be styled a “preferential election”. If a candidate received a majority, he would be placed on the general election ballot. If no candidate received a majority, the top 2 would qualify for the general election. It would also restyle a “primary election” as a “primary”. Perhaps the hangup is over the use of the term “primary” which some people associate exclusively with partisan primaries (perhaps these people think a primary school is where party candidates learn to run for office, and a primary caregiver is where a political party provides all the needs of the individual).
#16 Rigged gerrymander districts in ALL States having 2 or more U.S.A. Reps.
Somehow by accident about 30 of the 435 gerrymander districts are *somewhat* marginal.
Result — about 30 percent indirect minority rule by the 218 lowest winning party hacks of the Donkey / Elephant party.
Same math in ALL houses of ALL 50 State legislatures.
P.R. = NO party safe seat gerrymander districts.
—
#19 LOTS of top 2 nonpartisan primaries in many local governments – cities, villages especially — which manage to survive.
Probably the biggest reason for all non-Major party candidates vote share being so low is that virtually none of them are able to collect even 1/10th the amount in campaign contributions. If people don’t know much about you few are willing to take a chance on a third party candidate. California’s voters took a baby step to help with this iniquity when they approved the idea that candidates agreeing to a reasonable limit of campaign spending are able to purchase space in the sample ballot for a 250-word Statement that all voters will recieve with their ballot.