The California Secretary of State, for well over 100 years, has been publishing official election returns, in a booklet called “Statement of Votes.” These booklets always contain a chart showing historical data on turnout.
These booklets show that California voter turnout is always significantly higher in November general elections, than in primary elections. In the entire history of voter registration in California, over 50% of the registered voters have always turned out for regularly-scheduled general elections.
But no matter what kind of primary election system California has used in past decades, voter turnout in non-presidential primaries is always under 50% of the registered voters. One must go back to 1982 to find any non-presidential California primary election in which at least 50% of the registered voters voted. In June 1982, 52.7% of the registered voters voted.
Even when California used a blanket primary, in 1998, voter turnout in the June 1998 primary was only 42.5% of registered voters. It is true that turnout in the June 1998 primary was better than non-presidential primaries since then. But, California primaries since 1998 have always featured a Governor running for re-election. Generally, turnout in mid-term primaries is higher when there is no incumbent Governor running for re-election. Perhaps turnout in the June 2010 primary will be relatively high, because no incumbent Governor is running for re-election.
Turnout in November elections is always higher than turnout in June primaries because voter interest is always higher in election years in the fall, rather than in the spring. November elections are of heightened public interest, in California and in all states, because the entire nation is voting in November. The drama caused by the fact that all U.S. voters are voting nationwide on the same day, plus the higher stakes in November elections, guarantees that the fall campaign season will always be the high point of voter interest. Proposition 14, shutting all minor party, independent, and non-establishment campaigns out of the fall season, will significantly curtail the circulation of political ideas.
Richard, has any research been done on whether voter turnout rises in primary elections if a controversial ballot measure is also being voted on?
Do the promoters of such measures–whether legislature- or citizen-initiated–work on the premise that either the primary or the general election will favor them?
When was the last time there was a statewide independent candidate on the November ballot in California?
There have been three recent runoff elections for Louisiana governor, in 2003, 1995, and 1991. Primary turnout was 97%, 95%, and 90% of that for the general election, respectively.
There have been two recent runoffs for US Senators. In 2002, turnout in the primary was 101% of that in the general election. In 1996, turnout in the primary was 72% of the general election. But that year it was coincident with the presidential election.
In Louisiana, voters realize that important decisions are made in the primary and participate accordingly.
In 1998, in California there were statewide races where all parties had non-contested primaries. But since it was a blanket primary any voter could vote for the candidate of his choice, just as he could, for example, vote for any county supervisor candidate.
In the fall election the same candidates were on the ballot, and any voter could vote for the candidate of his choice. The results were roughly the same in percentage terms, except minor party candidates did slightly better in June. The likely difference was that voters in June felt freer to vote for a minor party candidate. But otherwise, the June electorate appears simply to be a sample of the November electorate. Exposure to new ideas did not happen. And of course there were no independent candidates.
How can you justify a system where in June it will be illegal for some voters to express any opinion whatsoever as to who the next governor will be?
Any candidate, no matter which party he or she is registered in, can file as a declared write-in candidate in any partisan primary in California. So the premise that it is illegal for some voters to express an opinion in June is not based in reality.
The last time there was a statewide independent candidate on the ballot in California was 2003.
Exposure to new ideas certainly does happen in the summer and fall. In September 2002, Green Party gubernatorial nominee Peter Camejo debated the Republican nominee on television. That debate got a lot of attention for Camejo, attention that he did not get in the pre-primary season. That is one reason why Camejo did so well in November, polling 5.26% statewide, and polling over 10% in Alameda, Humboldt, Marin, Mendocino, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Sonoma, and Yolo Counties. There would have been no such debate if California had had a top-two system in 2002.
#3 October is not November. When was the last time that there was an independent (non-presidential) candidate on a statewide general election ballot in California?
Signatures to qualify a write-in candidate must be by voters registered with the party whose nomination the candidate seeks. And only voters registered with that party may vote for the candidate.
It is illegal for some voters in California to vote for a gubernatorial candidate in the primary. They have as much right to vote as if they were felons, non-citizens, or under 18.
There is no reason that Peter Camejo could not have participated in a debate prior to the March 2002 primary.
#4 “There is no reason that Peter Camejo could not have participated in a debate prior to the March 2002 primary.”
Yeah, right! You only have to look at the 2003 recall election debates to see how that scenario will likely turn out. The moderators of that debate were more interested in the entertainment value of Schwarzenegger sparring with a fake candidate who withdrew after voting had begun than they were in giving serious candidates, including Camejo, a chance to debate substantive issues.
Equal nominating petitions.
P.R. and nonpartisan A.V. = NO primaries, caucuses, and conventions are needed = save some taxpayer cash for something else.
Jim Riley is so doggedly attached to this “top-two” hobby horse and so completely disengaged from any and all responses to his posts that I feel he must be in the paid employ of prop 14 advocates.
#5 it is quite likely that there will be fewer candidates in an Open Primary than there were for the recall circus. Under a Top 2 system it would be pointless to have a “Democratic debate” or a “Republican debate” or to limit the debate to those who polled 15%.
In 2002, Gray Davis agreed to only one debate with Bill Simon, and that was at noon Monday in a newspaper office (Los Angeles Times). Simon had invited Peter Camejo as his guest, but Davis threatened to pull out of the debate at the newspaper office on a Monday afternoon, if Camejo was even in the audience. When Camejo arrived with his invitation, union backers of Davis tried to block the signs of supporters of Camejo. It is reasonable to assume that some of the support that Camejo garnered was because of Davis’s refusal to debate.
#7 Richard Winger contends that turnout for the primary is much lower than the general election. But in the state with the longest history of a Top 2 primary for statewide offices, Louisiana, this is simply NOT true. When an election doesn’t mean anything, people are less likely to show up.
If a party doesn’t have a contested primary, voters in that party are less likely to show up for the primary. In California, minor party turnout in primaries is abysmal because they have extremely few contested primaries. When the blanket primary was used in 1998 and 2002, minor party candidates often had greater support in the primary than they did in the general election.
Some voters are probably registered with a major party because that permits them to actively participate in the primary election, but would vote for a minor party candidate. Independent and minor party voters are more likely to vote if they can vote for something other than county supervisors (while independent voters may vote in Republican and Democratic primaries, they have to actively request a partisan ballot. If they are permanent by-mail voters – about 1/2 of Californians are – they get sent a notice with a toll-free number that they may call to get information about which parties permit them to vote in their primary. They then have to send their request to the county so that the correct ballot can be sent. If they don’t respond, they are sent a non-partisan ballot).
Richard Winger contends that independent candidates will be missing from the general election ballot under Top 2. But in California they already are missing.
Yes there were independent candidates on the October 2003 recall ballot (135 total, 49 Democrats, 42 Republicans, 32 independents, 4 Greens, 3 Libertarians, 2 Natural Law, 2 American Independents, and 1 Peace & Freedom candidate). But Proposition 14 does not make any changes to recall elections.
And there have been independent presidential candidates. But Proposition 14 does not change presidential elections.
Statewide independent candidates have been almost non-existent.
There have been 9 independent congressional candidates in the last 900 congressional races. But the two who qualified in 2008, would likely have been on the general election ballot under a Top 2 system.
Independent candidates are also rare in legislative races, but some have been successful. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Quentin Kopp, Lucy Killea, or Audie Bock would not have qualified for a Top 2 general election, and at least the first two would have probably won.
In Louisiana there are currently two independent legislators who were elected as such under its “Top 2” elections.
Major political parties put up barriers because they want to retain power. They make it hard for both minor parties and independents to get on the ballot. Top 2 results in the elimination of those barriers, because they don’t want to block their own candidates from the ballot. Minor parties appeared to be suckered into the major-party culture of exclusion.
In California it requires 176,000 signatures to run for statewide office as an independent candidate. It requires around 10,000 to run for US Representative or California Senate, about half that for California Assembly. Proposition 14 reduces that to 65 (not 65 thousand or 65 hundred, but sixty five) for statewide offices and 40 for district offices.
Under Top 2 all voters will be permitted to vote and be given the same ballot. Some people think voters are more important, others think political parties are more important. If you are one of those who believes political parties are more important than voters, please explain why you do.
Louisiana turnout data for Louisiana state elections is not relevant, because Louisiana does holds its state elections in odd years. Louisiana thus separates itself out from the national interest engendered by national congressional elections, in November of even-numbered years.
I am fiercely opposed to the overly-strict California laws for how independent candidates get on the ballot. I have been active for 40 years trying to ameliorate those laws. We had some limited success in 1976, when the legislature passed AB 52 and made it effective immediately. Peter Camejo, Gus Hall, and Roger MacBride were all able to qualify as independent candidates for president, and Omari Musa was able to qualify as the Socialist Workers Party candidate for U.S. Senate as an independent. In 1978 Ed Clark got on the ballot as an independent for Governor. In 1980 John Anderson and Barry Commoner got on as independents for president. In 1988 Lenora Fulani got on as an independent for president, and in 1992 Ross Perot got on as an independent for president. But since then no one has qualified for statewide office, although in 2008 there were two independents for US House and one for State Senate.
Jim is crying crocodile tears when he complains about California’s existing independent candidate laws. He lives in Texas and Texas’ law for independent statewide candidates is even worse than California’s. It had never been used for any candidate for Governor until 2006; it has never been used for US Senate; it has only been used for President in 1980, 1992, 1996 and 2000. That is fewer usages than California’s. But Jim isn’t active in his home state, urging easier requirements for independent candidates for statewide office. Texas is peculiar, in that independent candidate requirements for district office are capped at 500 signatures, so it is only the Texas statewide independent procedures that are horrible.
#10 I included data from the US Senate races in Louisiana which are of course held in even-numbered years. In 1996, the primary had about 30% less turnout than the runoff, but the runoff was coincident with presidential election. In 2002, the senate primary had 101% of the turnout for the runoff.
In non-presidential years, the gubernatorial election will generally be the dominant race in California, even if there is a US Senate race. With the primary becoming more significant, turnout should increase some. It would probably help if it was moved to later in the year.
In presidential years, the primary will be out from under the shadow of the presidential race (assuming California has the good sense to keep them split). Turnout won’t be as great, because there will be no statewide race, unless there is a US senate race, voters will be able to focus on their legislative and congressional races. To the extent that these races are about ideas, they will get a better hearing in the primary, than when they are running under the shadow of the presidential election.
I’m not complaining about California’s existing independent candidate laws. I am pointing out that is disingenuous to express concern about independent candidates being on the general election ballot when the last statewide candidate was in 1978 and there have been 9 congressional independent candidates in the last 900 races.