Christina Tobin, founder of Free and Equal, has this op-ed in the Desert Sun, the daily newspaper of Palm Springs, California. The subject is California’s Proposition 14, the “top-two” measure on the June 8, 2010 ballot.
Christina Tobin, founder of Free and Equal, has this op-ed in the Desert Sun, the daily newspaper of Palm Springs, California. The subject is California’s Proposition 14, the “top-two” measure on the June 8, 2010 ballot.
She notes that, in the years that Louisiana used the “top two” (“open primary”) for congressional elections, 1978-2006, only one incumbent member of Congress was defeated (other than in the redistricting elections of 1992). That was the scandal-tarred Rep. Buddy Leach, who would likely have lost in any election system.
She also mentions that Washington state first used the “top two” in 2008. That was the first time since Washington attained statehood in 1889 that there was not a single independent or small party candidate in the final election for Congress or statewide state office.
#1 The scandal arose out of the 1978 election. Otherwise, one could say that because the Open Primary produces a majority winner, that it produces more stable results.
1. Cleo Fields was filmed by the FBI stuffing $20,000 in his pants. He said at the time that there was a funny story, but I don’t believe he has ever told it.
2. The only time that an incumbent congressman was defeated in Louisiana under the non-party primary was after the incumbent’s first term. His first election was extremely close (266 votes) and he won only after the US House ruled that there was not proof of enough illegal votes to change the outcome (25 persons pled guilty or were convicted of vote-buying). In the 1980 runoff between two Democrats, Republican voters in the open primary switched to back the challenger who won with 64% of the vote. Had a party primary been used, it is quite possible that Buddy Leach would have been elected without controversy and been re-elected for decades.
More typically, once the open primary determined a majority winner, the voters supported the same candidate in succeeding elections. In 1978, because of vote fraud the open primary may not have determined the true winner.
3. In 2008, the party primary was first used in a special election after Richard Baker resigned in midterm to become a lobbyist. Voters may been more likely to support a Democrat if they believed that Baker had cashed out. Don Cazayoux defeated Michael Jackson in the Democratic runoff 53:47, and then had a plurality victory in the special general election, because of 3 spoiler candidates.
In the election for the full term just 6 months later Cazayoux had no Democratic opponents, in part because his foe from the spring, Michael Jackson, ran as an independent and drew 12% of the vote. This permitted the Republican Bill Cassidy to achieve a 48-40-12 plurality win over the 6-month incumbent Cazayoux. I’ll leave it to Christina Tobin to explain how non-majority elections with partisan candidates running against a fellow member of their party 6 months later are so useful.
Under the open primary Cassidy, Cazayoux, and Jackson would have run altogether. Then Cassidy and Cazayoux would have faced off in the runoff.
4. In CD 2, Hurricane Gustav had as much effect as anything. It delayed the election from November to December, so the Democrats did not get the advantage of the turnout in Orleans Parish (where Obama had 80% of the vote, and Mary Landrieu had 84%) and where William Jefferson was nominated by the Democratic primary. I don’t see what Tobin thinks is so significant about the 2.8% of the vote received by the Green Party candidate, or for that matter, her fellow Libertarian candidate who received 0.8%. Is she arguing that he was a spoiler who pulled enough votes from Jefferson in order for Joseph Cao to win?
5. In 2004 in Washington, Christine Gregoire and Dino Rossi were nominated by the type of party primary system that Tobin claims to support. The general election was extremely close, not being settled until the 2nd recount was completed days before Christmas. Later court proceedings determine that there were several hundred illegal votes cast, by felons, dead people, double votes, improperly counted provisional votes, etc. But they could not determined how the votes had been cast. This determined that the same two candidates would face off in 2008. And in 2004, there was a spoiler candidate, so that Gregoire did not have a majority, and the battle was over who had the larger plurality.
Tobin knows that the US Supreme Court did not rule until March 2008, and the Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian parties did everything they could to block the Top 2 Open Primary. It is incredible that anyone would think that anyone other than Gregoire and Rossi would be the two candidates in the gubernatorial election.
6. Washington elects 3 legislators: 2 representatives and 1 senator, from each legislative district. Under the blanket primary it was not uncommon to have mixed delegations. Some voters might deliberately seek split representation. Or an incumbent might be able to secure enough votes to overcome the party trend for the district.
Under the blanket primary, voters could cross-over, so if a voter wanted to vote for a Republican representative for Position 1, and a Democrat for Position 2, they could. Though the 9th Circuit found that they were engaging in party raiding, they were likely voting for the candidate they preferred.
Even though the blanket primary was a party primary, a candidate who received cross-over support could have the effect of forcing a challenger from the opposite party to be more extreme. And some voters who crossed over, or wholly regarded themselves as independent would stick with the candidate in the general election.
Split delegations were somewhat fragile. There has been increased demographic polarization, so that individual districts are strongly Republican or Democratic. Beyond a certain point, incumbents of the minority party can’t get enough crossover support to remain in office. Or if an incumbent retires or moves to another office, their replacement will usually be from the majority party.
Increased dependence on the mass media means that voters often know very little about their particular legislators (or candidates). TV stations simply aren’t going to cover 20 legislative elections, and newspaper coverage might be limited to a single article. So voters increasingly depend on the (D) or (R) after the name.
Incumbency might give a candidate a 10-15% bonus, so a candidate might be able to hold on in a district where his party is a minority. But once the seat flips, incumbency increases the advantage of the majority party. Democratic legislators often ran ahead of Gregoire, and Republican legislators often ran ahead of Rossi.
The two party-primary elections may have accelerated the loss of split delegations, which decreased from 14 to 10 during 2004 and 2006. After 2008, there were no districts in which Gregoire received 54% or more of the vote that did not elect 3 Democrats, and only one district* where Rossi received 56% or more of the vote that did not elect 3 Republicans.
In a partisan primary, otherwise cross-over voters may have voted for a challenger of their party. In the general, they may remember the name as being “familiar”.
The one exception was in extreme southeast Washington, including Walla Walla, where Rossi received 65% of the vote, but had a long time Democratic legislator. He died, and a special election was held in 2009 where his daughter sought to replace him (running as a Democrat, but emphasizing her independence and affinity for the area of the state). In the special general, she lost by about a 60:40 margin.
After excluding the 21 districts where Gregoire had 54% or more, and the 11 districts where Rossi had 56% or more, there are only 17 moderate polarity, and 9 have split delegations. The slight bias in this window towards the Democratic side may be because Obama did quite a bit better than Gregoire, so those voters who headed to the polls to vote for Obama and were surprised to find that Washington had a governor and legislature probably voted D right down the line.
The party shifts in 2004 and 2006 were entirely from Republican to Democratic, and concentrated in the King County suburbs of Seattle. 7 were in districts which were 54% to 57% for Gregoire in 2008. IOW, they had shifted enough toward the Democratic side that a Republican incumbent might be narrowly defeated, and Democrats would win any open seat.
The party shifts in 2008 and 2009 were 5 to the Republican side, and 3 to the Democratic side, which probably reflects a stabilization of a partisan shift. 2010 might produce a shift back towards the Republican side. But unless this is coincident with retirements, it may not produce a large number of legislative shifts.
Gregoire 58%+ (14 districts) 42:0 D:R (2002) to 42:0 (2008)
Gregoire 54-57% (7 districts) 14:7 (2002) to 21:0 (2008), +7 gain for Democrats.
Gregoire 50-53% (5 districts) 7:8 (2002) to 13:2 (2008), +7 gain for Democrats.
Gregoire 49% (5 districts) 7:8 (2002) to 10:5 (2008) +3 gain for Democrats.
Gregoire 44-48% (8 districts) 5:19 (2002) to 4:20 (2008) +1 gain for Republicans.
Gregoire 43%- (10 districts) 1;29(2002) to 1:29(2008) and 0:30 (2009) +1 gain for Republicans.
So if anything, the two elections under the party primary regime has increased party polarization.
7. 100% of voters are eligible to vote for any candidate on the ballot under a Top 2 Open Primary.
#3 (dissertation): “… non-majority elections with partisan candidates running against a fellow member of their party…”
You mean like Joe Lieberman in Connecticut and Charlie Crist in Florida (and, for that matter, Theodore Roosevelt vs. William H. Taft in 1912)?
Only Louisiana and Washington state use the “top two” to elect all of their state officials; only Washington uses it to elect its congressional delegation. The only state besides those two that requires a popular majority (50%-plus) to win a general election is Georgia.
The rest of the states– unlike you and Demo Rep– do not consider the voice of the majority to be the Voice of God– although the winners of most general elections do get 50%-plus.
A number of U. S. presidents have been elected with less than 50% of the popular vote– Lincoln, Wilson, Clinton, Nixon… to name several.
“I don’t see what… is so significant about the 2.8% of the vote received by the Green Party candidate, or [the] Libertarian candidate who received 0.8%.”
What’s significant about those candidates is that (1) they gave the voters more choices in the final, deciding election, and (2) their supporters were able to vote for their favorite candidate in that final election. Also, the Green Party and the Libertarian Party had their messages presented in the campaign in which the larger number of voters were paying attention.
Your beloved “top two open primary” will, in all likelihood, eventually cause the small parties to become extinct. Then the voters will also have fewer choices in the FIRST round. But let’s face it: You don’t give a damn about political parties anyway– large or small.
Actually, Washington state does not require 50%-plus to win the final election, since it permits write-in votes.
Once again… the Voice of God is silenced.
#4 Joe Lieberman received 49.71% of the vote in the general election. He would have won a runoff.
In 1912, Roosevelt might well have beaten Wilson in a runoff.
If you want to minimize incumbent re-election, you would roll a dice. It is fair. But since it doesn’t depend on previous results, there is no advantage to the incumbent.
But the main advantage that incumbents have is that they were already chosen by the voters. If they don’t make the same choice, it may mean that the original election was based on superficial or transient factors. Plurality election is more susceptible to such factors.
Woody Jenkins might have been elected in the special election in CD 6 in a majority election.
“I don’t see what… is so significant about the 2.8% of the vote received by the Green Party candidate, or [the] Libertarian candidate who received 0.8%.â€
Christina Tobin in her editorial credits Joseph Cao’s election in the December general election to the partisan primary, and the vigorous campaign of the Green Party candidates.
Do you agree with her analysis?
Do you think that if the supporters of the Green and Libertarian party candidates had been forced to make a choice between William Jefferson and Joseph Cao, that 87% would have chosen William Jefferson?