Several California newspapers have recently endorsed Proposition 14, and they all say the same thing in their editorials. They all assert that California’s legislature is polarized and that a “top-two” system will make the legislature less polarized and less partisan.
However, the political scientists who have studied polarization in state legislatures do not agree. Assistant Professor Boris Shor of the University of Chicago prepared a graph early this year that shows the degree of partisan polarization in each state’s legislature. His chart, listing all the states in order of conservative-to-liberal (as measured by state legislative votes plus their answers to questionaires), can be seen here.
California’s position on the bottom of the chart is meant to show that California has the most liberal legislature in the nation.
States are not listed in order of polarization.
The chart does show that California’s legislature is the most polarized, but it also shows that Washington state’s legislature is almost as polarized as California’s legislature. Washington state used a blanket primary 1934 through 2002, a classic open primary in 2004 and 2006, and a top-two primary in 2008. If it is true that blanket primaries and top-two primaries counteract polarization, Washington cannot be explained. Washington state has, on the average, that third-most liberal Democratic legislators in the nation. Only the California Democrats, and the New York Democrats, are more liberal. Washington state Republicans in the legislature are considerably more conservative than Republicans on the average in the nation.
Political scientist Eric McGhee, of the Public Policy Institute of California, has been speaking at various places in California about Proposition 14, and his presentation includes the Shor chart. McGhee’s op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle last month also agrees that California’s polarization is not a function of its primary system.
Political scientist Seth Masket also commented on the Shor chart on his blog. He says, about Proposition 14, “Given that other evidence about primaries and partisanship suggests little relationship between the two, I doubt the initiative would have anything close to the impact its backers suggest.” Masket is the author of the book, “No Middle Ground: How Informal Party Organizations Control Nominations and Polarize Legislatures.”
For the statistically inclined, there’s even better evidence. Keep in mind that California doesn’t have fully closed primaries, except for the Republican Presidential nomination. We have semi-closed primaries. That has to be the basis for comparison.
Summary: (1) Fully closed primaries are somewhat less hospitable to “moderate” candidates than other kinds of primaries. (2) Top Two and blanket primaries differ little, if at all, from the semi-closed primaries that California has now. (3) Open primaries (properly so-called) are somewhere in between. (The third point might seem somewhat counter-intuitive.)
See Elizabeth R. Gerber and Rebecca B. Morton, “Primary Election Systems and Representation”, Journal of Law, Economics & Organization, Vol. 14, No. 2 (1998): 304-324.
See also Kristin Kanthak and Rebecca Morton, “The Effects of Electoral Rules on Congressional Primaries”, pp. 116-131 in Peter F. Galdrisi, Marni Ezra and Michael Lyons, eds. Congressional Primaries and the Politics of Representation (Rowman and Littlefield, 2001).
A conceptual discussion that supports the same conclusion is Mandar P. Oak, “On the Role of the Primary System in Candidate Selection”, Economics and Politics, Vol. 18, No. 2 (July, 2006): 169-190.
It appears that Louisiana has the least polarized legislature after 3 decades of the Open Primary.
It also appears that Washington has one of the broadest range of positions within its Democratic party. This would suggest that to some extent Democrats fashion their positions in response to their district’s voters rather than simply marching to the party line. There are some extremely liberal areas in Seattle.
While a blanket primary may have some moderating effect, it is not the same as an Open Non-Party Primary. While the political parties were able to trick the lower courts in this regard, the US Supreme Court set them straight.
Washington elects 3 legislators from each legislative district, and for much of its history it was quite common to have split delegations. Perhaps because of the desire of voters to have representation from both parties, perhaps due to the ability of centrists to garner enough cross-over votes that prevent nomination of more extreme members of their own party, and also to force nominees of the opposite party to a more extreme position. In addition, if a voter votes for a candidate in the primary, they are more likely to vote for them in the general election.
The number of split delegations has now dropped to 9 of 49 legislative districts. It was 14 before institution of the Pick-A-Party Primary.
But this only works so long as a district itself is not too liberal or conservative. While the centrist of the minority party might gain nomination by appealing to cross-over votes, he’ll lose the general election.
If you go back over time, you will see a member of a minor party being elected election cycle after election cycle, even while the other two seats in the district are solidly held by members of the majority party. In some cases, a minority incumbent is narrowly defeated, while the majority incumbents might be elected by a 15-20% majority. At the next election the new incumbent will be re-elected with a margin similar to his fellow party members. A similar situation happens when a minority party member retires. The seat simply falls into line with its district.
And in a partisan district, the choice of who is elected to a seat is usually a plurality election by a minority faction of the majority. In a Top 2 election, it may be possible for a more moderate candidate to qualify for the general election.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627581.400-electoral-dysfunction-why-democracy-is-always-unfair.html
ALL single member gerrymander district schemes are AUTOMATIC indirect minority rule regimes.
Half plus the votes in half plus 1 of the gerrymander districts is about 25-30 percent MINORITY RULE — i.e. Indirect minority rule in ALL the major legislative bodies in the U.S.A. — both houses of the gerrymander Congress, ALL houses of ALL 50 State legislatures and many local govt regimes. A GIANT EVIL MESS.
P.R. and A.V. to end the mess.
Hope for a *hung* gerrymander House of Commons in the U.K. on 6 May 2010.
Good comments to protect the system. However, the unicameral house/legislature is the best. The state of Nebraska which is rarely mentioned saves the taxpayers money and gives transparency to the entire legislative process. That’s what I want for California. See http://www.pineda4governor.com.
Our economy and people need the Unicameral House.
The party hacks in the NE legislature make their EVIL deals behind closed doors — even more so than in other States.
— and give the false impression that all the alleged nonpartisan folks in the NE legislature love each other.
In three steps California could be a normal state. One, it should pass Prop 14; two, it should amend the requirements for passing a budget in the state legislature from 2/3 to a simple majority, and three, it should abolish term limits for state legislators.
#5: The unicameral legislature is a terrible idea. Why would you want to make it easier to pass laws? If you want to economize, you can reduce the size of the legislature while keeping two houses.
The Founding Fathers gave us a two-house Congress, and 49 states have followed with two-house legislatures.
#7: Two states– Louisiana and Washington– use the “top two open primary” to elect all of their state officials; only one state– Washington– uses it for its congressional elections, and that state’s “top two” is facing federal litigation.
What’s “normal” about all of that?
As for the 2/3 requirement, you advocates of the “top two open primary” should love it, since that’s what enabled Prop. 14 to be placed on California’s ballot. Sen. (Dis)Abel Maldonado’s vote was needed to pass the budget– and to raise taxes. In exchange for his vote, he cut a deal for the measure that led to Prop. 14, Maldonado’s Folly.
#6: Nebraska registers voters by party. Jim Riley can probably tell us how many state legislators there are registered independents, but I’m sure that the big majority of them are registered Democrats or Republicans– even though the legislative elections are nonpartisan.
BTW: Louisiana also registers voters by party, but all of its elections for state and local offices are nonpartisan (and the restoration of nonpartisan congressional elections has passed the state House and is now before the state Senate).
#8 It was pretty much an accident that we ended up with a bicameral Congress, especially where the upper house may have greater power.
Where the electorate and election methods are the same, there may be little difference in the composition of the two houses.