Doug McIntyre hosts “McIntyre in the Morning” on Los Angeles talk radio station KABC, and has a twice-weekly column in the Los Angeles Daily News, which appears in other California newspapers as well. His November 8 column advocates that California repeal the top-two system. See here for more about McIntyre.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Please, more anti-top two noise?
He wants to back to the way it used to be where the majority can lose to a minor candidate garnering a minute percentage of the vote when major interest groups are split between multiple candidates. He wants to slam new candidates and thus discourage new voices?
I think the majority will be staying with majority rule just as voters had approved the top two system with a majority vote.
Fight Top Two and repeal it? No way! I have better things to do with my tome and it isn’t fight Top Two. It may be primitive but it’s better than what we had before.
We need ink on pure proportional representation (PR) where all people can work together. No more ink for fighting the majority, please! Look at the 100% for once.
Haven’t the anti Top Two people done enough damage, wasted enough time and resources on fighting, kicking everyone in the balls over and over again? When will people start looking at good improvements and show some appreciation for progress instead of the same naive, negative and destructive policy direction?
Top Two is not better than we had before here in California. True, before a candidate could win election with less than 50% of the vote, but that gave at least some emphasis that less than a majority agreed with the candidate and perhaps “moderated” the elected’s attitudes somewhat. But principally, before Top Two, many of us had the opportunity to vote for a candidate who might be more closely in tune with our own preferences – liberal, conservative or whatnot. We didn’t have to choose between “the lesser of two evils.” We had a voice at least to some degree. And that was worth a lot. “Top Two” needs to go!
It is not true that top-two guarantees the winner received a majority of the vote. In November 2012, Congressman Gary Miller was elected in U.S. House district 31, but he did not get a majority of the vote among voters who came to the polls. That is because 23.1% of the voters who cast a ballot left US House blank.
Thank heavens that voters in Oregon said no to top two.
You know what I mean – majority of the votes cast for an office which is how election “winners” get reported. It would be really rare for any news agency or elections office to report blank ballots. Then, if you were to calculate in (or out) those qualified to vote but who did not vote at all, you’d certainly have all winners elected by a minority!
I think the fact that they did, and the voters in Arizona did previously, shows that a repeal effort might win in CA, and in WA.
If you want to have an open primary, have one where anyone can get on the primary ballot with their own party or as an independent, and the top vote-getter from each party and the top independent make the ballot.
Of course, the best system is to require parties to fund their own primaries & conventions, make general election ballot access a flat filing fee or declaration of candidacy, and use either approval or instant run-off voting.
Would not “Instant Runoff” accomplish the same thing that Top Two advocates – or at least what is being advocated by James Ogle?
If I understand “Instant Runoff,” the 2nd choice votes of the eliminated candidates in the General Election, but whose 2nd choice votes were only for those who became the “Top Two” in the General Election voting, would be added to the “Top Two” columns, and the grand total for each of the “Top Two” would be used to determine who won the election?
I trust what I have attempted to write makes sense!
If this is the case, then the supposed objective of the Top Two Advocates would be met (winning candidate getting 50% of the vote plus 1), 3rd parties and Independents would still appear on General Election ballots and be able to “bray” over the votes they received, and all would be happy – except the losers!
(I assume this process could also be used in the Primary Elections.)
Have I missed something?
It’s different from top-two in that all the candidates are on the ballot in the general, and voters rank their choices. First choices are counted as votes, then if no candidate receives 50% +1, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and second choices from those ballots receive votes, until there is a clear winner.
Not sure if this is what you were trying to describe or not.
I don’t see the comparison to top-two, as the voter will still have more than two choices in the general election.
Jed Ziggler:
I may not have explained myself thoroughly.
But, actually what you are describing is not what I thought Top Two was (or is).
I thought Top Two was where all candidates regardless of political party affiliation or the lack thereof, participate in the single Primary Election, then the two candidates placing 1st and 2nd in number of votes received in the Primary Election advance to the General Election Ballot, where then there are only two candidates – regardless of political party affiliation or the lack thereof of the two candidates.
Then the voters, in the General Election, select from these two candidates. Yes, it means the candidate receiving 50% of the vote plus 1 wins, but it dampens the influence of 3rd parties and Independents, and this is why I feel the advocates of Top Two desire it. They don’t want a General Election where the winning major party candidate didn’t receive 50% of the vote because of (in a close election) the 5% or 7% of the vote received by a 3rd party or Independent candidate. Here is their argument – that the winning candidate get elected with less than 50% of the vote.
Having candidates elected with less than 50% of the vote has been like this since the establishment of the party system in American politics. Look back and see how many Presidents were elected with less than 50% of the popular vote. It hasn’t destroyed our republic and won’t if Top Two is eliminated by the Courts.
My personal opinion, is that the two major parties (especially the Democratic Party) have found a way to weaken or destroy 3rd parties (and the Independent candidates), since we have seen a rise in the number of these parties in the last 30 years or longer. And we wouldn’t see a rise in 3rd parties and Independent candidates if the major parties would pay attention to the people instead of the special interests who mostly finance them.
Thankfully, Top Two was stopped in Oregon. Hopefully, its advocates have cooled their heels for awhile. Meanwhile, I hope the Courts will see how the right of candidates of 3rd parties and the Independent candidates have been destroyed in California, and will rule that the old system protects the rights of all candidates – even if occasionally a candidate wins with a plurality of the votes.
Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and John F. Kennedy were both plurality winning candidates as far as popular votes goes. They served the country well, so “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”
I look at it this way.
If we are going to have Top Two, then have public financing for ALL candidates with a maximum to be spent by each candidate. Additionally, ALL candidates are to be allowed in the Debates.
Otherwise, lets keep the system as it is, but allow “Instant Runoff” so to soothe the feelings of those who think no candidate should win without 50% plus 1.
And, as already stated, I support public financing of all elections – regardless of whether partisan or non-partisan. Big Money and Special Interests control our elections, and it should not be this way. The only way to stop this is rigidly enforced public financing for all candidates, with equal participation in the Debates by all candidates. Then, I believe we would have more winners who reflect the wishes of the majority, but who also recognize the rights of the minority.
And to those who argue, “Well, I don’t won’t my tax dollars spent by a candidate who I oppose!” I say, the money that would be spent in public financing of elections is a drop in the bucket compared to billions spent in the many domestic programs and foreign aid waste that I don’t like, but still have to finance with my tax dollars. So what is the difference?
It ain’t a perfect world folks! Get a grip on life!
I was not describing top-two, I was describing Instant Run-Off voting. In Instant Run-Off Voting, “all the candidates are on the ballot in the general, and voters rank their choices. First choices are counted as votes, then if no candidate receives 50% +1, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and second choices from those ballots receive votes, until there is a clear winner.” It’s also known as ranked-choice voting.
Your summary of top-two is correct.
Doesn’t McIntyre know that county supervisors in California are elected on a non-partisan basis, and have been for over 100 years.
He probably doesn’t realize that most are elected in June primary.
I thought you were saying that CA-31 was an overwhelming Democratic district. Have you looked at the results from this year?
The big difference between 2010 and 2014 in California is of course not the change in primary system, but rather:
(1) No senate race this year.
(2) A septuagenarian incumbent governor who is in his last term (he was first ran when Richard Nixon was president).
(3) Lack of bazilliona of campaign ads for Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina.
Solutions:
(1) Switch senate terms to 4 years;
(2) Wait for Brown to leave office so lots of ambitious politicians will run;
(3) Eliminate limits of campaign contributions so everyone, not just rich people can have bazillions of campaign ads.