This Roll Call analysis shows that in 2014, only four Republican members of the U.S. House were defeated in primaries, and generally those four defeats were not caused because the incumbent was too “centrist.” The article also shows that so far, only six incumbent Republicans in the U.S. House seem likely to face a strong primary challenge.
This article rebuts the assumption commonly made by supporters of top-two systems that “90% of elections are decided in the primaries.”
ALL ANTI-Democracy gerrymanders ALL the time – since 1776 States and 1789 USA.
The incumbent hacks think they are monarchs with absolute POWER in their rigged packed / cracked districts.
—-
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Cue the music… it’s Ogle time!
The analysis has nothing to do with Top 2 (other than one of the defeated Republican incumbents happened to be from Louisiana).
Supporters of small parties seem to believe that because their candidates receive 5% of the vote, that they have some sort of superior intelligence, and once the other 95% wake up they will switch.
But it is quite likely that the voters did make a deliberate decision, and there is no reason under most circumstances that they won’t make the same decision at the next election.
Take away an R or a D next to a candidate’s name (and G or L for that matter) and you would get a completely different set of deliberate decisions.
Lots of reasons to make different decisions.
Keep the labels off for another 2 years, and the voters will likely make the same deliberate decision.