On November 21, this Joe Mathews commentary about California’s top-two system appeared on the web page of KNSD, the NBC-TV channel in San Diego. Thanks to Nancy Hanks for the link.
Reply
The San Diego Union-Tribune has this fairly lengthy article about the difficulties independent candidates face in California. The article does not mention that outside California, 25 independent and minor party candidates were elected to state legislatures earlier this month. The article also does not mention the problem that independent candidates in California face, relative to ballot labels. Under current California law, independent candidates for Congress and partisan state office may not have “independent” printed on the ballot next to their names. Instead they are stuck with the unappealing label “no party preference.”
When California’s Proposition 14 was on the ballot in June 2010, almost every large California newspaper endorsed it, and the reason for the endorsement was invariably that the newspapers believed the top-two system would reduce the number of anti-tax California state legislators, and instead would boost the election of “moderate” Republicans. In this context, “moderate” always meant a Republican who would not take a hard line against any tax increases.
Proposition 14 boosters were especially hopeful that in legislative races with two Republicans on the November ballot, and no other candidates, that the Democrats and independents in those districts would vote for the more “moderate” Republican, leading to more such Republicans in the legislature.
However, the 2012 election shows these ideas about how Proposition 14 would work were mostly incorrect. California had seven legislative races with two Republicans on the ballot in November, and in only one of them did a “moderate” (on taxes) defeat a hard-line anti-tax Republican. That was the Assembly race in the 5th district, in the Sierra Nevada foothills, where Frank Bigelow defeated Rico Oller. Bigelow had refused to sign the “no tax increase” pledge whereas Oller had signed it.
In Assembly District One in northeast California, both Republicans on the November ballot, Brian Dahle and Rick Bosetti were equally opposed to tax increases. The winner, Brian Dahle, was endorsed by the Tea Party, whereas the other Republican, Rick Bosetti, was endorsed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a well-known anti-tax group in California.
In Assembly District Six, in the northeast Sacramento suburbs, both Republicans were equally opposed to tax increases. The winner, incumbent Beth Gaines, was endorsed by the Howard Jarvis Association.
In Assembly District 23, in Fresno, the more conservative Republican, Jim Patterson, defeated the other Republican, Bob Whalen. Patterson emphasized the label “conservative” in his campaign ads, whereas Whalen stressed that he had been endorsed by unions and by three current or past Democratic members of the Fresno city council.
In Assembly District 67, in southwest Riverside County, both Republicans were equally anti-tax. Melissa Melendez defeated Phil Paule, and both are listed as Tea Party candidates. Melendez attacked Paule for having voted to raise water rates while he was a member of the water board, but Paule defended himself by pointing out that water rates are not taxes.
In Assembly District 72, in Orange County, Travis Allen defeated Troy Edgar. Allen’s campaign message was “Stop the endless calls for higher and higher taxes”, although Edgar also said he was opposed to raising taxes.
In Assembly District 76, in northwest San Diego County, Rocky Chavez defeated Sherry Hodges. Chavez had been endorsed by the Howard Jarvis Association and had said he would not vote for any tax increase. Hodges had said, “There may be a time to raise taxes.”
This blog post does not include the instances at which Republican “moderates” failed to place first or second in the June primary and thus were not on the November ballot.
There were no State Senate races with just two Republicans on the ballot.
The reason that the theory used by most California editorial writers doesn’t work is that when there are two Republicans on the November ballot, and one Republican gets a reputation for being the choice of liberals and Democrats, the word gets around in that district, and then the other Republican benefits from a backlash.
This Seattle Times article says the Washington state legislature is one of only a few state legislatures in which the number of women and racial minorities declined in the 2012 election. The article quotes an official of the state League of Women Voters as saying one reason for the decline is that women are less likely to run for office when campaigns are so personally unpleasant and when so much campaign rhetoric is hostile.
Washington state started using the top-two system starting in 2008. Some supporters of top-two argue that top-two systems bring about more moderation and less polarization, but political scientists who have studied the Washington state legislature dispute those generalizations.
Nations that use proportional representation have the highest percentage of females in national legislatures. Proportional representation systems generally give political parties great influence over who gets nominated, and in most proportional representation systems, parties leaders make determined efforts to increase female representation.
The Commercial Appeal, daily newspaper in Memphis, Tennessee, has this story about the Constitution Party and about Memphis-area resident Darrell Castle, who was the party’s vice-presidential nominee in 2008 and who tried to obtain the party’s presidential nomination this year.
The Cheyenne, Wyoming daily newspaper, the Tribune Eagle, has this story about the Country Party. The article devotes a fair amount of space commenting on Wyoming’s ballot access law. The County Party polled 2.5% for U.S. Senate, but under 2% for U.S. House. The law says a party only retains its spot in a presidential election year if it polls 2% for U.S. House; the U.S. Senate and presidential races don’t matter.