Washington state used the “top-two” system for the first time in 2008. Proponents of “top-two” generally concede that their system is bad for minor parties and independent candidates, but they say sacrificing them is worthwhile because “top-two” brings about vigorous change in who gets elected.
However, those predictions were wrong. This year, all 9 U.S. House candidates from Washington state ran for re-election, and all 9 were re-elected.
Also this year, Washington elected all its partisan statewide state officers. The Governor, the Lieutenant Governor (who is elected separately from the Governor), the Secretary of State, the Auditor, the Attorney General, the Insurance Commissioner, and the Public Lands Commissioner, all ran for re-election. All of them were re-elected except for the Public Lands Commissioner. That office had been held by a Republican and is now held by a Democrat. Washington’s Treasurer did not run for re-election, but the outgoing Treasurer and the new Treasurer are both members of the same party.
Washington elected 26 State Senators and all 98 State House members this year. Only three incumbents were defeated in the general election, Senator Marilyn Rasmussen, and Representatives Don Barlow and John Ahern. Also one incumbent had been defeated in this year’s August primary, for a total of four incumbents losing this year out of 124 races. Furthermore, it is still possible that Ahern did not lose; he is only trailing by 54 votes as of November 9, with more votes still to be counted.
Before the 2008 election, the partisan lineup in the Senate had been 32 Democrats, 17 Republicans. Now it is 31 Democrats and 18 Republicans.
Also before the 2008 election, the House had been 63 Democrats and 35 Republicans; now it is 62 Democrats and 36 Republicans.
By contrast with the miniscule changes in the partisan makeup of the legislature after the 2008 election, the changes made in the 2006 election had been dramatic. The 2006 election used an open primary and did not exclude minor party and independents from the November ballot. The 2006 election had caused big gains for Democrats in the legislature, with 6 new Democratic Senate seats and 8 new Democratic House seats.
The 2008 “top-two” system resulted in 24 state legislative races with only one candidate on the ballot in the November election. It also resulted in a few November elections with two members of the same party running against each other. One State Senate election and five State House elections had that characteristic. No incumbent lost in any of those type of races.
I really think that this is a silly way to conduct elections. If majority rule is really the concern, then switch to Instant Runoff Voting.
Here, as it stands, you end up with only two or one choices on the general election ballot and I cannot honestly see how one can argue that somehow ‘shakes things up’ politically.
Incumbency is going to be protected when you (1) limit the number of candidates and or political organizations that can participate in the political process. (2) gerrymander legislative districts.
I really like Instant Runoff Voting, Approval Voting or Condorcet Method. I believe any of these 3 ideas would be an improvement over the plurality system.
Truth be told, the concern is to suppress third parties and weaken the major parties as well…all in the name of voter choice in the primary. But of course, voter choice is a joke in the general, where it counts.
The goal of the “Top Two” is to produce more moderate elected officials, a goal I think is laudable. The bases of the Republican and Democratic parties tend to nominate candidates to the general election that are not capable of reaching consensus once elected to office.
I am very hesitant to believe any “analysis” from WA’s 2008 election cycle. Given that SCOTUS did not uphold the system until March 18, 2008, I think we have yet to see what the true effects will be. Let’s wait until 2010 before making up our minds about the “Top Two” primary.
The “top-two” system in Washington state kept all minor party and independent candidates off the November 2008 ballot for Congress and statewide state office. That was the first time since Washington became a state in 1889 that the November ballot had neither independents nor minor party candidates for any of the statewide state office races/congressional races.
That is not surprising. All the data from the blanket primaries for California in 1998 and 2000, and the data from Washington state for 1990-2000, suggested this would happen. We don’t need any more data to know how bad the system is for minor parties and independent candidates.
#4: “The goal of the “Top Two†is to produce more moderate elected officials…”
The “top two” tends to enable an extreme candidate to slip into the second round, where s/he is then shellacked. Louisiana has used the “top two” since 1975. In the 1991 governor’s race, the runoff was between a crook and an ex-Ku Klux Klan leader. The 1995 runoff for governor featured a white conservative Republican and a black liberal Democrat (now-US Sen. Mary Landrieu had finished third). Neither the ’91 runoff nor the ’95 runoff was a competitive race.
The price that voters pay in the “top two” for being able to choose among ALL the candidates in the preliminary round is that they are limited to no more than two choices in the final, deciding election. I’m certainly glad we had more than two choices for president last Tuesday.
NO primaries are needed.
Election ballot access via EQUAL nominating petitions.
Total Votes / Total Seats = EQUAL votes needed for each seat winner in legislative bodies — via vote transfers using candidate rank order lists made public BEFORE the election.
Minor parties will win some seats via P.R. — See the minor party seats in the New Zealand, Germany, Israel, etc. P.R. regimes — all much more REAL Democracies than the EVIL corrupt gerrymander minority rule regimes in the U.S.A. — with the EVIL super-corrupt *leaders* — Speakers and *Majority* leaders.
The basic challenge, as I have noted else where, is that PR means abandoning the two-party system. That will require a serious national discussion before any sort of serious policy can be advanced or proposed.
I have seen some interest in PR among younger Democrats and Republicans, but most of the elected lawmakers are opposed to it and the independents and minor parties do not seem to want to put much money into a national discussion about it.
“Washington state used the “top-two†system for the first time in 2008. Proponents of “top-two†generally concede that their system is bad for minor parties and independent candidates,…
Any electoral system except extreme forms of PR such as used in Israel is bad for parties that exult when they get so much as 5% of the vote.
Top 2 is certainly better for independent-minded candidates, if not pure independents.
Besides, shouldn’t the true test be whether the system is good for the voters, rather than the candidates or the political parties?
The true test would be whether the system is good for Liberty.
Top-Two is a communistic system that is bad for Liberty. It takes away our free election system. It will give us bad choices and bad policy outcomes.
We need more Liberty, not less.
We need more choices, not fewer.
Abolish “top-two” now!
With or without Top 2 —
Half the votes in half the gerrymander districts is about 25 percent indirect MINORITY RULE — aka monarchy / oligarchy.
REAL Democracy NOW via 100 percent proportional representation.
Total Votes / Total Seats = EQUAL votes needed for each seat winner via vote transfers using pre-election candidate rank order lists.
New Zealand got rid of the gerrymander system and just had another P.R. election — and continues to survive.
http://www.elections.org.nz/news/preliminary-election-results.html
The U.S.A. is in the STONE AGE with its ANTI-Democracy gerrymander systems.
The real kicker was when the Democatic Party gave so little support to their own candidate for Sec. of State because he was not only too knowledgeable about Diebolt voting machines, but open to alternatives to the Top Two system.
Several so-called progressive groups openly supported Sam reed, who pushed the Top Two on our state.
“However, those predictions were wrong. This year, all 9 U.S. House candidates from Washington state ran for re-election, and all 9 were re-elected.”
The Supreme Court did not rule on Top 2 until March. One would have to be incredibly naive to believe it would have any impact on any congressional seat where an incumbent was running for re-election. One factor that is sometimes overlooked in the re-election of incumbents, is that essentially the same voters chose the incumbent two or four years earlier. Given that 8 of the 9 incumbents had won by 20% or more in 2006, it not remarkable that they won again.
#9: “Top 2 is certainly better for independent-minded candidates, if not pure independents.”
It’s certainly not good for independent candidates, who, in a system of party primaries, are assured of a place in the general election, which is the only campaign they have to wage. In the “top two,” however, if lightning strikes and an independent reaches the second round, he is then forced to wage a second general election campaign.
That’s another flaw in the “top two” monstrosity: the top two vote-getters are compelled to wage TWO general election campaigns; this makes campaigns more expensive and discourages candidates from running.
“… shouldn’t the true test be whether the system is good for the voters, rather than the candidates or the political parties?”
You have yet to answer my question: Why is it “good for the voters” to be limited to no more than two choices in the final, deciding election?
A citizen certainly has the right to be an independent. But a citizen does NOT have the right to force his fellow citizens to behave as independents– which is what the “top two” essentially does.
One last question: If the “top two” is such a great idea, why is it that only two states– Louisiana and Washington– use it to elect all of their state officials? And Washington alone uses it for its congressional elections.
“Also this year, Washington elected all its partisan statewide state officers. The Governor, the Lieutenant Governor (who is elected separately from the Governor), the Secretary of State, the Auditor, the Attorney General, the Insurance Commissioner, and the Public Lands Commissioner, all ran for re-election. All of them were re-elected except for the Public Lands Commissioner. That office had been held by a Republican and is now held by a Democrat. Washington’s Treasurer did not run for re-election, but the outgoing Treasurer and the new Treasurer are both members of the same party.”
Voters showed strong support for candidates as individuals, rather than merely placeholders with “R” or “D” badges. Brian Sonntag was re-elected as Auditor by 27% while professing to prefer the Democratic Party, while at the same time Rob McKenna was re-elected as Attorney General with a 19% margin, which means that at least 23% of voters switched parties between the two contests.
Most noteworthy is that Sam Reed and Rob McKenna, the two individuals whose heroic efforts saved Top 2, increased their margin of victory by over 10%, even though they expressed a preference for the Republican Party, while the top of the ticket presidential and gubernatorial races were swinging 7 to 10% towards the Democratic side.
While it is true that the outgoing Treasurer and incoming Treasurer are of the same party, Mike Murphy had a 24% margin, while Jim McIntire had a bare 2% margin.
#14 Perhaps there is a smaller percentage of party hacks in LA and WA than in the other States ???
P.R. legislative and A.V. executive/judicial NOW.
Approval Voting? Yes
Instant Runoff Voting? Yes
Condorcet Method? Yes
Plurality Method? Hell No!!
#16: If you think there are no “party hacks” in Louisiana, then you don’t know much about Louisiana. I could make a long list of LA politicians who went to prison; Edwin Edwards, a former 4-term governor, is now in federal prison, where he’ll likely spend the rest of his life.
The Louisiana “top two” is an extension of the old one-party (truly NO-PARTY) system, in which elections were decided in the Democratic primary, with a Democratic runoff if necessary.
I understand Richard’s procedural objections to the top two and I’ll concede Steve’s point because I don’t know anything about LA.
But it’s pretty difficult living in California when we have gaping $15 to $30 billion budget deficits each year and the obvious compromise is a mix of revenue increases (to appease Ds) and spending cuts (to appease Rs) for balance, but instead we borrow, use accounting gimmicks, etc. because of political stalemates. Partisan polarization is a major problem here, one that I consider paramount to the representation of minor party candidates. Maybe the system doesn’t work in LA, but there is a good chance it would work in CA. This book demonstrates evidence that our blanket primary worked well to elect moderates before it was deemed unconstitutional.
#19: I don’t see what California’s budget problems have to do with its election system.
The “top two” is devastating to minor parties and independents, as demonstrated by Washington state’s experience this year. For the first time since WA became a state in 1889, there were no independents or minor party candidates on the final election ballot. No wonder almost all minor parties staunchly oppose the “top two”!
California used its state-mandated blanket primary, 1998-2000. The main difference between it and the “top two” is that, in the blanket primary, each party still had the right to have one candidate in the final election. The two final candidates in the “top two,” of course, may both be from the same party or any combination of parties (the blanket primary also assured minor parties and independents of a place on the general election ballot). The US Supreme Court specifically rejected the constitutionality of the argument that the blanket primary produced “moderate problem solvers.”
California voters defeated the “top two” for state offices in 1915. They also rejected it for state and congressional offices in November 2004, when it lost in 51 of the state’s 58 counties.
I sent you links to my two essays on this topic. I hope you’ll find time to read them.
I meant to say that Washington state this year had no independents or minor party candidates for congressional or statewide offices on its general election ballot.
I realize that I am commenting on a Ballot Access blog, but let me be more clear: the policy goals of the “top two” do not speak directly to the concerns minor party or independent candidates. You point out that almost all minor parties oppose the system. In fact, both MAJOR parties oppose the system! That is the point. The emphasis of elections should be on candidates, not parties.
The primary goal of a “top two” system is to moderate partisan polarization. For an example of why we need this in California, I would point you to Dan Walters: Bigger deficit won’t crack Capitol stalemate and Open primaries another path to moderation?.
My only point here is that we want two different things from electoral reform. I want a more effective Legislature and you want better opportunities for minor party candidates. At this point, we must simply agree to disagree.
The major parties oppose the “top two” because it takes away their ability to perform their basic function of officially nominating candidates.
The failed 2004 California “top two” initiative applied to all state and congressional offices, and I assume that a future CA “top two” proposition would too.
The “top two” is fine for judicial and local offices. Local officials are concerned with providing services, whereas state and congressional officials are involved with policy issues. Also, the national parties get involved in state and congressional elections; Louisiana has had instances of the national Republicans and the state GOP backing opposing candidates in the same election.
I have yet to get an answer from the “top two” proponents to this question: Why should the voters be limited to just two choices in the final, deciding election? I’m certainly glad we had more than two choices for president on November 4.
Because two viable candidates is better than one viable candidate. In California (again, I can’t speak to other states), the practical effect of the “top two” would be a floor rather than a ceiling.
There’s no guarantee that the two final candidates in the “top two” will both be viable, regardless of what state it is. Extreme candidates sometimes slip into the second round, edging out more moderate candidates. The extreme candidate then loses in a landslide.
That was the case in the final round for governor in Louisiana in both 1991 and 1995.
In a system of party primaries, to be sure, each party has the right to nominate one candidate for each office on the general election ballot. And there is no limit on the number of independents who can run in the general election.
In my state’s 2003 general election for governor, we had FIVE candidates.
#14 Steve Rankin Says:
“It’s certainly not good for independent candidates, who, in a system of party primaries, are assured of a place in the general election, which is the only campaign they have to wage. In the “top two,†however, if lightning strikes and an independent reaches the second round, he is then forced to wage a second general election campaign.”
There is no reason that candidates should treat the two elections as separate. They are campaigning before the same set of voters, in roughly the same time frame. Party primaries make it more likely that candidates have to run two campaigns, since there are different electorates. They have to zig for one, and zag for the other.
Washington should move its primary back to September, or better yet to October.
#14 Steve Rankin Says:
You have yet to answer my question: Why is it “good for the voters†to be limited to no more than two choices in the final, deciding election?
The two choices have a particular quality. They have demonstrated more support among the electorate, than any of the other candidates. The first election winnows the field.
Why should voters in Mississippi party primary runoffs be limited to just 2 candidates?
As Justice Scalia noted in Jones, it does not have to be 2. It could be some other number, or use some other criteria, such as level of support.
Massachusetts used to simply hold a new election if a candidate did not achieve a majority. In its election for the 9th CD for the 29th Congress, it held its 1st trial on November 11, 1844; and its 9th and final trial on November 9, 1846.
#14 Steve Rankin Says:
A citizen certainly has the right to be an independent. But a citizen does NOT have the right to force his fellow citizens to behave as independents– which is what the “top two†essentially does.
If one is not independent, what are they? A dependent. A child; an elderly and frail parent who can no longer care for themselves; someone with a severe, physical or mental impairment; at one time, a wife.
#14 Steve Rankin Says:
One last question: If the “top two†is such a great idea, why is it that only two states– Louisiana and Washington– use it to elect all of their state officials? And Washington alone uses it for its congressional elections.
Because the political parties have corrupted our electoral system.
#21 Steve Rankin Says:
“I meant to say that Washington state this year had no independents or minor party candidates for congressional or statewide offices on its general election ballot.”
That is because no independent or minor party candidate finished in the Top 2. If a Top 2 system had been used in the past, there could quite likely have been “3rd party” candidates on the ballot.
Re: 23 Steve Rankin Says:
“The major parties oppose the “top two†because it takes away their ability to perform their basic function of officially nominating candidates.”
Why should the government compel that individual citizens may only vote for certain candidates in what may well be a decisive election? If the government tried to keep me from contributing to a Libertarian in a primary; from putting up a lawn sign for a Green; from recruiting a friend or colleague to run as a Democratic; or from giving verbal support to a Republican; – they would lose in court – even if I were a registered Natural Law voter.
Why can’t I enter into political association with my fellow citizens to support John Smith for senator, and Joan Smith for representative, even if they are of different parties.
Re: 23 Steve Rankin Says:
I have yet to get an answer from the “top two†proponents to this question: Why should the voters be limited to just two choices in the final, deciding election? I’m certainly glad we had more than two choices for president on November 4.
If you could have voted for Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Gravel, McCain, Paul, Tancredo, Hunter, Thompson, Romney, Barr, Nader, McKinney, in October, what would be your problem if you had to choose between Nader and Paul on November 4, if they had received the most votes?
The 2006 election used an open primary and did not exclude minor party and independents from the November ballot.
A curiousity is that every single one of the minor party and independents who were “not excluded” on the 2006 November ballot was named Linda Knighton. She received 4.5% of the vote, in a district where the Republican candidate received 13% of the vote.
By contrast, there were 5 such candidates in 2008, who averaged 27.9% of the vote, 3 independents, 1 Green, and 1 Libertarian.
The 2006 election had caused big gains for Democrats in the legislature, with 6 new Democratic Senate seats and 8 new Democratic House seats.
Washington elects 3 legislators from each of 49 legislative districts: 1 senator (4 year term, 1/2 elected every two years), and 2 representatives (2 year terms, with two separate positions).
Most of the recent shifts have been due to districts becoming more polarized with either 3 Democrats or 3 Republicans, rather than mixed bi-partisan delegations. This trend may have been exacerbated by the two elections conducted under the Pick a Party primary, due to Gary Locke’s ill-advised veto of the Top 2 system approved by the legislature, and the federal district court’s extraordinary and premature injunction against the Top 2 primary that had been approved by 60% of Washington voters.
2002: 18 3D; 6 2D/1R; 10 1D/2R; 15 3R.
2004: 19 3D; 8 2D/1R; 8 1D/2R; 14 3R.
2006: 26 3D; 5 2D/1R; 6 1D/2R; 12 3R.
2008: 25 3D; 7 2D/1R; 4 1D/2R; 13 3R.
From 2002 to 2006, the number of bi-partisan district delegations decreased from 16 of 49; to 11 of 49.
The slight Republican gains in 2008, were in the face of a 5 to 7% shift to the Democratic party in the presidential and gubernatorial races.
The 2008 “top-two†system resulted in 24 state legislative races with only one candidate on the ballot in the November election.
This is 11 less than the 35 state legislative races with only one candidate in 2006 when the “pick-a-party” was used.
It also resulted in a few November elections with two members of the same party running against each other. One State Senate election and five State House elections had that characteristic. No incumbent lost in any of those type of races.
Actually, it was 6 House seats and 2 Senate seats.
Let’s take a look:
LD 7 (NE Washington), Rep. #1: The incument was not running. 5 Republicans and 0 Democrats ran in the primary. The Republican incumbent was unopposed in the other representative race.
LD 8 (Tri-Cities), Rep #2: In 2006, all 3 seats had been won by an unopposed Republican. In 2008, the incumbent for this position was challenged by another Republican. He held his seat by about a 60:40 margin in both the primary and general election.
LD 11 (Seattle), Sen: In the two House seats, the GOP candidate received 25-30% of the vote. The Senate primary featured 3 Democratic candidates, an incumbent and 2 chalengers.
LD 12 (C.Washington), Rep #2, None of the other seats were contested in 2006 or 2008. This time, the challenger qualified as a write-in candidate with 6% of the vote, and received 44% of the vote in the general.
LD 22 (Olympia), Sen. The Republican in one of the House seats received 29% of the vote, while a Democrat ran unopposed in the other seat. The Democrat primary for the senate seat had two Democrats, an incumbent and a challenger.
LD 27 (Tacoma), Rep #2. The primary had 2 Democrats, including the incumbent, and 2 Republicans. The combined vote of the 2 Republicans was less than 0.5% ahead of the trailing Democrat. Even had there been a Democrat-Republican contest, it would have been in the 75:25 to 70:30 range.
LD 36 (Seattle), Rep #1. The primary had 2 Democrats and 1 Republican. The Republican received 15% of the vote in the primary, to 45% and 40% for the 2 Democrats. The other house seat did feature a Democrat-Republican matchup that finished 85:15. In 2006, there were 3 uncontested races.
LD 46 (Seattle), Rep #1. The primary had 2 Democrats and 1 Republican. The Republican received 15% of the vote in the primary, to 49% and 36% for the 2 Democrats. The other house seat did feature a Democrat-Republican matchup that finished 83:17. In 2006, the GOP fielded challenger for all 3 seats, who averaged 16.3% support.
Executive Summary:
There were 5 D vs. D contests in Seattle (3), Tacoma, and Olympia. While in some instances, there had been a Republican in the primary, these simply were not competitive seats for the GOP.
There were 3 R vs. R contests in eastern Washington. There were no Democrat candidates in the primary.
Structurally, these were more like races in Florida where a partisan primary is opened to all voters when there are no candidates for any other parties. The difference is that in Washington, there is no way to game the system by putting up a straw candidate.