Even though “top-two” was defeated by Oregon voters on November 4, proponents of the idea are still energetically working for it. California’s Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger hopes to place the idea on the California ballot in the future. The Committee for a Unified Independent Party still works hard for the idea.
Perhaps the proponents of “top-two” might be willing to consider this idea: keep the primary ballot in place as it is now in Washington state, and in the proposed initiatives. Under Washington’s existing law, everyone who runs for partisan office (except president) appears on the August primary ballot. All voters get the same ballot.
But, change the Washington system, and the plans for a California initiative, to provide that anyone who ran in the primary is free to also retain his or her name on the general election ballot. But, also provide that anyone who runs in the primary is free to withdraw from the November ballot. One can anticipate that most Republicans and Democrats who were outpolled by a member of their same party would be willing to withdraw, although this proposal would make it voluntary whether they withdraw or not. Minor party and independent candidates who had run in the primary would probably choose not to withdraw, because they would desire to campaign for their ideas during the general election campaign season.
The Washington State Grange says that its only reason for supporting “top-two” is because it wants primary voters to have complete freedom to vote for anyone in the primary. Phil Keisling, the main proponent of the Oregon “top-two” system, also said that his chief goal was to make it possible for independent voters to have the same freedom of choice in the primary that Oregon party registrants have. The proposed solution, outlined in this blog post, would not injure those interests.
Under that idea, shouldn’t the Democrat and Republican who recieved the most vote recieve some sort of note of endorsement?
Although one may argue that the only way for an endorsement would come from getting the votes of a plurality of registered party members. Which could also bring back the idea of cross-endorsement. Say a Democratic candidate gets the most votes from registered Republicans and can run in November as “Democratic – Endorsed by the Republican Party”.. which is probably beneficial in close districts.
As to what would happen if an endorsed candidate drops out, idk if passing the endorsement down or clearing it would do much.
Then again, the random alphabetical order doesn’t discriminate based on major/minor parties in California.
Also, any future Top Two should only allow candidates registered as a voter as DTS to pick out a label. The whole thing with “Republican/R/GOP” in Washington made the system a bit silly, party-preference-wise.
Ok — so the proposal is that you have an open primary where anybody can vote for anybody and regardless the outcome, all the same candidates are free to run in the General Election??????????? I don’t support IRV but this proposal could change my mind. 🙂
The problem with this proposal is that it doesn’t respect majority rule any more than plurality does. In fact, is is plurality in the second round.
Here’s a simpler alternative with a substantial track record and at least some respect for majority rule. Each party chooses a candidate by whatever means (convention, caucuses, privately run primary) it wants. Independents collect signatures. Parties retain control of the use of their names by candidates.
All of the candidates run in a top-two election, with a second round only if no one gets a majority in the first round. IRV is both better and cheaper, but — unlike Washington, Oregon and Peace/Schwarzenegger — this form of top-two would be better than plurality.
Admittedly, my proposal isn’t intended to appease top-two supporters in Washington, whose real agenda isn’t ensuring majority support, but rather the weakening of political parties.
The Washington State “top-two” system is communism.
Don’t try to fix it.
Abolish it.
Uh, wouldn’t that simply make a primary unnecessary if nobody is eliminated? Am I missing something here?
I believe many candidates would voluntarily dismiss themselves from the November election. The typical Republican or Democrat who was outpolled by someone else from the same party would probably voluntarily withdraw.
But, in a sense, under “top-two”, the primary could be completely dispensed with, because it has no real function.
Why should a candidate be permitted to withdraw? Doesn’t that disenfranchise the people who supported them in the primary? It would also lead to either coercion to withdraw, or inducements to do so (if you withdraw, I’ll make you Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Commerce, etc.).
If you don’t want to be elected, simply don’t campaign. Submit an unflattering picture for the voters’ guide. Include an essay about your encounter with space aliens.
Withdrawal should only be permitted in extreme cases – death, severe disability, or conviction of a felony.
Fix it. I like this concept better, because the Greens and Libertarians would be boxed out of the main election.
Or just have one election and use IRV.
The “possible solution” described in this post sounds like the way France conducts its parliamentary elections. Most of the candidates there who do poorly in the first round drop out and endorse one of the remaining candidates.
In Louisiana’s “top two” in 1987, the top two vote-getters for governor were Congressman Buddy Roemer (33%) and Gov. Edwin Edwards (28%), both Democrats.
Knowing that he would lose a runoff, Edwards then dropped out. Since Louisiana has no provision for such a situation, Roemer was considered elected.
(LA, to be sure, does not have a runoff in its “top two” when one candidate gets 50%-plus in the first round. This happened in the 2004 race for US senator and the 2007 race for governor.)