According to this Los Angeles Times story, the California budget deal means that the voters of California will vote in June 2010 on whether to install the Washington state-style “top two” primary. This is bad news; my earlier post had believed the ballot question would match ACA 6, a Louisiana-style system that only applies to state office.
I wrote an article about this that I posted at dailykos.com, mydd.com, congressmatters.com, and opednews.com. Here’s the original from Dailykos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/19/165453/200/264/699442
Richard: So this means, then, that the ballot measure will include congressional elections as well as state offices?
Great article, Ross.
ACA 6 must be defeated.
An update on the LPWA lawsuit would be great as well.
Here’s the constitutional amendment that will be on the June 2010 ballot.
It indeed applies to congressional as well as state elections.
Some time ago I went on a rant here against Instant Runoff Voting, mistakenly confusing it with this Top Two format. Anyway, now that I have my terms straight I urge all to fight this proposal. I’m hearing that the major parties are also opposed, which I would not have believed, but which I hope is true.
By the way, is there anyone with a connection to California (like myself) of ANY political persuasion who is not grossly embarrassed about what is going on in that state? What a circus!
This measure is very similar to State of Washington’s election process.
The purpose of this effort is to get the California Legislature to resolve the major issues in our state. We can’t have the FAR left or FAR right control the political parties.
The supporters of “top-two” have a sincere conviction that it would create more “moderate” legislators, but they are wrong. In Washington state in 2008, “top-two” was used for the first time. There was LESS turnover in the Washington legislature in 2008 than there had been in 2006, when a classic open primary was in use. There was more turnover in the California legislature in 2008 than there was in Washington. By “turnover”, I mean the proportion of seats switching from one party to the other. The March 1 2009 Ballot Access News paper issue will have a chart, showing “turnover” rates for all states in 2008. It will show Washington as having less “turnover” than the typical state, by a slight margin.
Gary: The Republican Party is mainly to blame for the embarrassing situation related to the California budget. The two-thirds requirement regarding the budget is partly responsible as well.
Although I am not a Democrat (and I think that the Democrats should not have caved in and went along with the draconian budget), I think that the GOP has its head even more stuck in the sand, does not seem to be connected to reality, and is not cognizant of the suffering of the working class.
Supporters of eliminating partisan primaries have a sincere conviction that the People should choose their government officials.
The Supreme Court did not issue their Grange ruling until March 2008. Realistically, this was too late for serious candidates to enter the race, especially given the continuing litigation and interference from the state political parties.
So basically you saw the same candidates who were planning to run, go ahead and run. Under a conventional party primary system, challenges to incumbents from within the same party are uncommon. And there may be few persons of the opposite party willing to spend much money to challenge an incumbent in an area where their party might only have 40% support (especially in a presidential election year).
So the only competitive seats are open seats, with no incumbent. Unlike California, Washington does not have term limits – in 4 of the 5 Assembly seat swaps in California there was no incumbent running. In non-incumbent seats, you are much more likely to have a meaningful primary race.
A Top 2 primary permits every voter to express their choice in every election for every office. So if you live in a district where there are 7 Republicans seeking a seat in the legislature, you don’t have to decide between casting a vote for who represents you OR who will be the Democratic nominee for governor.
Party swaps can in no way be considered a measure of “moderation”. In Washington, 3 legislators are chosen from each legislative district, one senator (for a 4-year term), and two representatives (for separate positions, and 2-year terms). Even though identical voters voted for the 3 offices, there were many LD’s with split delegations.
Under the blanket primary, voters could vote for a Republican in one house seat, and a Democrat for the other. Candidates might not have to appeal to the extremes of their party if they could get support from nominal “members” of the other party. And if voters were willing to cross over in the primary, they might well do so in the general election.
Under the pick-a-party primary imposed after Gary Locke’s ill-advised veto, this was no longer possible. Much of the party switches which you note for 2006 (and 2004) were cases where all 3 seats within a district were politically aligned. Where there was once one a Democrat and 2 Republicans, and now there are 3 Republicans; or vice versa, is not an indicator of moderation, but rather an indicator of polarization.
Phil Sawyer Says:
February 21st, 2009 at 10:19 am
The bottom line is that a “top two†system that does not allow the nominees of all political parties to go on to the general election is a very terrible thing.
If the California voters are somehow tricked into voting in such a “top two†system (which I do not think will happen), then the smaller political parties – including the Republican Party in the year 2012 because that ship is sinking fast – will need to start working better together and form temporary coalition candidates that will oppose the Democratic Party candidates.