Paul Jacob, head of Citizens in Charge, has this commentary in the September 27 edition of Townhall.com about the “top-two” election system that is used in Washington state, and which California voters will find in their June 2010 ballot.
Also, on September 27, the California Republican Party, meeting in Indian Wells (Riverside County) voted to oppose “top-two.”
Jacob’s spacebar on his keyboard doesn’t seem to be working properly.
I have a problem with the reference to the “top two” as a “reform,” since California voters rejected such a proposal as long ago as 1915.
Jacob corrects Jonathan Alter for calling the California measure an “open primary,” but then himself proceeds to incorrectly call Washington state’s old blanket primary an “open primary.”
Jacob says the establishment is pushing the “top two.” I’m not sure whom he means, since all of California’s political parties will surely oppose this monstrosity, just as they did Prop. 62 in 2004. And the only reason the legislature agreed to put it on the June 2010 ballot was that Sen. Abel Maldonado demanded it in exchange for his vote for the state budget (“Maldonado’s Revenge”).
Otherwise, it’s a good column, since Jacob wisely opposes the “top two.”
By “establishment” I think he means the big newspapers…Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento Bee. They have all carried numerous laudatory articles about “top-two” but only the Bee has carried anything in opposition.
It is a matter of conjecture whether Jesse Ventura would have been on the November 1998 ballot for governor of Minnesota. There was no reason for voters to vote in the Reform (or Republican) primaries since there was only one candidate running for the nomination. So voters chose the Democratic primary.
Had all the Democratic hopefuls plus Norm Coleman and Jesse Ventura run in a Top 2 primary, Ventura would have campaigned for votes and voters would not have ignored him to vote in the Democratic primary. Brooklyn Park uses Top 2 for its elections, so he would have been familiar with the system.
If he had finished in the Top 2, he would have been on the November ballot.
Those who cite the Ventura case are in effect arguing that the conventional partisan primaries sometimes put up such weak candidates, that a strong independent candidate can defeat them in the general election. If there doesn’t happen to be a strong independent candidate then voters are stuck with a choice between two weak candidates. But that assumes that independent candidates can never win on their own merits.
Ventura was only at 10% in the general election polls as of mid-September (when the primary was held) so he would not have come in first or second.
You are making an erroneous assumption that he would have conducted his campaign in the same manner. If the Top 2 primary was held in November, he could have increased his support from September.
If the Top 2 primary was held in September, then a poll conducted in July might have shown him at 10%.
Jim Riley’s case is very weak and shows how bad the Top 2 system is. I think that Richard makes much more sense here.