On December 15, the San Francisco Bay Guardian carried this op-ed, pointing out some problems with the “top-two open primary” measure that the legislature put on the June 2010 California ballot.
Also, see this Letter to the Editor in the Marysville, California Appeal-Democrat, which also points out some problems with the measure.
Washington state’s “top two” faces a trial in US district court in October 2010, four months after California votes on the “top two open primary.”
Also, Louisiana continues to use the “top two” to elect its state officials, as it has since 1975. The Bayou State’s system is part of the residue of the old one-party system, in which elections were decided in the Democratic primary, with a Democratic runoff if necessary.
Joseph Cao led William Jefferson by 1814 votes. Malik Rahim received 1883 votes. For Jefferson to catch Cao, 98.1% of the Malik vote would have had switch to Jefferson.
Do you have any exit polls or analysis of precinct data to support such a claim?
It is much more probable that had the election been held in November (it was delayed because of a hurricane) Jefferson would have been re-elected.
In the Democratic 2nd primary in November, Jefferson received 92,921 votes. In the general election he received 31,318 votes, or 64% fewer votes. Even the runner-up in the Democratic 2nd primary received more votes than the total cast for all candidates in the “general election” in December. And remember that Louisiana uses a lockout device on its voting machines that election judges manipulate to prevent certain voters from voting. In fact, election officials were proposing to prevent 3rd parties from even nominating candidates for congressional races because of this lockout device.
In 2006 in Washington independent and minor candidates could qualify directly for the general election ballot, only one candidate actually bothered. In 2008, there were 13 independent or 3rd party candidates on the primary ballot, and 5 advanced to the general election ballot. All were defeated, but one received 42% of the vote.
Louisiana currently has two legislators who were elected as independents.
Have the Attorney General or Secretary of State issued an interpretation of Section 8606 of the Elections Code? Does it agree with your interpretation? As you well know, SB 6 makes it easier for write-in candidates in the primary to qualify for the general election.
Under Top 2, “qualified parties” would have the authority to:
(1) Have a sample ballot distributed to party members. An unqualified party could still distribute a sample ballot, but the State would not pay for it.
(2) Have a presidential preference primary. In 2008, 4 of the 6 qualified parties ignored the preferences of California voters, so it is not clear what purpose is served by the State financing the primaries, if the parties ignore the voters.
(3) Have a presidential candidate placed on the ballot. Presidential candidates may also qualify by petition.
(4) Election of party officials at the primary. But non-qualified parties could elect their party officials any way they want.
The party qualification change would have no effect before 2016, plenty of time for the legislature to make adjustments.
In addition, because the 3rd parties rarely ever have primary contests, there is a disincentive for voters to remain registered with a 3rd party. Since the blanket primary was ruled unconstitutional, 3rd parties have run fewer and fewer legislative and congressional candidates, and their continued existence has become an empty exercise of getting 2% of the vote in some down-ballot statewide race in order to do the same 4 years later.
Richard Winger’s claim that only some candidates may have their party preference expressed on the ballot is based on an erroneous reading of the law. Under current law, these candidates that he expresses concern for would not even be permitted to be placed on the ballot except as an independent candidate, and then only after gathering 1000s of signatures.
The Secretary of State lopped off one digit of the registration count for congressional district 38, stating that it had only 25,000 rather than 250,000 registered voters. But even if 90% of the voters in this Pomona-Norwalk district disappeared, an independent candidate would need 751 signatures, more than 18 times as many as needed under SB 6.
In over 900 congressional races since the 1970s, only 9 independent candidates have qualified for placement on the ballot.
P.R. — NO primaries are needed.
The CA voters are hardly shaking in their boots about the WA top 2 trial in Oct. 2010 — wherein the party hacks will claim some sort of injury by having FREE advertising if some candidate *prefers* such party on the public ballots.
Typical New Age insane stuff.
#4 How would you elect governors by proportional representation?