On April 7, the Louisiana House and Governmental Affairs Committee passed HB 292 unanimously. It would convert Congressional elections from a semi-closed system, to a “top-two” system. The first round would be in November. If no one got a majority in November, the state would hold a run-off in December. The author of HB 292 is Rep. Hunter Greene (R-Baton Rouge).
The Committee also considered HB 1157, by Rep. Cameron Henry. It would have retained partisan elections for Congress, but abolished run-off party primaries. Both bills would have saved money. The Committee chair said the Speaker had told him to advance only one of these two bills, so HB 1157 did not pass. However, it could be revived if HB 292 does not get enacted into law. For more detail, see this story (scroll down).
Jim Riley will be ecstatic over this news.
Louisiana, of course, used the “top two” (“open primary”) for its congressional elections from 1978 to 2006. In 2008, the Democrats invited independents into their congressional primary, but the Republicans did not.
I’m assuming that, if this is enacted, 2012 would be the earliest that the “open primary” could be used.
Yes, it would not go into effect this year.
Top-two isn’t nearly so bad when the first round is in November. No candidate is cut out of the summer and fall campaign season.
The 10th paragraph of this column says that there was/is also a proposal to eliminate the party runoff (or second) primary for congressional elections.
Sounds like both proposals are for the purpose of saving the state money.
One more step towards the DOOM of the party hack regimes.
Think the Allies on the roads to Berlin, Rome and Tokyo in 1944-1945 — the DOOM of the EVIL Axis regimes.
P.R. and A.V. = NO primaries are needed.
Louisiana still uses top-two for state and local elections, so having only one system for everything outside of Presidential elections might have something to do with it as well.
No surprise here. “Top Two” should be called “Protect the Incumbents Act.” The Louisiana House and Governmental Affairs Committee should be ashamed of themselves for passing HB 292. They will regret this decision in the future because the nationwide grass root efforts to knock these incumbents out of office will become powerful.
I love how other states are following the Washington State example.
Pingback: Louisiana Considers Restoring “Jungle Primary” | Independent Political Report
This is not, in its current form, a “top-two” blanket primary. That was a creation of Washington in 2004 and only recently implemented. The top two finishers do not (almost) automatically go to a general election in Louisiana as in Washington. Instead, a candidate receiving an absolute majority in the first election is declared the winner. See http://jeffsadow.blogspot.com/2010/04/problem-would-return-with-primary.html
>so having only one system for everything outside of Presidential elections might have something to do with it as well.
It does. One of the big complaints from legislators is the claim they get calls form “confused” constituents. It may not occur to them that making all contests closed primaries would eliminate that problem. Of course, they got elected under the blanket primary, so if they have to change one system — either theirs to suit federal elections or federal elections to suit theirs — guess which one they are going to choose ….
Jeff is right. There really is no good term for the Louisiana system. Vocabulary is a big problem for discussion about primary elections.
How about the Louisiana primary, the Washington [State] primary, the possible CA primary, etc. ???
i.e. LOTS of primary types — like colors in a rainbow ???
#6 About 4/7 of Louisiana House members are serving in their first term. Louisiana has a larger share of House members elected as independents than any State but Virginia, and recently elected an independent to Speaker Pro Tempore, the 2nd highest position in the House.
#10 For Louisiana and Washington: Open Primary (election). It is is the first election, so clearly it should be called a primary, and it is open to all candidates and all voters. Perhaps the two systems could be differentiated as Open Primary with Runoff and Top Two Open Primary
We could also apply partisan or non-partisan to include other related schemes.
For example the system used for the Nebraska legislature would be: Nonpartisan Top Two Open Primary, while that used for most California county supervisors would be Nonpartisan Open Primary with Runoff.
So then we simply have to come up with names for systems that use party primaries where voter participation is limited, restricted, or exclusionary based on party affiliation.
Can a system like that used in Ohio really be characterized as “open” when it includes forms that have an expressed threat of felony prosecution because a voter requested to vote in a different primary than they had in the past.
#12 Vermont has three independents in the state legislature, plus six Progressives. In the past 20 years, Minnesota, Maine, and Connecticut have elected independent or third party Governors and Connecticut has elected an independent Senator. All of these states have partisan primaries.
#14 Paul Poirer was elected as a Democrat and later became an independent. In addition, Vermont has a larger legislature than Louisiana.
For Louisiana: 2/149 vs Vermont 2/179.
It is actually surprising that there are not more independents in Vermont since House races only have a couple thousand voters, and many voters may actually know their representative.
#15 My point is that Vermont has more non-duopoly legislators and that three states have elected Governors and one has elected a Senator in recent years who were indepedents or third party candidates. Angus King won two terms as Governor of Maine. Oh, wait. Forgot about Bernie Sanders, first in the House of Representatives and then in the Senate. All of these states have partisan primaries, and they don’t limit voters to two choices on the November ballot.
#13: As Justice Stevens said in California Democratic Party v. Jones, the Louisiana system is a general election with a runoff.
The main difference between the first round of the Louisiana system and other general elections is that the field of candidates has not been winnowed by party primaries or some other nominating process.
It’s amazing: the first round of the Louisiana system is routinely called a “primary.” And yet, when one candidate gets 50%-plus in the first round– SHA-ZAM!– it’s magically transformed into a general election.
In Mississippi, nonpartisan offices first appear on the ballot on the first Tuesday in November, and there’s a runoff several weeks later if necessary. We certainly don’t call that first election a “primary.”
“… we simply have to come up with names for systems that use party primaries where voter participation is limited, restricted, or exclusionary based on party affiliation.”
The US Supreme Court already has. In a closed primary, only party members may vote… in a semi-closed primary, independents are the only non-members who are eligible to vote… in an open primary, any voter is eligible to participate. In almost every state where one major party has an open primary, the other one does too– which means that each voter picks a party on primary day.
In a blanket primary, more than one party list their candidates on the same primary ballot, and the top vote-getter from each party advances to the general election. While the US Supreme Court has struck down the state-mandated blanket primary, Alaska’s Democrats and small parties today have a voluntary blanket primary.
I understand that that Ohio law is enforced in varying degrees from county to county. Illinois has a similar law.
Alaska’s Republicans have their own separate primary, in which independents are invited to vote. ALL voters, on the other hand, are invited to vote in the Democratic/small party primary. Thus Republicans and independents have their choice of either primary ballot, which helps explain why over half of Alaska’s voters are registered independents.
#16: The Alaskan Independence Party also elected a governor in 1990; he was Walter Hickel, a former Republican governor (who, incidentally, switched back to the GOP in 1994 and then announced that he wasn’t running again).
Alaska was then using the state-mandated, “all-party” blanket primary.
#16 Vermont has the same number of legislators who were elected as independents as does Louisiana. Both have a legislator who was elected as a Democrat and who now sits as an independent. But Vermont has more legislators.
It is easier to get elected as an independent in a small rural state with a large legislature. You can literally knock on the door of every household. And you may know a large share of the voters simply by living in a small community. A similar effect can be seen in the two-member districts in the House where 15 of 41 such districts have split-party delegations. In a small district, an individual can overcome party designation.
And basically what you are arguing is that in the most extreme cases, partisan primaries can produce as many independents as is typical for a Top 2 Open Primary.
Governors are so few in number that almost any election can be seen as anomaly. In many strongly Democratic or Republican states, there are often governors of the weaker party. An election of a governor in a single state does not a trend make.
#17 Justice Stevens (in Footnote 8) recognizes that “primary” is commonly applied to mean partisan primaries.
We really don’t know for sure what Justice Scalia was talking about in Jones Justice Thomas says in the the Washington case, that the court (through Scalia’s opinion) had not anticipated a system with party labels. But that is certainly not like Louisiana. And of course in Louisiana, two or “whatever” candidates don’t advance to the general election.
#18 Gubernatorial elections may be quite exceptional. Hickel had been elected as governor previously – and was not nominated by the AIP in its primary. Persons who were dissatisfied with the outcome of the Republican primary, and the AIP pushed its candidate out and put Hickel in place.
Scalia, in describing his so-called “nonpartisan blanket primary” in Jones, said that the State MAY require the parties to nominate candidates in advance of the first round of general voting.
So, if the State required the parties to nominate by primary, this system would be like Georgia’s. The difference would be that Georgia only has a runoff if no one gets 50%-plus, whereas there would always be a runoff in Scalia’s scheme (he calls the final step the “general election”).
In Scalia’s scheme, instead of having the top two vote-getters advance to the final election, the State may prescribe that it be the top three, the top four, etc., regardless of party.
And, of course, Georgia’s runoff, if necessary, is always between the top two finishers.
#20, last paragraph: ‘The Almanac of American Politics’ shows the results of Alaska’s 1990 blanket primary.
The top two vote-getters were both Democrats; #3, #4, and #5 were all Republicans; and then it has “Four Others” with a total of 4%.
So the Alaskan Independence Party candidate(s) obviously got something less than four percent in the primary.
The Democratic nominee got 25% in the primary, and the Republican nominee got 19%.
Walter Hickel was elected with 39%; the Democrat got 31%; and the Republican got 27%.
An election is a *primary* [first] election ONLY if there is a required later election.
The LA stuff has a conditional first election and a conditional second election.
Thus the various conditional first elections – only party hacks, party hacks with independents, etc.
i.e. in all this stuff — an election (of whatever type) makes choices.
#21/22 Justice Scalia knows what the word “may” means. Even if he doesn’t, the other justices would have corrected him. Scalia did not prescribe all the details of a nonpartisan blanket primary, given that it within the authority of each state to devise its own electoral scheme.
He did identify the key element that differentiated it from the system used in California where the primary did nominate party candidates.
#23 Lindauer (the original AI candidate) received 2.4%. The “four others” included a 4th Republican, 3rd Democrat, and 2 American Independents, including Lindauer.
Coghill, who was elected Lt.Governor on the AIP ticket had originally been the Republican nominee for Lt.Governor. In Alaska, nomination of the Lt. Governor and Governor are independent, but they run together in the general election. The Republican ticket in November consisted of the 1st and 2nd place finishers in the gubernatorial primary.
Coghill ran for Governor as the AIP candidate in 1994, gaining about 13% of the vote.
Of course, if Alaska had had a “top two” in 1990, the runoff for governor would have been between two Democrats. Neither Hickel nor the top Republican vote-getter would have been in the final election.
BTW: Does the 1% threshold apply to Washington’s “top two”?
#26 If Alaska had a Top 2 Open primary in 1990, there might have been different candidates, and they might have run their campaigns differently, and voters may have cast their vote differently. In many states, it is not possible for a party nominee to withdraw.
As it happened, the Democratic candidate in 1994, Tony Knowles was elected in 1994 when Hickel chose not to run for re-election.
Washington has a 1% threshold for a primary candidate to qualify for the general election ballot.
Washington takes a particularly libertarian view towards write-in votes, and doesn’t require a formal declaration by a candidate in order that the vote count. But it also avoids tabulating individual write-in votes for non-declared candidates if possible.
Write-in votes can often be mistaken for undervotes and overvotes. For example, a voter may write a name in, but not put an X in the box which can be detected by a scanner as a write-in. Or a voter might vote for an on-ballot candidate and then also write his name in.
The vote counting regulations are oriented towards catching these sorts of false undervotes and overvotes, especially when they might change the result between the first and second candidates. That is, when apparent winner minus runner-up is less than apparent undervotes + overvotes, the undervotes and overvotes need to be examined manually.
In a Top 2 Primary, the distinction between 2nd and 3rd is just as important, and also whether the 2nd place candidate reached 1% of the vote to qualify.
In 2008, there was a declared write-in candidate who qualified as the 2nd candidate (there was one Republican on the primary ballot, and two on the general election ballot). A declared write-in candidate expresses his party preference when he files, just as he would if it were printed on the ballot.
Also in 2008, there were many districts where the total of write-in votes was greater than 1%. Because Washington elections are almost all by mail, and thus by paper ballot, it is very easy to cast a write-in vote. Filling a ballot out at home may also result in more write-in votes. While a voter might write in a candidate at a polling place, he might feel too rushed to bother.
Theoretically, these casual write-in votes should have been tabulated, just to be sure there weren’t a sufficient number of votes for an individual to qualify for the general election.
In the 2009 cleanup legislation proposed by SOS Sam Reed, the threshold for qualification would have been increased to 2%, presumably to avoiding having to deal with casual write-in votes.
Washington does apply its sore loser law to declared write-in candidates. A declared write-in candidate for the primary who is winnowed out may not file as write-in candidate in the general election, the same as if his name had been on the ballot and he had not qualified.
In the law for California’s Top 2 Open Primary, there is no threshold to qualify for the general election. However, California does require a declaration for a write-in candidate.
This is different than California’s law for partisan primaries, which require a candidate to receive 1% of the vote cast in the previous gubernatorial election. This is a direct contradiction of Proposition 65 from 2004, which simply goes to demonstrate that the sole purpose of Proposition 65 was to confuse and defraud the voters.
#27: According to you, it makes no difference if the two final candidates are from the same party.
There was at least one independent in that 1990 governor’s race, wasn’t there? Of course, if it had been a “top two,” any independents would have been on the first-round ballot.
Re the Washington state “top two”: It sounds like you’re saying that any write-in candidate who gets at least 1% in the first round advances to the runoff– in which case it would be a “top three,” a “top four,” etc. In that’s the case, it would seem that any eliminated candidate whose name was on the ballot, and who got more votes than such a write-in candidate, would be resentful.
California’s “open primary” initiative in 2004 was Proposition 62. Oregon’s 2008 initiative was Measure 65.
#28 It is possible for the Top 2 to be from the same party. You are correct. Buddy Roemer and Edwin Edwards were both Democrats in 1987 when they qualified for the general election, though Roemer had famously declared that he would not support Edwards in a race against Bob Livingston, the Republican front-runner. And all 6 candidates in 1975 were Democrats.
There was a “GPA” and a “TPP” candidate in 1990 in Alaska. Probably Green Party of Alaska and (guessing) Tax Payer Party. Independent candidates (by petition) can still carry a party designation.
For Alaska to switch to a Top 2 for governor, they would have to figure out how to handle the Lt.Governor. Lt.Governor candidates run independently in the primary, but run as part of a ticket in the general election. In 1990, the (Republican) winner of the Lt.Governor primary ran as the running mate of Hickel on the AIP ticket. Also, it was very close to being two Republicans atop the Lt.Governor’s race. The two Republicans finished 1, 2 in the Senate race with 59% and 35% vs. two Democrats at 9% and 6%.
In Washington, the 1% threshold applies regardless whether a candidate is a write-in candidate or an on-ballot candidate, though it is improbable that a second place candidate who was on the ballot would receive less than 1% of the vote.
It may simply be a carryover from the 1% threshold that was at issue in Socialist Workers Party v Munro. There was existing language in Washington law with a 1% threshold that the Grange initiative edited.
You might recall that in the Washington version of the blanket primary, that originally only major party appeared on the primary ballot, which would nominate candidates for the Republicans and Democrats. Minor party and independent candidates would qualify directly for the general election by convention/petition.
After the OWL-party election, Washington required that the nominee of minor parties appear on the blanket party ballot, and that they receive 1% of the vote in the primary to advance to the general election. The SWP failed to get 1% in a special senate election, and sued. The US Supreme Court ruled that such a 1% threshold was the equivalent of modicum of support threshold for petitioning candidates.
Richard Winger claims that this decision establishes that it is unconstitutional to require as much as 33% of the vote to qualify for the general election under Top 2. But the 1% is an additional qualification. For example, under the blanket party, the nominee of the Republican Party not only had to get 1% of the total vote, he also had to get the most votes of any Republican. In the election at issue in Munro there were candidates with around 20% of the vote who were eliminated because they were 2nd in their respective major party primary. IIRC, The SWP candidate was 9th overall.
Under the Top 2 Open Primary, a candidate must not only receive 1% of the total vote, they must finish in the Top 2.
It was Proposition 60 that defrauded the voters in 2004.
The Louisiana governor’s race wasn’t much of a contest in 1975, when Edwin Edwards easily won re-election. This was the first year that the state used the “open primary.”
Alaska seems to be happy with its current primary system, in which the Democrats and small parties list all of their candidates on the same primary ballot, and ALL voters are eligible to participate. The Republicans have their own separate primary; they invite independents to vote, so 80%-plus of voters are eligible to take the GOP ballot.
In the days of Washington state’s blanket primary, the Libertarians were considered a major party for a time. Independents, who had to be nominated by convention, also appeared on the blanket ballot. This “convention,” as I recall, was a meeting of at least 25 voters, who signed the candidate’s petition. An independent also had to get at least 1% in the blanket primary to advance to the general election.
Richard Winger says that the Washington “top two” establishes a 30 percent modicum of support for a candidate to appear on the November ballot. He has listed a long series of federal court rulings that establish a five percent modicum of support for a congressional candidate to be listed on that November ballot.
“Governors are so few in number that almost any election can be seen as anomaly. In many strongly Democratic or Republican states, there are often governors of the weaker party. An election of a governor in a single state does not a trend make.”
You can’t have it both ways, Jim. If you want to discard evidence that Governors have been elected in states with partisan primaries because there are so few Governors, fine. Then you also have to say that the election of an independent as Louisiana State Senate Pro Tempore is irrevelant because there are so few Pro Tempores.
My point remains: Although it is uncommon for third parties and independents to win statewide or Congressional offices in states witb partisan primaries, it just doesn’t happen under Top Two. Most of the time, non-duopoly candidates are not even on the November ballot unless they get there by default.
In addition to independents, Vermont has six other non-duopoly members of its State Legislature. There are five Progressives in the State House and one in the State Senate. Again,it is rare for third party candidates to make it out of the primary under Top Two.
Virginia has oartisan primaries and larger districts for the lower house of the State Legislature than Louisiana. This is partially due to having fewer districts (100 vs. 105), but mainly because ot its larger population. Virginia had three independents in the state legislature a few years ago.
All of Louisiana’s state legislative seats will be up for election in 2011. We’ll see how independent candidates fare then in the “open primary” system.
Minnesota, incidentally, had nonpartisan “top two” elections for its state legislature from 1913 to 1973. The two caucuses in each chamber were the Liberals and the Conservatives. Although there were exceptions, the Democrats generally caucused with the Liberals, and the Republicans with the Conservatives.
Again – Nebraska has a NONPARTISAN one house legislature with a top 2 NONPARTISAN primary — and manages to survive with such one house making *policy* for the State.
#30 Edwards received 62% of the vote in his first re-election in 1975. Not really exceptional for a popular incumbent.
Weren’t we discussing how in Alaska under its blanket primary, the candidates chosen by the AIP were forced off the general election, replaced by a former Republican governor and the winner of the Republican nomination for Lt.Governor, otherwise known as “Mr.Republican”, and that the Republican ticket was then comprised of the two Republican frontrunners for the gubernatorial nomination.
The Libertarian party qualified as a major party for the 2004 election, the first conducted under Pick-A-Party. Though it was their first ever primary election, and had two candidates running for governor, 15% of Libertarians did not vote governor. They either skipped the only primary contest ever for the party, or attempted to vote in the Gregoire-Sims race for the Democratic nomination, as they would have been free to do under the blanket primary.
Washington later changed its laws so the Libertarians could opt out of being a major party. This would let them nominate by convention, and let Libertarians voters vote in the Republican or Democratic primary. No Libertarians ran for the legislature in 2006.
Richard Winger is in error with regard to Washington’s Top 2. If you would happen to have his list, I can explain what the court’s really did rule. One case that I’m sure he would cite is Socialist Workers Party v Munro. It did not involve a congressional election held on the date set by Congress. And candidates who received around 20% of the vote were denied a place on the general election ballot.
#31 Governors are such a prominent office, individual candidates can break through, despite the electoral system or the overall political ideology of the state, or the electoral system.
If we take the last 40 years* of elections in each state, independents** have been elected for 24 years:
Maine: James Longley (4 years)
Maine: Angus King (8)
Connecticut: Lowell Weicker (4)
Minnesota: Jesse Ventura (4)
Alaska: Walter Hickel (4)
24/4000 is is 0.6% of the time. If we exclude the 40 years of non-party primaries in Louisiana and Washington, it is 0.606%
If Louisiana and Washington had performed at the same rate in their 10 non-party primary elections, there would be a 94.1% chance that none of those elections would have elected an independent. There would have been a 5.7% chance of one independent being elected during that time, and 0.2% of 2 independents.
So we know that it is rare for an independent to be elected in a state with a party primary. It is possible, but highly improbable (1 in 165).
We simply don’t have enough data to make any such determination about Louisiana. Party definitions are fairly fluid in Louisiana. One governor was elected as a Democrat, and unsuccessfully ran as a Republican for re-election. Another switched parties a month before the election and was elected. In 2007, an independent was within 3% of finishing 2nd in the gubernatorial race (but there would not have been a runoff since Bobby Jindal received a majority).
The independents who have won in party-primary states might well have won under a non-party primary system.
James Longley missed the filing deadline for the Democratic primary in 1974. This may have been inadvertent or on purpose. However, he might have filed as a Democrat for an open primary.
George Mitchell, the losing Democratic candidate attributed his loss in part to “distrust and cynicism about politics and politicians”, and the Republican candidate had been defeated for the same office 4 years previously. Polling showed Longley trailing both party candidates by double digits, so the undecided may have broke decisively for Longley. Republicans might have voted for Longley in a runoff.
Part of Angus King’s strategy in Maine 1994 was to run TV ads during the Democratic and Republican primary. There were 8 candidates for the Republican nomination, and Susan Collins was nominated with 20.1% of the vote. So 80% of Republicans might have decided to look at someone else since there particular candidate was not nominated.
Collins did well only in the lightly popuulated northeast, and was under 20% in much of the SW. King did relatively well most everywhere, keeping it close to Democrat Joseph Brennan or piling up substantial margins. There was also a Green candidate who slivered off 6% of the vote. In a runoff, the Republican vote would have probably gone for King, and he may have received a reasonable share of the Green vote.
On the other hand, if he had run in an open primary with 15 other candidates, he might have been seen as just one of a indistinguishable bunch, and not finished in the Top 2.
Lowell Weicker in 1990 was a former Senator facing two state representatives. Bruce Morrison the Democratic candidate, had been nominated after the incumbent governor decided not to seek re-election. Weicker had contemplated running in the Republican primary but decided to run as an independent. So the dynamics of this race were really more like an Open Primary without a runoff. Weicker would probably have won a runoff, gaining most of the rest of the Democratic votes (Morrison only had 20.1% of the vote in a state with 39% Democratic registration).
Jesse Ventura might or might not have qualified for the general election under a Top 2 primary in 1998, and might not have won in a runoff. The Democratic candidates might have been different or run different campaigns. While thanking an aging Democrat for remembering your father, and suggesting that you had gone into politics because of him might work in a primary, it might not sell to the general public who want a 2nd-generation career politician even less than a career politician. Ventura appears to have benefited from the Democratic primary when voters didn’t automatically fall into line behind the nominee. Their choice had been eliminated, so they looked again.
But in a race with more candidates, Ventura might not have stood out as much. He might not have been able to get the same-day registration surge that elected him in the general to vote in the primary. And if it had been a Ventura-Coleman runoff, he may or may not have run.
Walter Hickel could certainly have won in a non-party primary in 1990, and won the runoff. But he probably wouldn’t have run in the first place. And one really can’t credit the party-primary system for Hickel’s win, considering the winner of one primary was forced off the general election ballot, and the winner of another primary jumped parties after the primary.
There is certainly nothing in a non-party primary system that would have prevented Longley, King, Weicker, Ventura, and Hickel from being elected. In reality, they were elected despite the party primary system. But the dynamics of the election might have been different. Longley, Weicker, and Hickel might have run as major party candidates even as they positioned themselves as centrist candidates.
* Using “years of election” balances the contribution among the states for states that have 4-year terms and those that have 2-year terms. At the start of the time period, 8 states had 2-year terms, only New Hampshire and Vermont remain. So rather including 20 elections from those states, and 10 from most others, each has contributed 40 years of election. A candidate is considered to have been elected for his entire term, regardless whether he was impeached, recalled, died, or resigned, even if his replacement was of a different party.
Periods covered were 1973-2009 for states that last held elections in 2009; 1972-2008 for states that last held elections in 2008; 1971-2007 for states that last held elections in 2007; and 1970-2006 for states that last held elections in 2010. For Illinois, the 1968 election is considered as being for two years beginning in 1970. Illinois had a later transitional 2-year term so that its gubernatorial elections would be held mid-term between presidential elections. Terms both before and after the transitional term were for four years.
** Weicker, Ventura, and Hickel are considered independents. Their support was not that of voters blindly voting the A Connecticut, Reform, or Alaskan Independence party tickets.
#31 Virginia is the one state that has a larger share of independents elected as such to the legislature than Louisiana.
So of the 47 states that have party primaries, Virginia performs better than Louisiana as far as share of independents. The other 46 states do not. Just because all Toyota accelerator pedals do not stick, does not mean that no Toyota accelerator pedals stick.
In 2008, Vermont had 259 candidates for the 150 House seats, or 1.72 per seat. Only 10 of the 108 districts had more than 2 candidates per seat (Vermont has 42 2-member districts). The party primaries only eliminated 19 candidates (11 Democrats, 8 Republicans).
If Vermont had used a Top 2 format, only 23 candidates would have been eliminated. There is ample evidence that voters vote for individuals and not the party, given the number of 2-seat districts that return 2-members from different parties (not surprising given that there are only a couple thousand voters per representative).
So the party primaries are a total waste of time. Just let candidates file and hold the primary.
This would also eliminate the silly game of no one filing in the Democratic primary, and then cross-nominating the Progressive candidate by write-ins.
How do they keep anyone filing in the Democratic primary. Does the candidate file and then withdraw? Or do they just keep an eye out for competition.
In a “top two open primary,” of course, 50%-plus is almost always necessary to be elected (in Washington state’s “top two,” write-ins could prevent the winner from getting 50%-plus).
In almost every system of party primaries, 50%-plus is not required to win the general election.