Robert Cruickshank has this opinion piece about California’s Proposition 14. It appears here in California Progress Report. It also appeared in Calitics.com. Cruikshank teaches political science at Monterey Peninsula College and is getting his Ph.D in history.
Interesting piece. I don’t agree with all of Cruickshank’s assumptions and conclusions, but at least he’s correct in opposing Maldonado’s Folly, Prop. 14.
The assumption that the “top two open primary” would produce more moderate officials is not borne out by the experience of Louisiana, which has used a similar system since the 1970s.
Cruickshank says that France uses a “top two” to elect its president. As I understand it, each French party may nominate a candidate; thus it’s impossible for more than one candidate from each party to appear on the first-round ballot. If no one gets 50%-plus in the first round, the top two vote-getters meet in a runoff. That’s more like the state of Georgia’s system. Georgia has party primaries to nominate candidates, and if no candidate gets 50%-plus in the general election, there’s a runoff in December.
Prop. 14 would impose a system like Louisiana’s and Washington state’s: It would be possible for multiple candidates from each party to appear on the first-round ballot, making it possible to have a runoff between two candidates from the same party. That could not happen in France.
#1 At least Cruikshank is somewhat honest about his motivation for opposing Proposition 14. He gets it wrong in saying that it will be swing districts that have two candidates of the same party. It will be districts where one party is dominant that this happens.
P.R. legislative and A.V. executive/judicial — NO primaries are needed.