Solomon Kleinsmith has this article about how top-two systems disadvantage candidates who are not backed by established figures in the two major parties. Kleinsmith is the founder of the blog “Rise of the Center”.
Solomon Kleinsmith has this article about how top-two systems disadvantage candidates who are not backed by established figures in the two major parties. Kleinsmith is the founder of the blog “Rise of the Center”.
When will S.K. and many other bloggers detect
P.R. and App.V. ???
Unfortunately, I find Kleinsmith’s argument very weak. Contrary to his statements, there is a cohesive (and powerful) sector of society that benefits from Top Two. This is the business community. Having lost effective control of the activist ranks of both major parties (or at least thinking they have), they want Top Two because, under some circumstances, it can actually do what what Kleinsmith says it cannot do. It can get a candidate to the final round without the backing of one or the other major party hierarchy, and the financial support that flows from that backing.
The problem with the argument for Top Two is not that it won’t work at all. The problem is that the candidates who will benefit are those who can mount effective campaigns without financial backing from party organizations. Guess who they are and guess where they will go instead for their money.
The backers of Top Two call these candidates “moderates”. But it’s very specific kind of moderate they have in mind. They very rarely mention the business community. For an exception, see this remarkable frank Arizona Daily Star editorial. In the comment thread on this, I wrote:
Pingback: Solomon Kleinsmith Article on Top-Two Systems | Independent Political Report
Pingback: Solomon Kleinsmith Article on Top-Two Systems | Daily Libertarian
The “top two” does indeed give the advantage to the “big money” candidates, especially in a large state like California.
The top two vote-getters in the California//Washington state “top two” are required to run TWO general election campaigns. Meg Whitman spent some $143 million of her own money on her gubernatorial campaign. How much would she have spent if she had had to conduct TWO general election campaigns?
The evidence from the blanket primary experiment in California in 1998 and 2000 is greater relative participation by independent and 3rd party voters. While overall participation is less than the general election, their share of the electorate was higher.
Under the old partisan primary scheme, there was no particular reason for 3rd party voters (or independents inclined to vote for them) to even show up. As a result, they were excluded from the non-partisan county and city races, and ballot propositions.
Those who advocate against the Top 2 Open Primary, in essence make the argument, “so what if more voters are enfranchised, they won’t like the result any better than the current system.”
#5 Perhaps Meg Whitman would have been able to run a more consistent campaign, instead of focusing on winning two different rounds under different rules.
#6: The blanket primary, unlike the “top two” monstrosity, guaranteed independents and small party candidates a place on the general election ballot, thus giving the voters more choices in the final, deciding election.
Your second paragraph is puzzling, since the big majority of California municipalities hold their own city elections at a different time from state and federal elections.
The “top two” disenfranchises voters, since the final choice is almost always one Republican and one Democrat, two Republicans, OR two Democrats.
As I’ve said a number of times: If you’re going to advocate that type system, you should be promoting a “top three” or a “top four,” since that would give the voters more choices in the final, deciding election.
Half the votes in half the gerrymander districts = about 25 percent ANTI-Democracy indirect minority rule.
With OR without any top 2 primary.
How MORON ignorant are LOTS of alleged know-it-all folks in CA about STONE AGE gerrymander math ???
I live in Washington’s 3rd District. In 2010, once the August primary was over, national interests dominated the campaign. They pumped a record $7.1 million into the top two vote getter race.
Here’s a story: http://tdn.com/news/local/article_89fc2c00-319e-11e0-b999-001cc4c002e0.html
“Having lost effective control of the activist ranks of both major parties (or at least thinking they have), they want Top Two because, under some circumstances, it can actually do what what Kleinsmith says it cannot do. It can get a candidate to the final round without the backing of one or the other major party hierarchy, and the financial support that flows from that backing.”
The example I talk about there is but one of several reasons why the top two choke point actually puts MORE power into the hands of the parties. Just saying it is the opposite doesn’t make it the case. If you wanted to give underdog candidates a better chance, you wouldn’t make the campaign calendar even shorter, and put more power in the hands of primary voters. You’d give more choice to general election voters.
“Those who advocate against the Top 2 Open Primary, in essence make the argument, “so what if more voters are enfranchised, they won’t like the result any better than the current system.””
I don’t appreciate it when idiots feel the need to build B.S. straw men to come up with an argument. If you don’t agree with me, fine, but don’t be so goddamn childish.
Top Two has NOTHING to do with Open Primaries, other than they are two of a long list of primary rule options. There are over a dozen states with Open Primaries and only two now with the top two choke point for major races.
I support Open Primaries for any publically funded election. It is patently WRONG for any partisan activity to be funded by the government, and most of the top two opponents I’ve spoken with think the same way.
Just get rid of government-controlled “primary elections” altogether. Let the parties internally decide who they want to nominate. If you do not like what the current parties offer, then start a new party.
#11 and #12: I really wish that people would read California Democratic Party v. Jones, but that seems to be out of the question.
22 states mandate open primaries, in which each voter picks a party on primary day (Utah Democrats also have open primaries). A US district judge recently struck down Idaho’s open primary law, and it appears that the state will not appeal to the 9th circuit (Idaho Republican Party v. Ysursa). A similar federal suit is pending in South Carolina, and I have it on good authority that Tennessee’s Repubicans are preparing to bring such a suit as well. The California ruling I cited above is the main precedent for these cases.
California and Washington state have the “top two” for all state and congressional elections; those two states ALWAYS have a second round of voting. Louisiana is the third state with this type system for state and congressional elections, but Louisiana does not have a runoff when one candidate gets 50%-plus in the first round (in which case it’s a “top one”).
In 1995, the 8th circuit said that, when the state mandates that parties hold primaries, the parties cannot be required to pay for those primaries (Republican Party of Arkansas v. Faulkner County). So the state pays for party primaries by default. Who else can afford to pay for a primary, except maybe a vote-by-mail primary?
If a party nominates by a method other than the primary, and all the candidates for a particular office are in that party, grassroots citizens do not get to vote for that office.
#8 A winnowing process lets voters vote their sincere preference in the first round, and still have a chance to make a choice between the candidates with the most popular support.
8-1/2 of the 10 largest cities in California hold their city elections at the same time as state and federal elections.
If I were to advocate for more than 2 candidates to appear on the “final” election ballot, the “final” election would not necessarily be the final election. If Mississippi were to switch to non-partisan elections for local elections, how many would advance from the primary to the general election?
#13 Nebraska elects its legislature using a Top 2 primary.
#11 You wrote in “the only thing they have that is on an even playing field is time. They used to have all the way until the general election to catch up with bigger name candidates”
It is a false premise that the also-rans make up ground. As I noted in my first message, evidence from the blanket primary in California is that minor party candidates did better in the primary than the general election. They were losing ground, falling further behind.
There have been 12 independent congressional candidates in California in the last 1000 or so elections. The last independent candidate for statewide office was Ed Clark in in 1978, who was defeated in the gubernatorial race by Jerry Brown, the younger. The old system simply did not produce the effects that you appear to attribute to it.
As I noted in my first message, under the old partisan primary scheme, there was no particular reason for 3rd party voters (or independents inclined to vote for them) to even show up. As a result, they were excluded from the non-partisan county and city races, and ballot propositions.
Are you indifferent to this effect?
I use the term “Open Primary” in the sense it is used in Louisiana, and by the California legislature when it proposed the Top 2 Open Primary.
You may be one of those who refers to an electoral system where voters, candidates, and ballots are segregated by party, and some candidates are not even on the ballot, as an “open primary”.
If “Open Primary” means I have to pick candidates from one ballot, that is not what over 38% of “no party preference” want. Today, we want to elected candidates, not parties. So I want all candidates on one ballot.
#5: Why run two elections when the constitution only says the states’ will run the “Election” process”. It does not say it needs to run the selection process.
#13: “In 1995, the 8th circuit said that, when the state mandates that parties hold primaries, the parties cannot be required to pay for those primaries.” I think this ruling should have said the state does not have the right to force the tax payers of the state to fund a private organizations selection process.
#8 “As I’ve said a number of times: If you’re going to advocate that type system, you should be promoting a “top three” or a “top four,” since that would give the voters more choices in the final, deciding election”
And yet more chances to replicate the horror of Florida 2000-at which point someone funded by Soros will step forward and offer the “solution” of the IRV/RCV/AV monstrosity. Approval Voting has been proven superior- but it hasn’t caught the eye of anyone with the money to employ full-time activists.
Two-round voting in France:
http://www.americansinfrance.net/Culture/Cantonal-Elections-2011.cfm
Apparently you need 12.5% of the first round vote to make it to the second round.
#19, that French law doesn’t apply to presidential elections, just elections to the national legislative body. Anyone who gets at least 12.5% in the first round for the legislative body is free to run in the second round, but many candidates drop out and bargain with other candidates. The two rounds are only two weeks apart.
I think we can see both Bob and Solomon’s points validated by events. There are two winners in the “Top Two” system: wealthy special interests, and also highly organized (meaning: partisan) groups.
The short time frame created by the June primary date favors whoever can organize quickly. Grassroots, nonpartisan coalitions take time to form around issues and are excluded by Top Two in favor of super-partisan groups, which include political parties.
Top Two supporters were always light on history lessons. Primaries were instituted as a replacement for smoke-filled backrooms. Now that a primary is no longer a primary, the smoke-filled backrooms have returned. I suppose they are no longer smoke-filled, which may count as progress.
Money also makes it easier to organize. Furthermore, since the primaries are now much more expensive — especially damaging for third party and independent candidates who once had a small or no primary — money is required in larger amounts to even get to the general election ballot.
So, both Bob and Solomon are correct. Money now rules more than ever, silencing the common man. In addition partisanship will be stronger than ever. The only limits placed on these two groups will be their tension with each other.
How many of the robot party hacks in CA got more than 10 percent winning margins in general elections in the rigged gerrymander districts ??? — i.e. the general election being an EVIL fraud joke in each political concentration camp.
P.R. and App.V. — NO primaries are needed.
How many UNDER 10 percent gerrymander district winners in general elections thus far in WA – with its top 2 primary ???
Are the winners under some REAL pressure NOT to be total party hack robots ???
“#11 and #12: I really wish that people would read California Democratic Party v. Jones, but that seems to be out of the question.”
I’m familiar with that ruling, and agree with it to a certain degree. If parties want their own primary, go ahead… I just don’t think the government should pay for them unless they’re open.
—
“It is a false premise that the also-rans make up ground. As I noted in my first message, evidence from the blanket primary in California is that minor party candidates did better in the primary than the general election. They were losing ground, falling further behind.”
And I can give you examples of underdog candidates who buck that trend. I’m not singling out minor party candidates, and cherry picking the under-performance of third party candidates doesn’t have anything to do with my I’m saying. My concern isn’t minor parties, its overall fairness. That they don’t do well in elections is no excuse for cutting them out of the general election.
—
“As I noted in my first message, under the old partisan primary scheme, there was no particular reason for 3rd party voters (or independents inclined to vote for them) to even show up. As a result, they were excluded from the non-partisan county and city races, and ballot propositions.
Are you indifferent to this effect?”
I’m not arguing against open primaries, I’m arguing against *only* the TOP TWO part. This bullshit spin game of trying to lump them together, when people have gone to great lengths to be clear that (most of us anyway) aren’t against other aspects of the proposition, either shows an unwillingness to engage on the issue, or a purposeful misunderstanding of what we are saying.
The SCOTUS morons in 2000 CA Dem v. Jones were UN-able to detect that PUBLIC nominations for PUBLIC offices are done by ALL or SOME PUBLIC Electors-Voters — according to PUBLIC laws.
Some common sense somehow happened in the 2008 WA top 2 primary case in SCOTUS – ALL Electors-Voters doing nominations — even with the meaningless party preference stuff.
Still trying to find where it says in the U.S.A. Const. that X percent of ALL Electors-Voters in a party hack group in all or any part of a State have a magical power to have THEIR party hack choice on PUBLIC general election ballots — with the party hack label involved ???
#23 Lucy Killea and Quentin Kopp would almost certainly have advanced from the Open Primary as independent candidates.
Audie Bock would quite likely have done so. When she ran in the general election, it was during the time of the blanket primary, so she was not on the primary ballot. That was one case where the minor party candidates (Republican and Libertarian) did better in the primary than the general election.
During the blanket primary elections, there was one assembly race that had two Libertarians, one Democrat, and one Republican. A relatively large number of voters voted for one or the other of the Libertarians (more than the number of registered Libertarians in the district). If they had voted for the Democrat or the Republican, it would not have mattered.
Under a partisan primary election scheme, there is less reason for voters to vote in minor party primaries, since there may not be two candidates, and sometimes not even one. Participation by unaffiliated voters is also reduced even. Even if they are permitted by some of the parties to vote in a primary, it is a complicated scheme to do so.
If other non-partisan elections are held at the same time, the results are skewed based on participation.
What is your alternative?
I have no idea what your point is… what does all that have anything to do with what I said? Open primaries accept everyone, so of course these candidates you mention would have made it through. What does that have to do with Top Two?
And you seem to think that votes only matter if they go towards winners. I think every voter’s vote matters TO THEM. THEY should have the choice to give that vote to whomever they wish, not have to be stuck with choosing from between two people.
It is not at all complicated to have open primaries that don’t have top two. A number of states do this already.
And elections are not skewed when people are given the choice to vote their conscience. They are skewed when their choices are artificially limited.
My alternative was already stated.
I’m against the top two choke point. I’m against putting a limit on how many people can make it through a primary. I’m for open primaries if the government is paying for the primary, and for giving people the choice to vote for who they want to vote for.
Any database of the top 2 primary math in all States involved —
i.e. the average of the 2nd place votes — circa 15-25 percent — in the area involved ???
— especially if no incumbent was a candidate.
How many NON-Ds/Rs have been elected with a majority of the votes in general elections since 1865 ???
#14: “If Mississippi were to switch to non-partisan elections for local elections, how many would advance from the [first round] to the [runoff]?
A “top two” is OK for local elections, although I would not be averse to letting more candidates advance to the runoff. There would, of course, only be a runoff if no one got 50%-plus in the first round.
#15: You failed to list the states that use the “top two” to elect their state education superintendents.
#16: “… there was no particular reason for 3rd party voters (or independents… to even show up. As a result, they were excluded from the non-partisan county and city races, and ballot propositions.”
That’s a really bogus statement. A voter who does not show up excludes himself. Besides, local races and ballot questions are not incentives for a citizen to cast a vote??
“You may be one of those who refers to an electoral system where voters, candidates, and ballots are segregated by party, and some candidates are not even on the ballot, as an ‘open primary.'”
I am “one of those,” too, as are most political scientists and the US Supreme Court. I guess you’re going to argue that we’re all wrong.
#17: Your scheme is like the Louisiana system, except that Louisiana does not permit write-ins. You’ll certainly be wasting your time trying to get that enacted in your state of New York.
The courts have ruled that states may have runoff general elections if they want to. Georgia is now the only state that has party primaries AND runoff general elections.
The courts have also ruled that states may regulate party primaries (you really should read California Democratic Party v. Jones).
#19 and #20: French parties choose how they nominate their presidential candidates, and I understand that any mayor may also nominate a presidential candidate. In the last presidential election, the Socialist Party held a primary, with the polls open from 4:00PM to 10:00PM. 50%-plus was required to win, but no runoff was needed, as the woman candidate got more votes than her two male opponents combined. 50%-plus is also required to win the general election. I believe the Socialists have said that they will again hold a primary in the next presidential election.
#23: “I’m familiar with [California Democratic Party v. Jones], and agree with it to a certain degree. If parties want their own primary, go ahead… I just don’t think the government should pay for them unless they’re open.”
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but the Court’s opinion is the one that controls. Parties cannot afford to pay for primaries, except perhaps vote-by-mail primaries. So a party is very unlikely to hold a primary if it must pay for it. Since citizens are accustomed to party primaries, states will continue to mandate and pay for primaries.
22 states now force parties to make their primary ballots available to any voter. I’m convinced that the days of the state-mandated open primary are numbered. But there will continue to be open primaries, since some parties do not object to them.
Not only do states pay for party primaries, states also have the option of prohibiting parties from inviting members of competing parties to vote in their primaries (Clingman v. Beaver). If a state does not make this prohibition, a party may have an open primary if it wants one.
#25: “Under a partisan primary election scheme, there is less reason for voters to vote in minor party primaries, since there may not be two candidates, and sometimes not even one. Participation by unaffiliated voters is also reduced… . Even if they are permitted by some of the parties to vote in a primary, it is a complicated scheme to do so.”
None of the six minor parties in my state has ever even had a primary, since none of them has ever had more than one candidate for the same office.
When independents are invited to vote in party primaries, there are two different ways that states do this: (1) The voter is allowed to remain registered as an independent, OR (2) the independent must re-register as a party member at the polls on primary day. What’s so “complicated” about either procedure?
#26 Lucy Killea and Quentin Kopp would certainly have advanced from a Top 2 Open Primary. They were independent candidates, that you have claimed would not have made it past a “top 2” choke point. Audie Bock would also have advanced from a Top 2 Open Primary in 2000. I assumed you were from California and would be familiar with those persons.
Ultimately, votes cast for losing candidates don’t matter. And to the extent that they do matter, they count as much in the primary as a general election.
Which particular states do you think have “open primaries”? Hawaii, Idaho, Texas?
The only State in which voters are permitted to participate in the nomination contests of more than one party is Alaska, and that is only when the parties permit this to happen.
The only states with independent candidates on the primary ballot are Hawaii, Washington, California, and Louisiana. You don’t like any of the latter three.
In other States where a voter may pick a party on election day, whether using a Montana Ballot, where they pick the party in secret, or where the choice of party is publicly recorded, they are restricted to voting for the nominees of a single party.
If voters are not strongly partisan, they will choose the primary based on the more hotly contested presidential or gubernatorial or senate contest. Partisan voters may skip primaries if there are not contested races for their party. Voters who consider themselves “independent” may eschew the primary all together, believing that they have no business interfering with internal party matters.
These choices will skew the electorate, because voters will make a rational choice that it does not matter to vote in their party’s primary. If you are member of a minor party and there is hardly ever more than one candidate of your party on the primary ballot, why bother voting in the primary?
What exactly is the cost of a precinct ballot scanner machine ???
What exactly is the cost of a scanner vote ???
— for those party hack groups wanting to have their own nominations/elections.
What are the clubby dues in a clubby group – esp. larger groups ???
How many different nomination systems are there now in the 50 States ???
Are there even 2 States with the identical nomination systems to get on the general election ballots ???
#28/14 Why would there only be a runoff if there was no majority in the first round? Let’s say that 4 candidates get at least 20% of the vote in the Open Primary, and advance to the general election. Why shouldn’t a winner have to receive a majority in the general election. Louisiana has a second runoff if there is a tie in the first runoff.
#28/15 North Carolina uses Top 2 for judicial elections.
#28/16 If there was a contested primary for head coach nominee by the Hoddy Toddy Party, supporters of the Cowbell Party might not show up for the primary, since they had already made a choice. If there is some other less important offices on the ballot, the Hoddy Toddys would go ahead and vote. The Hoddy Toddys weren’t more civic minded, and the Cowbells didn’t exclude themselves.
#29/25 In California (before 2011), election officials were not permitted to ask voters not affiliated with a party participating in the primary, which ballot they wanted. In some counties instructions were printed, and election judges were allowed to point at the card (I’m not sure, but they may have been required to avoid making eye contact, smiling, or frowning). The voter had to request the ballot, or they would be given the non-partisan ballot.
Mail voters were sent a card telling them that they could request a party ballot, and given a toll-free number that they could call to find out which parties were allowing such voters to vote in their primary. Voters would have to write-in the party name, and send the card back in, and then they would get the partisan ballot. If they didn’t send anything back, they would get the non-partisan ballot.
Dunno, seems pretty complicated to me; compared to giving all voters the same ballot, with all candidates names.
#31: “Ultimately, votes cast for losing candidates don’t matter. And to the extent that they do matter, they count as much in the primary as a general election.”
I assume that you mean the Washington state//California “top two,” in which there is ALWAYS a second round of voting (which means that a candidate who gets 50%-plus in the first round may be defeated in the second round). No one can be elected to office in the first round, the purpose of which is merely to winnow the field to two candidates. The final choice is almost always one Democrat and one Republican, two Democrats, OR two Republicans.
Thus, in the decisive second round– the only round in which a candidate may be elected to office– lots of voters must hold their noses and vote for what they consider to be the “lesser of the evils.”
“Which particular states do you think have ‘open primaries’? Hawaii, Idaho, Texas?”
Those are three of the 22 states that mandate open primaries– although Idaho is in process of changing to a system in which each party will determine who is eligible to vote in its primary: A US district judge struck down the state-imposed open primaries (Idaho Republican Party v. Ysursa). And when a party in Virginia is forced to hold a primary, the party– not the state– decides who may vote in that primary.
Utah’s Democrats have a voluntary open primary.
“The only states with independent candidates on the primary ballot are Hawaii, Washington, California, and Louisiana. You don’t like any of the latter three.”
As I understand it, Florida and Maryland also have a nonpartisan ballot available on primary day, which includes candidates for nonpartisan offices.
#33: Your state of Texas and my state of Mississippi are among the states that had a long history with the one-party system. Getting 50%-plus in the Democratic primary was tantamount to election… people here in my state would consider it nutty to have a runoff after one candidate has received 50%-plus, and I suspect that the same is true in Texas.
Only seven states require 50%-plus to win a party primary.
The Louisiana system is part of the residue of the old one-party (truly NO-PARTY) system, in which all serious candidates ran in the Democratic primary, with a Dem runoff if necessary.
“North Carolina uses Top 2 for judicial elections.”
My state uses the “top two” (nonpartisan elections) for state and county judges, county election commissioners, and all special elections.
After reading the part about the “Hoddy (sic) Toddy and Cowbell” parties, I think it may again be time for you to change the water in your bong.
What percentage of ALL elected public officers in the U.S.A. are elected after a top 2 primary — with party hack labels or without [pure nonpartisan] ???
What percentage of New Age party hack incumbents do NOT mention their party hack connection in New Age attack ads ??? — i.e. in order to get independent votes.
#33 is not entirely accurate. In all California counties, poll workers at the polls on primary day were required to show each independent voter who walked in a little card, telling them they could choose a Republican primary ballot or a Democratic primary ballot. I have been a poll worker off and on since 1964 in California and I know this from first-hand knowledge. Also I have the Secretary of State’s directive to the counties. When I debated Abel Maldonado on the radio, and he and I were in the studio together, I showed him a sample card and also I showed him the Secretary of State’s regulation.
Have ANY of the top 2 winning primary candidates in WA State made ANY effort to get endorsements from ANY of the losing candidates in the WA top 2 primaries — especially from any minor party candidates ???
What has been the combined losing votes in such primaries — as a percentage of all votes in such primaries ??? — and as a percentage of the general election votes.
40-60 percent in primaries ??? — 10-30 percent in general elections ???
#35/31 The same is true in partisan elections. In 2010 in Texas, Farouk Shami who lost the gubernatorial primary endorsed Rick Perry, the winner of the Republican nomination. The use of “evil” in the “lesser of two evils” is of course an exaggeration, but merely indicates that a voter was forced to vote for a candidate who was not their original choice. Shami had an opportunity to evaluate his choice among the candidates who advance to the general election, just as he would under a Top 2 system.
#35/31 The question of which States he considered to have “open primaries” was directed at Solomon Kleinsmith.
#36 Many states use Top 2 primaries where it is not possible to have election in the primary. In Nebraska, sometimes a candidate who has a majority in the primary is defeated in the general election. Of the 4 states that use an Open Primary system for electing legislators, only one, Louisiana has the possibility of election in the first round.
#38 http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ccrov/pdf/2010/january/10013ra.pdf which are draft poll worker training standards of last year says that “the poll worker should provide information to the DTS voter in a way that avoids any advocacy towards a particular party’s ballot” It doesn’t sound like my suggestions that the election judge avoid eye contact, not smile, and not frown was so far off, while pointing at a card is off.
What is the date of the SOS’s directive?
#36 The Louisiana system is part of the residue of the old one-party (truly NO-PARTY) system, in which all serious candidates ran in the Democratic primary, with a Dem runoff if necessary.
“Residue” is nebulous enough to indicate anything, but the current system was only adopted in 1978. By that time the Solid South, Jim Crow, lynchings, etc. were all dead and buried.
#42 There was a study of the Louisiana Open Primary done after about two or three elections cycles that concluded that Edwards had pulled a fast one and the Republicans would never elect an appreciable number of representatives, legislators, or executive offices.
Of course “refinement” would be a better word choice than “residue”.
#40: I assume that Shami ran in the Republican primary, in which case he should have felt honor-bound to support the Republican nominee (Romney and Huckabee certainly did not back Obama after losing to McCain). You’re talking about a partisan system, whereas the “top two” is nonpartisan. The first round in Washington state and California is actually a preliminary general election, the purpose of which is merely to winnow the field to two candidates. Shami would have had no more than two choices in the second round of a “top two,” whereas there are usually more choices on a general election ballot that lists party nominees as well as independents.
“Of the 4 states that use [a ‘top two’] system for electing legislators, only one, Louisiana has the possibility of election in the first round.”
That’s because Louisiana’s system is an extension of the old one-party (truly NO-PARTY) system, in which getting 50%-plus in the Democratic primary was equivalent to election. And that doesn’t change the fact that Texans (except you) and Mississippians would consider it insane to have a runoff after one candidate has received 50%-plus.
#42: “‘Residue’ is nebulous enough to indicate anything, but the current [Louisiana] system was only adopted in 1978. By that time the Solid South, Jim Crow, lynchings, etc. were all dead and buried.”
Louisiana began using its present system for state and local offices in 1975, and for Congress in 1978. The election system had little or nothing to do with Jim Crow, etc. (in 1976, incidentally, the Democrat Jimmy Carter carried all of the former Confederate states except Virginia).
In the one-party system, everyone was accustomed to elections being decided with no more than two rounds of voting– the Democratic primary and the Dem runoff. But when the Republicans started running a few candidates, a Democratic nominee who had a GOP opponent usually then had to run three campaigns. Since Republicans almost never had contested primaries, a Republican candidate only had to run in the general election. The Democrats deeply resented this and wanted to force GOP candidates to run in the same election with all the other candidates. The so-called “open primary” returned Louisiana’s election system to the two-step process that everyone had been accustomed to.
#43: Louisiana elected its first Republican governor since Reconstruction, David Treen, in 1979 (Treen had been the GOP nominee against Edwin Edwards in 1972). In the ’79 “open primary” runoff, Treen’s opponent was a Democrat, but all of the Democratic also-rans endorsed the Republican Treen.
Louisiana never had a popularly-elected Republican US senator until David Vitter won in 2004.
#44 Farouk Shami ran in the Democratic gubernatorial primary in 2010, finishing 2nd behind Bill White. He chose among the 4 candidates on the general election ballot. Presumably he would have been his own first choice, but was denied that opportunity by the machinations of the partisan primary system.
Regardless of the winnowing system, choices are limited in the 2nd round. It is more rational to do the winnowing on the basis of votes cast by the electorate rather than the some other scheme.
Are Nebraskans insane?
What percentage of ALL Fed/State/local legislators in the U.S.A. are nominated in top 2 primaries (partisan – independent / nonpartisan) ???
Are the regimes involved all somehow insane ???
Are robot party hack primaries DOOMED ??? — going to the history junkyard.
Finish them off — P.R. and App.V. — NO primaries are needed.
#46: “Presumably [Shami] would have been his own first choice, but was denied that opportunity by the machinations of the partisan primary system.”
Don’t you imagine that Shami voted for himself in the Democratic primary? And what were the odds that he would have made the runoff in a “top two”– slim and none?
Since the “top two” winnows the field more severely, there are never more than two choices in the final round– both of whom may be from the same party. In a system of party primaries, in contrast, each party may have a candidate on the general election ballot, and all independents are on that ballot as well.
Aren’t primary voters “the electorate”?
I consider the majority of the voters of Washington state and California to be misguided, since they approved the “top two” monstrosity for all state and congressional elections.
#46 It is possible that Perry and KBH were the choice of more voters than Perry, White, Glass, and Shafto combined. So the winnowing would have been less severe.