Dr. Michael S. Kang, who is both a political science professor and a law professor at Emory University, has recently published “Sore Loser Laws and Democratic Contestation” in the Georgetown Law Journal, volume 99, p. 1013. The paper is 64 pages and can be read at this link.
The paper concludes the “sore loser” laws are poor public policy, and that the two major parties would be substantially less polarized if these laws were repealed. This is a political science paper, even though it is published in a law journal. The paper does not discuss constitutional problems with sore loser laws that relate to candidates for Congress, but such constitutional problems certainly exist. “Sore loser” laws for Congress cannot be reconciled with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. Term Limits v Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).
Every serious person who supports “top-two” election systems ought to read this paper.
P.R. and App.V. — ONE [general] election — NO *sore loser* problems.
Supporters of the old partisan nominating system cling to the belief that the objective of the Open Primary is to produce more moderate officials. That may be a secondary benefit. The objective is to let all citizens participate in ALL elections of their public officials.
Under an Open Primary, the State does not regulate any internal processes that political parties may use to make endorsements or otherwise direct political support. So there are no sore losers in the sense used by the Kang paper. A candidate who does not gain the support of a controlling faction of a political party is free to run in Open Primary.
A candidate who finishes 3rd or worse in the Open Primary is not a sore loser any more than someone who fails to make the runoff in an election requiring a majority winner.
#2: One of the reasons that the US Supreme Court struck down the state-mandated blanket primary was that it was promoted as producing “a range of candidates who are all more ‘centrist.'” (California Democratic Party v. Jones)
There is little or no evidence, nonetheless, that the “top two” elects officials who are more “moderate” or “centrist.”
#3 That was not one of the reasons that the US Supreme Court struck down the blanket primary. They decided that was insufficient justification to permit it to remain.
Whether or not the Open Primary elects officials who are more “moderate” or “centrist” is irrelevant.
The objective is to let all citizens participate in ALL elections of their public officials.
Pingback: Important Political Science Paper Published on “Sore Loser” Laws | ThirdPartyPolitics.us