Political Science Professor Mathew Manweller has published an article in the Election Law Journal on voter confusion in Washington state’s top-two system, “The Very Partisan Nonpartisan Top-Two Primary: Understanding What Voters Don’t Understand.” The article is based on Manweller’s experimental findings, giving voters three Washington state ballots and asking them for their understanding of the relationship between candidates and their own political parties. The experiment involved 183 new voters, 102 ordinary voters, and 549 politically active voters.
His experiment showed that a large proportion of voters are confused about the relationship between parties and candidates. Washington’s top-two system would be unconstitutional if voters believe that party labels on the ballot means anything other than that candidate’s statement about his or her own political leanings. Therefore, Manweller’s findings are relevant to whether the top-two system survives court scrutiny. Manweller’s article has been submitted to the Ninth Circuit, which is currently considering the constitutionality of the system. Because the article is now in the public record, and because the Washington Secretary of State’s web page links to the article, it can be seen by anyone, notwithstanding that normally Election Law Journal articles are copywrited. Here is the article. Thanks to Thomas Jones for noticing the link, and thanks to the Washington Secretary of State for posting it.
Pingback: “Expert Witness Publishes His Findings on Voter Confusion in Top-Two Systems” | Election Law Blog
This confirms what I have been saying for awhile. There needs to be two boxes, one indicating the party or independence of the candidate and one to indicate the party preference.
Another option would be a mark, like a check mark or * next to the candidate the party selected.
Gerrymanders control about 99 percent of the EVIL insane stuff going on and on — taking the U.S.A. to an economic total collapse since 1929.
Law 001— Ignorance of the LAW is NO excuse — every voter allegedly knows what a candidate label means — i.e. about ZERO in WA State.
See the election law text and the voter instructions on the ballots.
The courts take *judicial notice* of everything in the universe — that is somewhat remotely relevant to any case.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
ONE election – NO moron primaries.
The article really botched the history of the Top Two Open Primary, and the introduction to the article suggests bias by the researcher. Instead of wondering whether there is voter confusion, it appeared that his intent was to demonstrate voter confusion. The list of subjects for one panel of voters was developed from lists supplied by the plaintiffs.
Judge Coughenour’s order (page 14-17) addresses the Manweiler study extensively. When I read the test, I wondered about the double line between the governor’s race and the legislative race, with the instructions below the line, but the question asked about candidates in the governors race.
As the order notes, the instructions must be before any of the partisan races.
As much as anything, the experiment is a vocabulary test. The article notes the term “nominee” has a specific legal meaning, and then suggests that because subjects given the general election ballot for a Top 2 election perceive a particular candidate to be the nominee of the party he prefers, that voters were “confused”, and somehow if more subjects say that a party candidate was the nominee in an old-style general election that they were not confused.
Since the purpose of indicating party on an old-style general election ballot is to indicate nomination, it may indicate “confusion” that so many subjects did not comprehend that as the meaning.
There is no reasonable explanation why more experienced voters would understand the difference between “nominee” and less formal relationships with a party based on a ballot. It’s more likely that new (potential) voters are simply ignorant about formal terminology.
Here’s an idea for the Top-2 primary. How about letting people choose which 2 candidates should be in the runoff?