Political scientists who have studied primary systems invariably find that top-two election systems do not elect more centrist candidates. Here is a summary of that evidence:
1. Professor Todd Donovan of Western Washington University concluded, “The partisan structure of Washington’s legislature appears unaltered by the new primary system” and “The aggregate of all of this (implementation of the top-two system starting in 2008) did not add up to a legislature that looked different or functioned differently from the legislature elected under a partisan primary.” These statements are from his article, “The Top Two Primary: What Can California Learn from Washington?” published in the California Journal of Politics & Policy, February 2012 (vol. 4, issue 1).
2. Professors Boris Shor and Seth Masket studied Nebraska’s non-partisan legislature in 2011 and concluded “Despite a history of nonpartisanship dating back to the 1930s, the Nebraska state legislature appears to be polarizing. How does polarization happen without parties? Using interviews, roll call votes, and campaign finance records, we examine politics in the modern Nebraska unicam. We find that term limits, which began removing incumbents from office in 2006, created opportunities for the state’s political parties to recruit and finance candidates, and they have done so in an increasingly partisan fashion…The results offer a compelling example of parties overcoming an institutional rule designed to eliminate them.” This is from the Abstract to their article “Polarization Without Parties: The Rise of Legislative Partisanship in Nebraska’s Unicameral Legislature” which can be read on-line at this link.
3. Professor Shor also intensively studied polarization and partisanship in all 50 states legislatures, using hundreds of thousands of bits of data, mostly roll call votes and legislative questionaires. He determined which states were most polarized. See his conclusions here. Professor Masket then looked at the Shor data and concluded there is no relationship between type of primary system and degree of partisanship and polarization. See Masket’s article here.
4. Professor Eric McGhee studied partisanship in California’s legislature during the blanket primary years, and concluded “Electoral Reforms won’t fix California gridlock.” That article was published in the San Francisco Chronicle on March 14, 2010. Read it here.
5. Professor L. Sandy Maisel wrote a letter on August 10, 2010, to Ralph Nader, in which he said, “I am against top-two systems for three main reasons. First, I think the argument of proponents – that it will lead to the election of more moderates – does not hold water. It has not been the case in Washington, nor in Louisiana, where the system is similar…Generally, if there is a crowded primary, extremist and/or single-issue candidates will emerge at the top.” Maisel has written many books on U.S. political parties and is considered one of the leading experts on the U.S. party system.
6. Finally, Richard Winger’s examination of Washington state legislative elections under the top-two system in 2008 and 2010, in elections with two members of the same major party running against each other in November, rebuts the idea that top-two elections between two members of the same party elect the more moderate candidate. There were no statewide or congressional elections in Washington state in either 2008 or 2010 between two members of the same major party. For legislative races, there were 8 such races in 2008 and 10 in 2010. In some of them, the incumbent was re-elected, which obviously changed nothing. In the races without an incumbent, top-two proponents believe that the more moderate candidate will win. But this did not happen. In 2010, two Republicans ran against each other, in races with no incumbent, in two districts. In the 2nd district (seat 2), J. T. Wilcox defeated Tom Campbell. Campbell was the centrist, refusing to join his own party’s caucus, and enjoying the support of labor unions; he lost to Wilcox, who was an orthodox Republican. In the 31st district (seat 1), Cathy Dahlquist defeated Shawn Bunney. Dahlquist campaigned by using the label “conservative” prominently in her advertising and listing other “conservatives” who had endorsed her. Bunney campaigned by stressing that he was endorsed not only by the state’s Republican Attorney General, but by the State’s Auditor, who was a Democrat.
In the only 2008 race with one Republican running against another, and no incumbent, Shelly Short defeated Sue Madsen in the 7th district (seat 1). When I asked Madsen which of the two of them was more conservative, she said, “It’s a dead heat.”
Races between two Democrats in November were more difficult to characterize. In 2010 in the 34th district (seat 2), Joe Fitzgibbon, age 23, who was backed by labor, defeated Mike Heavey, son of a former Democratic state legislator. In 2008, in the 46th district, seat one, Scott White, who was endorsed by labor, defeated Gerry Pollet. But also in 2008, in the 36th district (seat 1), Reuven Carlyle, who had some labor endorsements, defeated John Burbank, who had more labor endorsements. In 2010, in the 27th district (seat 1), Washington state’s leading gay activist, Laurie Jinkins, defeated Jake Fey, who was backed by labor unions. Jinkins had been instrumental in defending the state’s civil unions law in 2009 against a referendum, and in 2010 she became the first open lesbian elected to the Washington legislature.
Regarding Winger’s analysis of WA State… your own summary of the Democratic outcomes highlights precisely why these results don’t have any scientific usefulness in assessing the effect of the top-two primary system. Another much stronger variable – labor support (unified labor and enviro support actually) – was the determining factor in the election outcomes. So the results don’t prove the top two didn’t strengthen the centrists – it just demonstrates that labor/enviro support was still able to overcome the variable introduced by the top-two system. Having been deeply involved in the campaign of one of the non-centrist Democrats on your list I can attest to the fact that the top two did not help us. It strengthened our opponent. But the support of labor and the environmental community (and other factors) were able to overcome that disadvantage. It was also clear that the general election race pitted two candidates much more representative of the voters of our District than an R vs D general election would have. It was therefore more relevent to voters and much more small d democratic. Of course this only matters if one cares about such trivialities.
Without doing deep research, Top Two will not work if the opportunity to be a candidate is also not available. Equal availabilty to get on the ballot is the only way an open selection process will work.
Gerrymander districts have been more and more computer rigged since the 1964 SCOTUS gerrymander cases.
Too many math morons to count regarding gerrymander math — esp ALL 9 SCOTUS math morons.
1/2 votes x 1/2 gerrymander districts = 1/4 control.
MUCH worse primary math – getting the robot party hacks nominated — to be elected later in lots of de facto ONE party safe seat rigged gerrymander districts.
Top 2 stuff is WORTHLESS against gerrymanders.
———–
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
What is not understood and thus explains why most would think that the pursuit of an electoral scheme that gives us more elected people to lawmaker status that adhere to a moderate approach over that of a more partisan, more independent, more radical, or more ideological candidate–what’s not understood–is that the political-electoral system is already quite skewed to do just that.
Both top two systems and more familiar primary systems produce moderates like ales and lagers produce intoxication. It’s not the best question to ask. It does however seem to be the question political leaders want to pose when a court demands that new system be brought online, so it becomes the question political
answers to also.
This wrong question to ask has to do with the always-wrong conventional view of politics in the reform context: We just need politicians that are willing to come together and agree. Only the shallowest examination permitted there. Political leaders feel safe with thinking that blunted.
It would be my greatest pleasure to launch a hundred paragraph about the right questions to ask, (I will say though the top two law in Washington state is more brutal to minor parties and thus more brutal to political minorities, so the right question to ask is how can everyone get represented) the sacred bogus assumptions that need to called-out and disposed of, but many still can’t get their minds wrapped around the notion we’re up to our necks in moderates.
Here goes: The U.S. political system is cheifly characterized by the presence of what is refererred to as the two party system. Its existence explains everything, and that’s not hyperbole. It championed single member gerrymandered districts, unending
ballot access injustice, and everything else that won’t permit its repeal.
It stands between the voters and every issue voters would really like brought up for examination.
The system is really a one party establishment with two factions that mostly overlap the diference constituting the whole of our current debate, which is just on the margins of what needs addressing. This tyranny is easily rationalized by any societys need for stability but seldom does the system get questioned about the
excesses that flow from not having to account, ever.
A moderate rejects all of this. A moderate would reject that this country started as a polyarchy and is now an oligarchy. A moderate talks about the pluralist representative democracy we need to cherish and save. A moderate indulges in the rhetoric of partisanship, wants to be viewed as an independent, acknowledges
the basic truisms of the most fashionable ideology all while tacking to the political center in matters of political survival.
A moderate never talks about overhauling the political system.
We’re up to our necks in moderates.
Second paragraph should read that political scientists and mainstream media are fond of the inquiry into what changes foster more moderates into office because political leaders, wanabe political leaders pose this question.
i write too fast.
Sounds like good news for small parties! (Electeds will be closer to big parties’ extremes, which are closer to small parties’ hearts.)
@Mike, TT is open to all. Losers will be eliminated in primaries instead of general elections. Small party access rules should be changed to count primary voters instead of general. U want it all done at general elections? Eliminate primaries and use ranked-choice ballots.
@Larry Allred, your comment is too long. I didn’t read it.
I appreciate this article, the research behind it and the larger question of what sort of primary system works best for states. I was a bit surprised, however, to see my own race in 2008 included in scholarly work attesting to the lack of centrists elected in the Top Two system.
Not wanting to imply value judgements, I would say that in my particular race in 2008 it is inaccurate to say that I was the more liberal or labor backed candidate relative to my opponent. I was clearly seen as the centrist in the race. I won overwhelmingly with a 66-34 win. I only make this comment to correct the research since in my view the race cited should not have been used to support the larger conclusion. In fact, it validates the opposite point.
Of course, we are an 85% Democratic district in Seattle so moderate and liberal are all relative as we agree upon a vast majority of issues.
Reuven Carlyle
Washington State House of Representatives
Pingback: Political Science Evidence Overwhelmingly Says Top-Two Systems do not Elect More Centrists | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/05/dan-walters-daily-lawmakers-move-to-the-middle.html
“In 2010, in the 27th district (seat 1), Washington state’s leading gay activist, Laurie Jinkins, defeated Jake Fey, who was backed by labor unions,” is not accurate statement. Laurie Jinkins was endorsed by the Machinists Union, UFCW and SEIU, three of the four largest unions in Washington state.
Pingback: Election reforms have failed | Free Press Publications
Pingback: Election reforms have failed · Hammer of Truth