On July 5, Arizona advocates of a top-two open primary initiative will submit their petitions to the Secretary of State. They need 259,213 valid signatures and say they have, or will have, about 340,000. The proponents call their initiative the “Open Government/Open Primary” measure, although there is no obvious connection between “open government” and type of primary system. To most people, “open government” means that government decisions are made in public and adhere to a freedom of information principle.
Even the use of “open primary” is misleading. “Open primary” has been defined in political science textbooks since 1907 as a system, pioneered by Wisconsin in 1907, that provide for partisan nominations and partisan primaries, but lets any voter on primary day choose any party’s primary ballot. By contrast, in a top-two system, there are no partisan primary ballots and no party nominees.
Current vocabulary about primary systems is in disarray, however. Current law in Arizona lets independent voters choose any party’s primary ballot on primary day. In 2004, when a top-two open primary initiative was on the ballot in California, Senator John McCain of Arizona endorsed it. He said, “We have an open primary in Arizona and it’s working well.” So, at least in 2004, Senator McCain considered that Arizona already had an open primary. Actually, the primary system Arizona has now is generally referred to in political science books as a “semi-closed” (or, sometimes, “semi-open”) primary.
The top 2 primary disease continues to spread.
—-
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
NO moron primaries.
Political scientists will be forced to recognize that “primary” does not imply “partisan nomination”. They are sloppy in their nomenclature.
BTW, Arizona elects 2 representatives from each legislative district, so it will actually be a Top 4 system.
#2, it proposes a top-two system for all state executive positions, all congressional elections, state senate, and local partisan office.
Let’s hope that Arizona will be kinder to non-Demopublicans than they are to those suspected of being undocumented workers.
Otherwise, non-Republicrats in Arizona will soon feel like the inmates in rogue Sheriff Arpaio’s concentration camps during a long hot Phoenix summer.
The proponents of this misleadingly named proposition are out to smack non-duopolists and anti-establishment types around like a Van Buren Street guerrilla pimp smacking a crack whore who is short on the money.
#3
“The two candidates who receive the most votes in the primary election shall compete in the general election; except that, for any office to which more than one candidate will be elected, the number of candidates who will compete in the general election shall be the number of candidates to be elected times two.”
Richard: We have named the initiative the “Open Elections/Open Government Act”. The word “primary” is not used in our title. We do believe that elected officials (who make up our government) behavior in office is related to how they are elected. Thank you.
Extremists have had a significant economic and social impact on our state. Partisan primaries with gerrymandered districts have allowed this extreme minority to direct our states action. In Arizona, 26 out of 30 districts are safe districts. With 16 Rep districts and 11 Dem districts and no real competition in the general election it will be less than 4% of the population who vote in those primaries that will select our leaders. These leaders who only have to appeal to these extreme voters will be, as they have been, more extreme than the general public.
The open primary, while not a panacea, would allow EVERY voter the right to vote in every election. Elected officials would no longer be able to win by addressing narrow minority groups inside partisan primaries. To win they would be required to talk to people in the other party as well as independents. Two Republicans were in the Russel Pierce recall. The moderate won. Had it been a Republican and a Democrat in that stacked district, the Extreme candidate would have succeeded. In stead of looking at who is right, this Open system allowed us to look at what is right. The Open Elections system will result in more moderate centrist candidates being elected office.
Think about the damage the partisan system has done our states brand in the past few years: The biggest issue in 2008 was the economy. Our state responded with a birther bill, an immigration bill, guns on campus, they rejected federal dollars for unemployment, and rejected Medicare dollars even when hospitals agreed to provide the match, costing us over 80,000 high end jobs. Polls said the public was overwhelmingly on the other side. But the Legistlature isn’t elected by a majority. They are elected in gerrymandered districts by low turnout primaries with no competition in the general election.
In congress it appears even worse. Good conservative congressmen are defeated in primaries where their opponents argue compromise is not an option. Our country had no chance from its inception unless good men on both sides compromised. I truly believe, and many others agree with me, without reform the union and liberty are in peril.
I know from your past opines you are skeptical of business leaders but think about this: The Open Elections Open Government initiative has been endorsed by over 50 state business leaders and the majority of business organizations including Greater Phoenix Leadership, The Flagstaff 40, Southern Arizona Leadership, the Tucson Chamber, Tucson Hispanic Chamber and other business organizations. These are leaders who have work with the Legistlature and who risk much to oppose the leadership who are in vehement opposition to this measure, as our their extremists members who fear this will end their control over the majority of the state.
I know when one has already spoken against a measure it is hard to retract. But i would explore you to think about what the existing system has resulted in for Arizona, what it had meant to education, healthcare, women, children, business and jobs. U Open Elections is not a panacea, but it is at least a start.
Paul Johnson
Southwest Next LLC
Sent from my iPhone
Nonsense. Every word other than the part where you admit this measure is strongly supported by big business.
This is not reform. It is “The Empire Strikes Back.”
# 7 P.R. NOW — ***NO*** Safe Seats for any gang.
#7, Paul Johnson, thanks for commenting. Every political scientist who has actually studied state legislatures and partisanship concludes that election system is not correlated at all with partisanship and polarization. Most recently, in February 2012, Professor Todd Donovan published “The Top Two Primary: What Can California Learn from Washington?” That is in a scholarly political science journal, the California Journal of Politics and Policy. He concludes the change in Washington state to a top-two system “did not create a legislature that looked different or functioned differently from the legislature elected under a partisan primary.”
Political scientists Boris Shor and Seth Masket have studied partisanship and polarization in state legislatures. No one has done more research on that than they have. They conclude there is no connection between type of election system and polarization in state legislatures.
Thank you for you thoughtful response. I have read both individuals work as well as many others. I have also operated in both as a candidate for Governor in a Democratic Primary and as Mayor of Phoenix elected in a non-partisan open primary. It is true, councils can be polarized as well. However, overwhelmingly they are more centered than thier legislative counterparts. Non partisan cities are also twice as popular than there legislative counterparts. This is not true for partisan cities.
In Arizona, this will be gaurenteed, with a open primary, the state will move to the center. Our biggest opposition are far right wing legislators, who at this very moment attempting to gather the votes to put a competing measure that could only be defined as a corrupt body attempting to confuse Arizona voters this November, as a last desperate attempt to hold on to power. This is being advanced by power brokers, lobbiests, the folks who ran Russel Pearce campaign. I support individuals like yourself who have an honest disagreement, and we are proposing a big change that is worthy of debate. But look hard at who is opposing this measure, and what lengths they are willing to go to keep things just as they are.
#11 It’s not guaranteed that the state will move to the center with a top two system. In 2010, John McCain would have been the LEFT pole of debate in the general election under Top Two, because there would have been no Democrats on the ballot. The Democrats would have fewer candidates on the general election ballot overall, and parties like the Greens and Libertarians would be practically eliminated from the ballot altogether.
Independents already can vote in party primaries in Arizona. If moderate candidates win by getting on the ballot, campaigning, and convincing moderate voters to support them in the primary, then more power to them. If moderates win elections by forming their own Moderate Party, again, more power to them. However, I’m opposed to reducing choice in the general election so that candidates of a particular ideological perspective can win,
#11, Louisiana has used the top-two system more than any other state. It has been used for state and local elections since 1975 and for Congress 1978-2006. Louisiana is not a well-governed state. According to an op-ed in the New York Times a month ago, it is the prison capital of the world. Over 1% of the adults are in the criminal justice system. There is no other state, and no foreign country, about which that is true. A large proportion of the prisoners are on for-profit prisons, where the prisons rent out the prisoners to employers, and the more prisoners in the prison, the more profit for the owners. Louisiana was not prepared for the 2005 hurricane and that wasn’t just the federal government’s fault.
Top-two systems make it difficult for reform movements to gain any headway. Candidates with the most name recognition and the most money win, in the absence of strong political parties. For over 130 years political scientists have studied political parties, and they are unanimous that in the absence of parties, special interests have more influence.
All due respect, they are not united on that point. As to track records look at cities and if you need a state look at Nebraska that has had open primaries since the 1930’s. Best economy in the country.
The comparison to Louisiana sound a lot like Arizona in our closed primary system. The big difference is they almost elected David Duke. In Arizona the David Dukes actually win.
Thanks to Paul Johnson for continuing the dialogue. He is a former Mayor of Phoenix and a well-intended, well-informed individual, and it is an honor to have him commenting here.
I do assert that every political scientist who has actually studied polarization in state legislatures agrees that there is no correlation between primary system and polarization. There are political scientists who say good things about top-two, but they have not conducted research. Also, Todd Donovan, who did a study, cannot possibly be accused of being prejudiced against top-two, because he was the only expert witness for the top-two system in the Washington state lawsuit.
Nebraska has a non-partisan legislature, but that is not the same thing as a top-two system. No party labels appear on the Nebraska ballot for state legislature. Nebraska does have partisan nominations for all state executive posts, and congress, and for some most county offices.
David Duke did get elected in Louisiana. He was elected to the Louisiana legislature in 1989 under the top-two system. Also, in California, two John Birch Society members were elected to Congress in special elections in 1970, and California special elections at that time were conducted with all candidates from all parties appearing on the same ballot, and all voters used that ballot. The two were John Schmitz and John Rousselet.
@Paul Johnson & Richard Winger,
I’ve agreed with Richard, and I’ve strongly opposed “top two” based on some of the factors I’ve seen in Louisiana (I taught at New Orleans Center for the Arts) and California (I spent April in the congressional district where Berman and Sherman, both Democrats, were the top two) and from what I’ve read.
On the other hand, it would be hard to argue that Arizona politics and government could possibly get any worse.