Here is a link to the November 2012 exit poll data. The data shows that whereas only 1% of self-identified Democrats voted for a presidential candidate other than President Obama and Mitt Romney, and only 1% of self-identified Republicans voted for a presidential candidate other than Obama and Romney, 5% of the self-identified independent voters voted for another presidential candidate.
Because independent voters are the voters most likely to vote for minor party candidates, this data shows that a top-two system, which keeps minor party candidates off the November ballot, injures independent voters more than it hurts Republican and Democratic voters.
The data also shows 50% of independent voters voted for Romney, and only 45% of them voted for Obama.
The data shows that 38% of the voters self-identified as Democrats, 32% as Republicans, and 29% as independents.
The data shows that 3% of liberals, and 3% of moderates, voted for a minor party presidential candidate; but only 1% of conservatives voted for a minor party candidate.
The data shows that only 5% of the voters think foreign policy is the most important issue in the presidential election. But among those 5% of voters, 11% of them voted “other” for President.
Shocker
…not.
A man takes the subway to work each day. His station is serviced by both an express train and a local train, either of which he takes to his destination, the next stop on the line. But hIs sense is that there are more local trains than exress trains. Just for fun, and rather than consulting the schedule, he records each day which train arrives at the station immediately after his own arrival. In fact, it is theee twice as likely that it is a local train, and he therefore concludes that there are twice as many local trans than express trains.
He is wrong.
There are an equal number of local and express trains, and if anyone asks I’ll post the explanation.
The illogic by which he reaches his erroneous conclusion is called “innumeracy.”
Innumeracy is also the process by which it is concluded that “…Because independent voters are the voters most likely to vote for minor party candidates, this data shows that a top-two system, which keeps minor party candidates off the November ballot, injures independent voters more than it hurts Republican and Democratic voters.”
In WA, where independent voting is rhetorically idealized, many more should understand this. Under top-two it’s all about the major parties, the effect that is. Is to be revealed that the real cause being served in the move to a top-two system is the united bipartisan major parties.
This is why I’ve long said that the Libertarian Party needs to target independent voters (and non-voters too for that matter). Why? Because they aren’t married to either of the major parties.
A Top 2 system makes clear to voters who the final choice is between. Because most Republicans and Democrats will simply vote for the candidate of their party, Top 2 is of greatest value to independent voters.
In California, Top 2 voters favored a Democrat challenger over a Democrat incumbent in two congressional races. Under the old system, the incumbent would have been chosen in the primary, and the general election a foregone conclusion.
But Top 2 gave all voters a chance to determine which candidate represents them in Congress.
#5, don’t you see the implicit authoritarianism in your comment? The question of who is a candidate should be an individual choice, made by individuals who want to be candidates. It is not something the government decides.
As has been said over and over, congressional elections in November are the election itself. It is authoritarian for the government to say that only two particular people may be candidates in the election itself.
#6 As I’ve pointed out over and over again, your opinion is contrary to Smith v Allwright, Tashjian, and Foster v Love. There is no question that under the current federal law that preliminary stages of the election process may eliminate candidates from being on the general election ballot.
You seem to be limiting your argument to congressional elections only. Are you conceding that Top 2 is legal for non-federal offices?
California does permit qualified individuals to become candidates. Under the old regime that you apparently favor a return to, certain candidates needed 10,000+ signatures to be placed on the ballot. Since 1964, when you first voted, there were only 12 such congressional candidates in the entire state of California in over 1000 races.
Under the Top 2 Open Primary reform there were 22 candidates who would have previously not been permitted to be candidates.
Under the old system you apparently favor a return to, certain individuals could not become a candidate under any circumstance.
The evil “top two” system is designed to limit voter choice and to allow the government to choose who appears on the general election ballot by creating a one-party state.
Jim Riley likes it this way. There is no arguing with people who actually like the idea of imposing the old Soviet system on the US. It is his intent and the intent of the “top-two” system to end free elections in America. Riley clicks his heels together, stiff arm salutes his twisted hammer and sickle flag and smiles. The end of free elections and state control is his dream. There is no arguing with him. Just recognize who he is.
Informed voters OTOH would have rejected this where it has been proposed and honest information was presented. In WA and CA they were conned and lied to – no surprise given who is supporting it.
The people will vote for repeal if given the chance before it’s too late.