This article, posted on March 27 at The Monkey Cage, is by three political scientists at the University of California, Berkeley. It uses empirical data to show that the California top-two open primary in 2012 did not boost moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans at the expense of far-left Democrats and far-right Republicans. The authors are Doug Ahler, Jack Citrin, and Gabriel Lenz.
The CA gerrymander commission (rigged for Donkey control) produced the rigged districts.
ALL district schemes are blatantly ANTI-Democracy — regardless of ALL of the moron studies by so-called political *scientists*.
——
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Can you explain the methodology that was used for the study?
I think the method was pretty well described in the article. They pulled a random sampling of voters and presented them at random one of two ballots, a closed primary ballot and a top-two primary ballot. Then they compared the results.
As if one could really discern the line between partisan moderation and something less so over time, over geography, selected past relevant positions, current developments, baseless yet popular perceptions, unaccountable narrative, etc.
I’d make the case most plausible candidates and especially incumbents are actually fundementally moderate in a two-establishment, winner-take-all electoral environment, though many have the need to perpetuate a managed profile that aims to offer the appearance of contrast in a strategic appeal to a particular constituency. Label management.
“Top-two” is not intended to aid moderates or make elections better. That is just propaganda used to fool the feeble minded.
The intent of “top-two” is to create a one-party state, eliminate free choice so that only two candidates (and sometimes one candidate) from the single allowsed, state-controlled, monopoly party are allowed on the general election ballot, reduce public interest in elections, reduce public participation and voting, eventually ending with single candidate races in a one-party state.
In short, the purpose of “top-two” is to end free elections in America.
The fact that the legislature is continuing to move toward that end has been irrefutably established.
The fact that voter interest, voter participation and electoral choice have all declined under “top-two” has also been irrefutably established.
“Top-two” is evil. It’s intent is evil. It’s supporters are evil.
Top-two” must be stopped, and must be repealed wherever it has been passed into law.
Were those polled given a ballot for their district?
There are about 20 districts represented. With 2839 voters polled, that would be 150 per district, with 75 given a partisan primary ballot, and 75 given a top-2 open primary ballot? What is margin of error for a sample size of 75?
If I understand the first chart, the authors rated all the candidates on an absolute scale from 1 to 7 (liberal to conservative) scale, and then folded the chart at an arbitrary value of 4. If they use other fold points, would the correlation increase or decrease?
Why are there few candidates who are extreme moderates? There are only 6 candidates with ratings between 3 and 5, based on the author’s ratings, but very few outside that range based on the ratings of those polled.
Do the candidate websites on which the author’s ratings are based reflect the candidates ideologies?
Did Proposition 14 cause candidates to change their ideology, change their campaign managers, or website designers? Was there any change in candidates due to Proposition 14?
There is no way from the study to determine this. If I understand the methodology, what is being tested is, if the candidates are the same, and their ideology is the same, and the voter perception of their ideology, and other factors that influence voter choice (geography, race, ethnicity, sex, hair color, age) are the same – would voter choice change based on a different ballot format?
I’m surprised that there is so much change among the candidates based on simply changing the ballot format.
So let’s take a look at one of the districts. CD 2, which is the lowest numbered district. There were 8 Democrats, 2 Republicans, and 2 NPPs on the ballot. The study shows the Top 5, who received 85% of the vote in the June primary. Were the others culled from the results, or excluded from the poll?
The district extends from the Golden Gate to Oregon, and there was considerable geographic variation in the results, and a possible source of sampling error. The district is almost 50% Democrat, about 5% more than the state, and it has the highest Green support in the state 2.4% (likely much higher soft support).
The authors said that Huffman was the most moderate. The voters disagreed, giving him almost as low a rating as the authors, despite their tendency to moderate their scores. Voters may tend to rate candidates relative to themselves, and tend to think of themselves as more moderate than an outside observer. Huffman was an assemblymember, and voters may think of legislators as being more ideological.
Contrast to Adams, whom the authors rated as more liberal, the voters more moderate. She is (and was) a Marin County supervisor. A supervisor’s role is more ministerial. They don’t have much control over tax policy, they have to provide services. They can have some control over land use. When they run Congress they may start asserting positions on issues that were irrelevant to their job as supervisor.
Lawson was rated slightly more liberal than Huffman. But her campaign placed strong emphasis on rebuilding the American manufacturing base. That is going to be seen as a moderate position, without any regard to her platform issues, which here campaign was not emphasizing. And she is not an obvious politician.
Solomon is an extreme left ideologue. The voters may have thought they were being nice to give him a three. He might not have thought it complimentary.
Roberts was the sole Republican. His web site said he was in favor of low taxes. The authors thought him pretty conservative. The voters quite moderate, almost centrist. People with income of $100,000 in Marin County do not consider themselves wealthy, and might not be too excited about a 40% marginal tax rate.
So the pollster calls a number. They assign alternate calls to Pool A (partisan primary) or Pool B (Top 2).
Do you hit them with the main question first? “Who would you vote for if … were running?” If they were in Pool A, you’d first have to establish whether they were a Democrat or Republican. But if they are a registered independent, which 25% of voters in the district are, how do determine the primary? In California, voters must request the ballot. Pollworkers can’t ask “would you like a Republican or Democratic ballot?” They can at best point at a card, while avoiding eye contact, with a blank unfrowning, unsmiling expression.
So Democrats (or Democratic primary voters) in Pool A would be given a list of 8 Democratic candidates.
Democrats (or would-be Democratic primary voters) in Pool B would have an additional 2 Republicans and 2 independents on their ballot.
If voters in Pool A did not choose Republican or Democrat were their responses recorded as No Opinion or Not Allowed to Vote?
Pool B vs. Pool A
Adams +10
Lawson +4
Solomon +1
Roberts -3
Huffman -13
It’s plausible that Lawson would do a bit better with Republicans and Republican-leaning independents added to the voting. Some may have picked the Republican ballot to vote in the presidential primary. These might have shifted Roberts. Solomon might have got some votes from Greens and Peace&Freedom voters since there were no candidates from that party. Someone who votes for a candidate like Solomon are not going to switch to a Republican if given the opportunity.
But you have this apparently huge shift from Huffman to Adams. But why would adding two Republicans and two also-ran independents to the choices cause a big shift between the two Democratic office-holders?
Were the samples mismatched? Was there some difference in the question asked? Pool A: “Who would best Democratic nominee?” Pool B: “Who would you vote for?” That is, were voters forced to strategize or make a more complex decision than place an ‘X’?
Should the poll results for Pool B be comparable to the actual June election results?
Adams received 8.2% of the actual vote, finishing 5th. If she got 8.2% in the Pool B poll; then she received a negative -1.8% in the Pool A poll.
Look at all the detailed meaningless obfuscatory nonsense in @6.
Riley is squirming. Trying to present any sort of convoluted argument, misdirection or confusion in an attempt to distract the public from the main point.
Free elections must be simple and open to all. The total number of elected offices must be kept small. Too many offices is too difficult for voters to track and indicative of an out-of-control, overly socialistic government. Complicated rules or complicated systems confuse voters, discourage participation and make elections less representative and less free.
In the general election in November:
1) Every qualified candidate must be allowed to run (whether chosen and placed on the ballot by a party or running as an independent).
2) Every qualified voter is allowed to vote for the single candidate they prefer for each elected office.
3) The candidate with the most votes wins.
Taking a look at CD 3. This is a district between the Bay Area and Sacramento and points north, including Fairfield, Vacaville, Davis, and Yuba City. About 40% of the votes cast in the district are from Solano County. It is one of the more competitive districts in the state, with Democrats holding a 41-33 registration advantage.
John Garamendi was the only Democrat on the ballot. Garamendi had resigned as Lieutenant Governor in 2009 to be elected in a special election in CD 10, which was significantly different than CD 3. 70% of his old district was in eastern Contra Costa County, with additional population from Alameda County.
CD 3 was pretty close to being an open seat, but with an incumbent running. Garamendi also had name recognition as the former Lieutenant Governor.
4 Republicans ran in the primary. But the study only shows one of them, Kim Vann, a supervisor for Colusa County, the smallest county in the district.
Garamendi received 51.5% of the vote in the primary, while Vann received 26.2% of the vote, and 53.9% of the Republican vote. Garamendi received 54.2% of the vote in the general election. Given the slightly more Democratic electorate in the general election, the Top 2 primary did not have much effect at all. Certainly not the scary scenarios of Beer Rat.
But the study claims that both Garamendi (about -3%) and Vann (-14%) would do worse under the Top 2. How is that possible?
Thanks for finally talking about > Ballot Access News ?
Blog Archive ? Political Science Study Shows California Top-Two Primary in 2012 Did Not Boost Moderates < Loved it!