On June 10, a hearing was held in Rubin v Bowen, the case filed in 2011 by the Green, Libertarian, and Peace & Freedom Parties in Alameda County Superior Court. The hearing was to determine whether a trial in the case should go forward. The state argues that a trial should not be held because the case law has already determined that all top-two primary systems are constitutional.
After one hour and fifteen minutes or argument, Judge Appel asked for supplementary letter briefs from both sides. They are due on June 18. He wants to know if the U.S. Supreme Court, and other courts of importance, have stated that the U.S. Constitution protects the right of voters in elections to have a range of choices. The state argues that there is no voter interest in having more than two choices on the general election ballot, because a system like that guarantees that the winner has support from the majority of voters.
This argument is faulty because even under the existing California top-two system, in November there were several congressional and legislative races in which no candidate got a majority of the voters who cast a ballot.
In November 2012 in California, in races with only one party represented on the ballot, approximately 25% of the voters who cast a ballot left the ballot blank. This is the sort of fact that would be entered into the record, if a trial is allowed.
The state argued that the general election is actually a run-off election, and the primary is the election itself. The attorney for the plaintiffs rebutted that by pointing out that even someone gets a majority in a California primary for Congress or state office, there is still an election in November. Let unsaid was that additional point that federal law tells all states to hold congressional elections in November, and if a state wants a congressional run-off, that must be held afterwards. Two states, Louisiana and Georgia, provide for congressional run-offs in December if no one gets a majority in November.
Let’s limit it to one candidate. Then the winner is guaranteed to have UNANIMOUS support.
Attention ALL math morons (esp. in the courts) —
A plurality of the votes in a bare majortity of the PACK/CRACK gerrymander districts is about 25 percent (or less) INDIRECT ANTI-Democracy minority rule.
See the really dangerous parliamentary multi-party gerrymander regimes in the U.K. and Canada and India — circa 20 or less percent REAL minority rule.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Under current Supreme Court decisions, including Classic, Smith v Allwright, and Tashjian, all stages of a federal election are considered part of a single process.
Louisiana was actually certifying winners of the congressional runoff in October.
Congress should permit States that conduct a primary open to all candidates and all voters, that is held in September or October to be decisive if a candidate receives a majority of the votes.
Alternatively, they could simply deregulate the time of federal elections, or provide a window of September 1 through November 15.
There needs to be a way for minor parties to participate in the election. But the current primary system is rendering our politics utterly dysfunctional. Many Republicans in Congress might be willing to “reach across the aisle” but are so afraid of a primary challenge, that they just sit tight until primaries are over, then coast to re-election in a non-competitive general election.
The top-two open primary would attract more moderate voters and a larger electorate to the polls on primary day. That would reduce the ability of hard-core “base voters” to impose their will on the nominee. Thus, the top-two open primary may be the best hope for fixing our current system of party primaries. As for two candidates from the same party facing off, an easy fix rather than “top two” would be “top two in different parties” going to the general election.
If top-two open primary could evolve to a French-style two-round election system, that would give minor parties space to have a meaningful role when they could negotiate with and endorse the major party nominee for the second-round general election.
Lee writes that “The top-two open primary would attract more moderate voters and a larger electorate to the polls on primary day.” Not so, at least not in California. Turnout in June 2012 was lower than previously, not higher.
On the other hand, the “French-style” Two Round Runoff would be better than simple plurality but not nearly as good as IRV. Lee’s view that Two Round Runoff would help small parties depends on parties (both large and small) being able to nominate candidates — the exact opposite of Top Two.
I am more attracted to the “open” than the “top-two” part. But we have a serious problem when extreme partisans can hijack party primaries and immobilize legislators by making them fear a primary challenge more than they do their general election opponent.
There ought to be ways to adjust some of the mechanisms. Maybe it could be a “top three” or “top four” open primary. Or maybe there could be thresholds that if candidates reach would entitle them to be in the general election. Or perhaps retain some existing ballot access petitioning.
I agree IRV could be a good solution. But I have yet to understand how IRV is implemented beyond single-jurisdiction elections. How do you integrate vote rankings and transfers across multiple jurisdictions using DREs, optical scans and whatever other voting equipment types may be part of a statewide or multi-county election?
Until those technical obstacles are overcome, I’m looking for something simple and straightforward that can be easily implemented on all existing equipment.
I am more attracted to the “open” than the “top-two” part. But we have a serious problem when extreme partisans can hijack party primaries and immobilize legislators by making them fear a primary challenge more than they do their general election opponent.
There ought to be ways to adjust some of the mechanisms. Maybe it could be a “top three” or “top four” open primary. Or maybe there could be thresholds that if candidates reach would entitle them to be in the general election. Or perhaps retain some existing ballot access petitioning.
I agree IRV could be a good solution. But I have yet to understand how IRV is implemented beyond single-jurisdiction elections. How do you integrate vote rankings and transfers across multiple jurisdictions using DREs, optical scans and whatever other voting equipment types may be part of a statewide or multi-county election?
Until those technical obstacles are overcome, I’m looking for something simple and straightforward that fits right into all existing equipment.
Parties are supposed to be dominated by hard core base voters. That’s the whole point of a political party! Otherwise it wouldn’t matter how many candidates were on the ballot because they would all be the same.
There is no voter interest in having more then 2 choices on the ballot? Really? These people must smoke some really powerful stuff to argue something that stupid.
Lee: The Republic of Ireland elects their President using IRV and does a distributed count. You can read about it at http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/Voting/
Click on “How the President is Elected” and then turn to section 12 on page 5 (but you’ll probably want to read the whole thing).
Some terminology. Their “constituencies” are like our Congressional Districts, except that since they use PR they elect more than one representative from each constituency. There are multiple polling places and one central counting location in each constituency. After the polls close the ballot boxes are taken to the appropriate counting location where the ballots are counted. (They also call IRV “single transferable vote”. They call their PR system PR-STV.) There are 43 constituencies.