On June 18, Fairvote issued this analysis of California’s top-two system. The analysis says, “In the vast majority of cases (from 2012 in California), Top Two fails to have any meaningful impact on the race, retaining uncompetitive races dominated by incumbents and major party insiders – yet it comes at the expense of near complete elimination of minor parties and independents from a general election voice.”
The analysis recommends these changes: (1) let the top four vote-getters advance; (2) use ranked-choice voting in the general election; (3) restore write-in space to the November ballot; (4) when candidates have been endorsed by a qualified party, the ballot should mention the endorsement; (5) the time between the primary and the general election should be shortened.
The report finds that in the June 2012 primary, the median second-ranked candidate received 25.1% of the vote, and the median fourth-ranked candidate (in elections that had at least five candidates in the primary) received 5.8%. Consequently, letting the top four candidates advance to the general election would make it considerably easier for candidates to advance.
One problem with this approach is that there are invariably far more candidates when there is no incumbent running. In practice, letting four candidates advance would make it possible for candidates with little voter support to advance in races against incumbents, but in races without incumbents, even some candidates with substantial support would likely fail to advance. Also, there are always considerably more candidates in statewide races than in legislative races. So, again, there would be disparity, in which candidates with substantial support would be more likely to be excluded in statewide races than in legislative races. U.S. House races fall in-between. Using a candidate’s rank to decide whether that candidate advances is inherently arbitrary, compared to a system in which a candidate who polls a specified percentage of the vote advances, regardless of rank.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
NO MORON primaries.
Thank you Richard for posting this!
Some candidacies never materialized because only the top two advanced to the general election and not twice that number, and that the general election was a plurality election and not ranked choice, and write-in were not permitted, etc.
The Fairvote analysis is helpful but ultimately what’s important is whether all voters get choices with preferences included and an opportunity to have a vote that may well be consequential, knowing that’s a product of a contest where the result is not easily forecasted. Top-two is anti-voter.
What Larry said! Top Two is anti-voter. I don’t believe it can be ‘reformed’ into a democratic method of elections.
Granted PERMITTING the voters to have more than 2 choices in November will almost certainly increase the number of votes cast in an election. I wonder just how many votes will be cast in a race with THREE members of one party on the ballot by the members of the OTHER Major party for 2nd or 3rd choice.
Also, it’s fairly unlikely that a minor party candidate would win at least 5% of the vote when there was half a dozen or more choices on the primary ballot. In the past, it has been rare for a Minor Party candidate to win 5% or more in any State-wide November election including B.of Eq. where the Major parties BOTH had a candidate, AND except for 1998 5 or 6 candidates were on the ballot.