The Los Angeles Times has this op-ed, published October 2, by Ted Rall. Rall has been an editorial cartoonist for many decades. His column says California and other low-turnout states will never match the higher turnout of most other democratic countries, until there are more choices on the ballot.
I agree there needs to be more choices on the ballot.
However, unless the voters KNOW there are more choices, and KNOW where these candidates stand on the issues, then I do not see it as resulting in a higher turnout.
I’m sure in most elections, voters go to the polls in the General Elections expecting to see only the Democratic and Republicans on the ballot. When they see a 3rd party or Independent candidate, they probably think, “who is that” (if they even take time to notice) and then vote for the Democrat or Republican who has already won their vote.
The Democrats and Republican party leadership know this. This is why most of them oppose relaxing ballot access and extending the invitation to such candidates to participate in the debates.
In their mind, we’re “spoilers” and nothing but “spoilers.”
Richard should have the data on California. Back before the “Top Two” was established and there were for several decades 3 or 4 3rd parties nominating statewide candidates, was the turnout higher?
Which has declined faster:
(1) Primary turnout.
(2) Readership of the Los Angeles Times?
NO primaries.
ONE election.
Ballot access via equal nominating petitions.
P.R. — will produce lots of parties –
See P.R. elections in Germany, Israel, New Zealand, etc.
The USA is in the ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander DARK AGE — powermad Prezs and Congress hacks esp.
It shows – UN-declared WARS, insane annual deficits and national bankruptcy among other things.
Jim: Not being from California, I would not know the answer to your question. But if I had to guess, I’d say both (1) and (2) are correct.