“State Legislatures” magazine for October-November 2014 magazine has this article by Louis Jacobson, on whether there is any correlation between type of primary, and type of politician elected to state legislatures or Congress.
The article is very comprehensive, but it doesn’t mention Professor Todd Donovan’s 2012 article, “The Top Two Primary: What Can California Learn from Washington?” published in the California Journal of Politics & Policy, vol. 4, issue 1. That article concluded “The partisan structure of Washington’s legislature appears unaltered by the new primary system.” It also concludes, “The aggregate of all of this did not add up to a legislature that looked different or functioned differently from the legislature elected under a partisan primary.” Donovan’s article is important, not only because it is based on empirical research, but because Donovan was Washington state’s expert witness in favor of the top-two primary, so clearly he is not biased against the top-two system.
“…on whether there is any correlation between type of primary, and type of politician elected to state legislatures or Congress.”
I don’t think it matters as to what “type” of politician is elected regardless of the primary system utilized, but I do think the unfair 3rd party and Independent ballot access laws do keep a different kind of public official from being elected.
Wouldn’t it be nice (or would it be a disaster) if Congress was controlled solely by Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Greens, and a handful of Independents. No Democrats. No Republicans.
What kind of Congress would we have?
To answer your question – – – BETTER.
ALL of the primary stuff is a giant distraction from the totally EVIL rigged ANTI-Democracy minority rule pack/crack gerrymander systems in ALL of the 50 States — since day 1 in 1776.
i.e. too many brain dead IGNORANT MORONS in the courts and the media to count.
——-
NO primaries.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
I’d like to think so also, Gene. I really would.
The number of legislative districts with split representation in Washington has increased under the Top 2 reform, after almost disappearing under the infamous Pick-a-Party scheme.
Your use of the term “infamous” seems rather ironic, considering that you live in Texas and Texas has the same “infamous” open primary system that Washington did in 2004 and 2006.
That is not true. In Texas, a person would have to go into a different room, if not an entirely different building to vote for candidates of a different party. They would not be able to vote for a Democrat in some counties nor for a Republican in other counties.
In Washington’s notorious Pick-A-Party primary, voters were given a single ballot, which they would mark in secret, indicating their party selection, and then voting for whichever candidates they favored.
Many voters had their voting choices discarded when they picked they did what was normal, picking candidates who they wanted to represent them rather than restricting themselves to party choices. Check the number of party votes, and then the number of votes for party candidates in 2004.
Could you address this point, please?
The number of legislative districts with split representation in Washington has increased under the Top 2 reform, after almost disappearing under the __________ Pick-a-Party scheme.
Jim, is your information about multi-party legislative delegations in Washington state your own research, or did you find some other scholarly work on the subject? If it is your own research, give us the full data. Which years does it cover? If it is someone else’s research, can you help us find it? Thank you.
Do you consider Hawaii, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and Wisconsin to have “infamous” primaries? They all use the same system Washington state used in 2004 and 2006…secrecy in the voting booth for a voter’s choice of a primary.