Washington state started using the top-two system in 2008, but only this year was there any U.S. House race in that state between two members of the same party. In this year’s election, the 4th district incumbent, Doc Rogers, retired, and two Republicans who wanted to replace him placed first and second in the August 2014 primary. The only two candidates in November were Dan Newhouse and Clint Didier. The 4th district is centered on Yakima and Kennewick.
Although Washington election officials are still counting ballots, as of the evening of November 13 the state was reporting 1,974,940 votes (not counting write-in votes) in the ten U.S. House districts combined. In 2012, the vote for U.S. House in the same ten districts had been 3,006,266.
Proponents of the top-two system frequently say that general election races between two members of the same party are better for general election voters, because most districts are safe for one major party or the other, but at least when there are two candidates from the same party, the race has the potential to be unpredictable and exciting.
However, the total vote cast in the Fourth District this year for U.S. House dropped by 35.5%. For all ten races in the state combined, it dropped by a smaller amount, 34.3%. Although political junkies may enjoy congressional races in which only one party has candidates, it seems the voting public as a whole is slightly less interested in voting in such an election as in a normal election.
People think of the General Election as being “the” Election. When they see two candidates from the same major party on the ballot, many of them think one of two ways; (1)The candidates are not of my party, therefore I am not going to vote for either. (2) Both candidates are of my party, so my party wins regardless.
I believe the above is the way many people think. Those who do vote, do so for personality differences or where the candidates have major philosophical differences on key issues.
As a result, I believe this is the major cause of lower turnout. While some disagree with me, I believe many party bosses prefer it this way. “Get the base out and forget about everybody else. “Their views are not important anyway.”
George Orwell’s 1984 in 2014
Doc Hastings retired.
Richard Winger wrote:
“Proponents of the top-two system frequently say that general election races between two members of the same party are better for general election voters, because most districts are safe for one major party or the other, but at least when there are two candidates from the same party, the race has the potential to be unpredictable and exciting.”
Yours is a gross exaggeration. Proponents of the Top 2 Open Primary note that many districts are dominated by one party or the other to such an extent that who is elected is determined in the Democratic or Republican primary. Top 2 gives an opportunity for all voters to weigh in on who represents them.
In CD-4, the two Democratic candidates in the primary had 18% of vote combined. It is reasonable to conclude that the voters as a whole overwhelmingly preferred to be represented by either Didier or Newhouse. Top 2 gave them the opportunity to make that decision.
A more careful and thoughtful analysis shows that the reduction in votes cast for US representative for District 4 is quite typical. It was the 5th largest (or 6th smallest) drop off, which makes it a median. It is the 2nd closest to the mean.
The four worst performing districts (7, 8, 9, and 10) are in the Democratic-leaning Puget Sound area. The 4 best (1, 3, 5, and 6) are in the extreme northern, southern, eastern, and western parts of the state.
The better explanation for relative turnout between 2012 and 2014 was that Barack Obama was not on the 2014 ballot. Democratic voters would vote for Obama, and then vote for the congressional candidate of the same party. In 2014, they didn’t see Obama’s name on the ballot, and didn’t realize there was an election and lost their ballot.
In the two more competitive races of the high drop-off districts, 8 and 10, the Republican candidate performed about 4% better in 2014. In three of the low drop-off districts, 1, 5, and 6, the Democratic candidate performed better in 2014 than 2012.
If we look at the drop-off in individual counties within WA-4 we can see a similar pattern. Two counties, Adams and Grant had less drop-off than any congressional district as a whole. Obama received less than 1/3 of the vote in these counties in 2012.
In the two worst performing counties in WA-4, Yakima and Okanogan, Obama received 43.15% and 42.19% of the vote, respectively, in 2012. While low compared to the state as
a whole, these were considerably better than the district as a whole. Yakima had a 62.7% return ballots cast rate, and Okanogan a 56.5%. Both have relatively high minority population (Hispanic and Indian). Okanogan also has a very large number of uncounted ballots (their last dump was on the 10th, and will have another one today), about 16% of the votes counted to date. The other counties are around 1$ or less.
Note: while most of the votes in the counties in the district have been counted, this may not be true statewide. Slow counting in King County will have an effect on numerous districts.
There were also no Democratic legislative candidates in Okanogan. The county is split between two legislative districts. LD-12 had two unopposed Republican candidates for the House. LD-7 had two Republicans for the senate race, and a Republican vs a Libertarian for one House seat, and a Republican vs a Centralist for the other House seat.
It is quite unlikely that without Top 2, there would have been a Centralist on the general election ballot.
Incidentally, when Doc Hasting first ran for Congress in 1992, he lost to Democrat, and current governor, Jay Inslee. He defeated Inslee in the Republican wave year of 1994, and steadily increased his vote percentage, until regularly receiving in excess of 60%. Inslee left his native Yakima, and moved to the Seattle area where he revived his political career, first as US representative, and now as governot.
Jim Riley:
“Yours is a gross exaggeration.”
May be. And your data may be true. Not arguing this. But if I live in a district which is dominated by one party-especially a party that I have no use for, I usually don’t even bother to vote. This is the point I was trying to make.
Common sense tells us, that in any state, Top Two will weaken and destroy 3rd parties and Independent candidates. Since in Top Two, 3rd parties and Independents would only have a chance of selling their candidacies in the Primary, where they will be “sandwiched” between several major party candidates of financial means, the 3rd party candidate and Independent will be like a bug on the floor, easily overlooked or stepped on by accident.
And this may sound contrary to what I’ve said in earlier replies, but I’d have no problem with Top Two if all candidates were limited to the amount of expenditures, but publicly financed, and allowed to participate on equal terms in all Debates, then I could live with Top Two.
But we both know – as well as others reading – such will never happen, i.e, the spending limitations, public financing, and participation in Debates.
For such is the only way 3rd parties and Independents will survive.
Democracy in the USA is gerrymander DEAD
— and has been since 4 July 1776.
1/2 votes x 1/2 gerrymander areas = 1/4 CONTROL —
now super leftwing/rightwing control freaks —
aka Donkey communists or Elephant fascists
i.e. lots of Stalin and Hitler clones making most of the special interest gang LAWS.
—-
Save Democracy
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
If in a general election there’s only two candidates from the same party, that is a farce, a joke. If that arrangement exists because there are nothing but single-member districts and those districts are gerrymandered, well that helps explains the joke, but this should be where an informed electorate says “enough” and starts the appropriate reform movement against wealth/incumbent-oriented political systems.
It starts, I think, in Washington’s 6th congressional district, where the incumbent has co-sponsored federal legislation to mandate top-two for every state.
When people use words like “open” and “primary” to describe this turd that inhibits minority political candidacies and helps billionaires get their guys in, it’s hard.
The debate needs reframing, context and focus.
I think Top Two is a step in the right direction.
“bug on the floor” – a great analogy! And, it is a true statement – with many more candidates on a Top Two primary ballot (than on a General Election ballot) they are much more overlooked.
“Top two” system ensures that there is no candidate running “unopposed” where a 3rd party candidate (Libertarian, Socialist, etc.) could run as the opposition and attain ballot status for the next election.
Didn’t the Soviets sometimes run two Communists (or a CP candidate vs. one of their puppet parties, like East Germany had) to show that their elections were democratic?
In Washington, parties don’t have ballot status except for presidential election.
Minor party leaders oppose Top 2 because it eliminates their apparatchik status.