This article, about top-two primaries, appeared on Bloomberg news services. The author, Greg Giroux, wrote a balanced account. However, he failed to mention the leading criticism of top-two systems, that they injure voters who wish to vote for minor party and independent candidates in the general election.
The article mentions that Washington State has had top two for many years, but a jungle primary is different then the top two.
Sure, the candidates have more appeal to Ds and Rs because the candidates are trying to attract votes from both sides in the primary.
The same candidates are beginning to understand that they must also reach out to Greens, Libertarian, Peace & Freedom and American Independent Parties (and all other categories) in both the primary and runoff to have a better chance to win.
After studying the effects of Top Two for four years (before and after it was implemented) I’m happy with Top Two compared to what we had before in California in 2012.
I think Top Two was a small step forward in voting reform and unity. It’s too bad that the writer never knew about what the United Coalition has accomplished in 2014 under Top Two.
Top Two may have been a microscopic improvement in voting reform but it’s been a pretty big deal for the United Coalition.
Just look at the names of the four United Coalition candidates who are interested in hearing about a unifying voting system and who won their election contests in 2014 under Top Two:
http://www.usparliament.org/usap-wp
The article says that Washington had a blanket primary from the 1930s to 2002, most of Washington’s history. To a voter, a blanket primary ballot is similar to a Top 2 open primary ballot, with a voter simply placing an ‘X’ next to the candidate they preferred. The blanket primary differs from the Top 2 open primary in how the votes are interpreted.
Since the Washington government does not maintain records of the political beliefs of its citizens, voters may tend to be less likely to form a hard allegiance to a party, since such alignment is not a requirement in order to vote. Candidates may seek the votes of all voters. There may be candidates who run only because they can appeal to all voters, just as they might if running for city council or school board.
When Louisiana was considering switching congressional elections back to the open primary, one representative noted how odd it would be if he were to go up to a voter and ask for their vote in the primary, and be told that although they liked him, they were of a different party. The candidate would then have to shake hands, smile, and ask for them to vote for them in November.
Another senator told the story of his wife voting in the partisan congressional primary. She didn’t recognize the candidates. It turns out that though the senator was a Republican, his wife was a Democrat. The election clerk had assumed that she was a Republican and set the lockout switch on the voting machine accordingly. Though the senator’s wife was a lady, she used some most unladylike language suggesting where the election clerk might go upon death, if not sooner. The clerk apologized, and then took over to a machine set up for a Democrat voter. When asked about the original machine, she was told that they would just let the next Republican use it.
What about voters who may want to vote for an independent candidate in the primary, or may wish to support a candidate of a different party, or even vote for a candidate who had much greater support than some minor party candidate.
What about voters who might not want a government record of their political beliefs.
There are quite a lot more of these voters than those who you are concerned about. Your “injured” voters can remedy their situation by encouraging their fellow citizens to vote for their favored candidate.
How many math MORONS are there ???
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 pack/crack gerrymander areas = 1/4 or less CONTROL.
NONSTOP EVIL and VICIOUS oligarchs in control of most lawmaking in the USA since 4 July 1776.
i.e. the top 2 primary stuff is one more EVIL distraction – akin to the term limits MORON machination.
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Blanket primaries do not reduce choice in the general election. Top-two primaries do.
You continue to confuse a general election, which is an election at which most offices are elections, as opposed to a special election; with the primary and secondary stages of the general election.
Sorry – the top 2 primaries only produces a mere TWO left/right extremist robot party hacks — instead of a mere ONE hack for each extremist party in most States in hack primary election – even with runoff primaries.
I.E. WRONG *reform* in 1888-1890 to get the *official* primaries.
—-
NOOOOOOO primaries.
ONE election – ballot access via EQUAL nominating petitions.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. in the ONE election.
I agree, no primaries. I prefer pure proportional representation (PR) which doesn’t require primaries.
My original comment was meant to say that it To Two seemed like a small step in the right direction because it guarantees that names are elected with a simple majority of 50% plus one vote.
I do prefer far more reforms beyond Top Two in the future, and multiple winners under pure proportional representation guarantees higher and higher voter satisfaction levels with each addition winner.
For example, two winners under ranked choice voting guarantees a minimum of 66.66% plus two vote will count but Top Two doesn’t do that with plurality voting.
But Top Two does at least guarantee a 50% (plus one vote) minimum satisfaction level in the runoff which is a slight improvement over first-past-the-post multi-winner elections which don’t guarantee a majority’s support for the winner at all.
Although it can happen, regular plurality elections before Top Two aren’t required a majority’s support to win.