On August 19, the Independent Voters Network and California Forward held an all-day meeting in Sacramento on the top-two system. The meeting opened with a short address by California Secretary of State Alex Padilla. He gave a brief autobiography, and then talked about his recent decision to let a certain group of ex-felons register to vote. He discussed his hope that the legislature would pass the bill automatically registering every adult citizen known to state government, and mentioned the Colorado and Oregon experience with this idea. He did not discuss top-two and he did not take questions.
That was followed by a panel of four individuals: Political Science Professors Andrew Sinclair and Kimberly Nalder, Assemblymember Brian Maienschein (R-San Diego), and attorney Chad Peace, son of former California State Senator Steve Peace. Sinclair said there are trade-offs to the top-two system. He said members of the weaker major party now have more power to influence the identity of the strong major party candidate, but on the other hand the system hurts minor parties. Nalder said some voters in the weaker major party want to express support for their own party in the general election and they are unsatisfied with a choice between two members of the stronger major party. She also said that the system hurts minor party voters. She also mentioned that since top-two began, the number of women legislators in California has declined (the number is now lower than at any time since the 2001-2002 session); and she mentioned that since top-two started, California turnout has declined.
Maienschein said the legislators work together better since top-two began. Sinclair said that cause-and-effect is difficult to determine because California made so many changes to its election system almost simultaneously (ending the two-thirds rule for the budget, redistricting reform, term limits reform). Peace gave an interesting and objective account of how the top-two system came into existence in California. He also noted that there are now more African-Americans in the legislature than before. Sinclair said that research shows that many voters are uninformed about the ideology of candidates for partisan office, although in one particular Assembly district he studied in 2012, the voters were informed about the ideology of the leading candidates.
During the question period, Paula Lee, an activist in Californians for Electoral Reform, which advocates alternate voting systems such as proportional representation, suggested an end to single-member districts. Former State Senator Steve Peace then appeared at the podium and said he now supports converting the California system to a top-three system in which Instant Runoff Voting would be used in the general election. This is a significant development, because Peace is influential and has been one of the founders of the top-two system in California.
Richard, thank you for this report.
I am glad to hear that Kimberly Nalder testified to the troubles faced by minor parties under Top-Two.
Also, it is encouraging that Chad Peace advocates for top-three and IRV.
Well, technically, it was Steve Peace, not Chad, who said that.
You’re right; I misread.
Still great news.
More blind leading the blind stuff.
NO primaries.
NO single member districts — and resulting automatic minority rule math.
—–
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Advanced math — head to head Condorcet math – from the 1780s — repeat 1780s.
USA is in the election math STONE AGE.
It shows — esp. now in the Elephant’s Prez nominations stuff.
The idea about a Top Three voting system would be a small step forward for voting reform.
In regards to pure proportional representation (PR), the 9th USA Parliament has been using PR for twenty consecutive years, and it works fine.
Visit the 9th USA Parliament’s web page or the new International Parliament’s web page and sign up to coordinate with the team players in 2015 and 2016.
http://www.usparliament.org
http://www.international-parliament.org
“Building united inter-party coalitions to get things done collaboratively, not unilaterally.”
California should move the primary to September, and permit election by majority (for Congress this would be provisional pending a change to federal statute).
Candidates should be able to have the party affiliation that appears on their voter registration appear on the ballot. California’s current practice violates the 1st Amendment; California’s equivalent constitutional provisions regarding free speech and political expression; the express language in the California Constitution that says that Top 2 elections should not take into account the party affiliation of the candidates; and the original implementing language of SB 6.