The Public Policy Institute has this analysis of the California top-two system. The analysis is by political scientist Eric McGhee. He wrotes that, now that we know the results of the 2016 primary, it can be said that top-two “has been fairly kind to establishment candidates.”
1. Top 2 is a perversion version of IRV — with its FATAL defects.
One more EVIL NON-reform by the math MORONS who dreamed up IRV and Top 2 stuff.
2. Top 2 does ZERO about minority rule gerrymanders —
1/2 votes x 1/2 gerrymander districts = 1/4 Control.
When there is NOT a D and a R on the ballots, then MORE voters do NOT vote for either of the 2 D or the 2 R in a gerrymander district —
i.e. the minority rule gets a bit worse.
NO primaries.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
In 2006 Assembly elections, 44 incumbents ran for re-election. All 44 were re-elected. Only 5 of the incumbents faced an intraparty challenge. 9 districts had two opposition candidates vying to determine who would lose to the incumbent, and in 6 districts the incumbent had no major party opposition.
On average there were 1.11 candidates from the incumbent party vs 1.07 opposition party candidates.
Summary: if there was an incumbent, they would face a designated loser from the other party.
There were 36 open seats. In only two was there no competition for the dominant party nomination; and in only four were there more than one candidate for the nomination of the non-dominant party.
On average there were 3.06 candidates vying to be the nominee who would quite likely win the general election v 0.83 challenging party candidates.
In 2016, there were 63 incumbents running for re-election. Nine faced an intraparty challenge (14% vs 11% in 2006, a slight increase. 8 had multiple opposition candidates vying to face the incumbent (13% vs 20% in 2006). 18 incumbents had no opponents from the opposite party (29% v. 14%).
In some cases, an opposite party candidate will have qualified for the general election as a write-in candidate. Under Top 2, opposite party challengers may decide to qualify as a write-in candidate, avoiding the filing fee. Moreover, under Top 2, there is a risk that they might not advance to the general election even if they did pay the fee. Under the old partisan primary system, they also had to meet a vote threshold. It might be more expensive to campaign for write-in votes, than to pay the filing fee.
Overall, in 2016, there were 1.24 candidates from the incumbent’s party v. 0.84 candidates from the opposite party. This is a slight increase in intraparty competition.
In the 17 open seats in 2016, only one had no competition for the dominant party nomination (6% in 2006 and 2016; Five seats had competition from multiple challenging party candidates (29% vs 11% in 2006).
On average, there were 3.87 candidates from the dominant party (vs 3.06 in 2006; and 1.24 from the challenging party members. Overall, there has been an increase of 1.22 major party candidates comparing 2016 to 2006.
There was no independent redistricting commission in California back in 2006.
The CA gerrymander commission is one more part of the EVIL rigging of gerrymander elections.
i.e. some of the so-called independents on the commission were Donkey agents/spies/plants —
result — a TOTAL Donkey minority rule gerrymander of the various districts – U.S. Reps., CA Senate, CA Assembly, etc.
McGhee notes that there were relatively few open seats this election, but he misattributes this to Top 2. Redistricting and senate term limits were more significant factors.
There were 28 open seats in 2010.
Six of the winners were not re-elected in 2012. Two were defeated in D vs. D Top 2 races. One was elected to the State Senate and one to Congress. One chose to return to her practice as a surgeon, one was term-limited having previously served four years in the Assembly and 8 in the Senate before running for his 3rd term in the Assembly.
This left 22 members serving a second term. Nine were not re-elected in 2014, because they were seeking other offices. One lost a bid for governor, one lost a bid for Congress, and one lost a bid for county supervisor. Six ran for senate, with five being successful, and the 6th losing to one of the five successful candidates.
Redistricting radically changed many senate and house districts. Half of the new districts were up for election for the first time in 2014. An Assembly member with four years service and an open senate seat is faced with a dilemna:
(1) Run for the open senate seat, forgoing their 3rd, and final, Assembly term;
(2) Running for a 3rd Assembly term, sitting out two years, and then running for the Senate against an incumbent.
So there were only 13 assembly members who were term-limited in 2016. Add in 4 of the 67 other seats, results in only 17 open seats.
**********
There were 28 open seats in 2008. Of the 28 elected, two were not re-elected in 2010. One was term-limited based on prior service. and one decided not to run for re-election.
Of the 26 serving a 2nd term, nine were not re-elected to a 3rd term in 2012. Seven ran for the senate, with five successful. One ran for mayor and lost, and one had been redistricting into a less favorable district and was in the middle of a messy divorce. She was subsequently appointed to a judgeship.
This left only 17 completing a 3rd term in 2014. Adding in 6 of 63 coming open before term limits, there were only 23 open seats in 2014.
**********
There were 35 open seats in 2012. All of those who were elected, were elected under Top 2, and in the new districts following redistricting. All ran for re-election in 2014, with three being defeated (all three are mounting a comeback in 2014). In 2016, one is running for the senate. Only two are at any risk of being defeated.
So as many as 31 members will be term-limited in 2018, and there could be well over 40% open seats.
The large number of members being term-limited in 2018 is due to several factors:
(1) The large number of open seats in 2012, which was in part due to the large number of open seats (40) in 2006;
(2) 2012 was after redistricting, which paired some members, but at the same time opened other districts;
(3) 2012 was after redistricting, so that incumbents have run in the same district for all three terms;
(4) 2012 was after redistricting, so that senate districts have now stabilized, and there are fewer opportunities to jump to the senate.
***********
There were 23 open seats in 2014. Legislators first elected in 2014 and later will be subject to the new term limits, which permits 12 years total service in the legislator. This will likely result in more members serving entirely in one house. By 2018, those elected in 2014 will be the most senior members in the Assembly and will continue to be so until term-limited in 2026.
Of the 23 elected in 2014, two are running for the senate. At most, two have a possibility of losing in 2016.
So after the large number of open seats in 2018, 2020 will be quite small.
Richard Winger writes: “There was no independent redistricting commission in California back in 2006.”
And this has what to do with what I wrote in my first reply?
By 2006 and 2016, the effect of redistricting had largely been absorbed.
DR wrote “Top 2 is a perversion version of IRV — with its FATAL defects.”
What a ridiculous statement!
Top 2 has about as much in common with IRV as golf has with basketball – the object is to put a sphere in a hole – but that’s all.
And no, IRV DOES NOT HAVE FATAL DEFECTS. There are concerns (like with all electoral systems), but not FATAL defects.
Please quit wasting readers time by posting the same drivel over and over again.