The November 27 edition of the Los Angeles Times has this analysis by John Myers of the California experience with top-two primaries. Thanks to Jan Tucker for the link.
The November 27 edition of the Los Angeles Times has this analysis by John Myers of the California experience with top-two primaries. Thanks to Jan Tucker for the link.
Due to the several gerrymander districts NOT having 1 D and 1 R, the minority rule is about 25 percent.
1/2 votes x 1/2 rigged gerrymander districts = 1/4 control.
How math STUPID are lawyers, judges (i.e. SCOTUS) and esp. the brain dead media ???
It says that Democratic legislators are less extreme, and that political bosses or special interest groups were less able to control elections. In the past labor unions were able to contact their members and tell them who to vote for in the Democratic primary. Other Democrats might be less likely to vote, because nobody told them to vote for, or if they did vote would vote based on random factors, such as the name or hair color. A small cadre of voters could have out-sized influence.
That a Democratic party-endorsed candidate reached the general election is not so remarkable, when they were not elected by the broader electorate. If it was a Republican leaning district, the result would have been the same regardless of the Democratic candidate. If the district was Democratic leaning, then a coalition of Republicans, independents, and moderate Democrats chose their legislator.
Myers makes a claim that the change in term limits has also had a significant effect. This is dubious. The new limits first took effect in 2012 for legislators first elected in 2012. Assemblymen first elected in 2010 were term-limited in 2016 under the old standard.
Assemblymen first elected in 2012 had served four years under the new standard. If they were re-elected this year, they will be serving their 5th and 6th years under the new standard. So they aren’t serving their last term in the Assembly. In the past, possible challengers might have held off running against a 2-term incumbent, knowing that it would an open seat in two years. So conceivably, there could have been more challengers this year, but if so, none were successful.
The four incumbents who were defeated in 2016 were all one-term incumbents. In three of the four instances, the challenger was trying to reclaim a seat that they had lost in 2014 as a one-term incumbent.
Going forward there might be more of an effect, as there will be more assemblyman with seniority. Anthony Rendon has an opportunity to speaker for the next eight years. 31 of 80 Assemblymen will be starting their third of a potential six terms. In addition, the calculation of term limits will limit them to one term in the Senate, if they should switch. If I have calculated correctly, after the new terms begin next month, no Assemblymen will be under the old standard.