When California voted on whether to use a top-two primary in November 2004, and again in June 2010, political consultants were largely very much in favor. Now, however, a California Target Book poll of political consultants shows that more consultants dislike the system than like it. “Has the top-two system had a mostly positive or negative impact on the state?” was the question. “Negative” received 35.6%. “Positive” received 24.4%. “Both” received 37.8%. “Unsure” received 2.2%. See this Calmatters story about the poll. Thanks to Around the Capitol for the link.
Single winner districts guarantees a two-party system. Top Two guarantees a three-party system.
Please, move on with the opposition to a three party system, there will unlikely be support, because everyone prefers a little competition over no competition, to two-party politics.
Political consultants make a living by manipulating voters and candidates. They favor early primaries because that gives them a longer period of employment, and seek contributions since contributors can double dip. Remember when the Assembly Speaker was handing out committee chairmanships based on contributions to other candidates.
So you could have a Democratic seat where there was no opponent, or if there was, the Democrat would still get 80% of the vote. He had won election the instant he paid his filing fee, so long as he didn’t molest anyone. But he could collect contributions for a more competitive race and gain bonus points with the Assembly Speaker.
A candidate in Los Angeles doesn’t know anyone in Fresno, in fact he might wonder if “Fresno” was somewhere near Santa Clarita. But his political consultant would know.
Political consultants might prefer a partisan system because they could be hired by one candidate who had to win a competitive primary; and then be hired by a different candidate who had a competitive general election seat.
Mr. Ogle – Please explain your statement “Top Two guarantees a three-party system”.
IMO, Top Two is anti-democratic, lessens the voice of voters, and essentially destroys all minor parties.
Under top two, with three candidates, should two win with 33.33% (plus one vote), the third loses with 33.33% (minus two votes).
So three names/parties are guaranteed to come within one vote of advancing.
The name who can unite the most voters with the message which attracts the voters can be from three different camps regardless of party.
There is no discrimination against third parties nor independents in this scenario and in fact we are guaranteed a that three people can practically tie, with two of the three advancing with a one vote margin.
Now over time, the three biggest factions are guaranteed to be in this three-way tie, of course more candidates will affect the totals and the threshold gets lowered randomly by the split vote problem.
But as long as there names minimum run, the maximum threshold for advancing is always 33.33% (plus one vote) and so two of these three factions is guaranteed to advance.
The voters will always have the ability to determine which ones advance, largely the two of three biggist factions.
So under Top Two, three biggest parties/voting blocks will likely win.
Single winner districts have similar math but instead two can tie at 50/50 and one vote breaks the tie.
That’s why we live in a two-party system, because the two biggest parties usually win in single-winner districts as the voter interest goes from biggest to second biggest.
In top two, the voter interest in the three biggest, will generally pick the top two.
So like the two-party system, when there are three big groups, the voters can look to the 2nd or 3rd biggest, as the best alternative to have a chance to beat the biggest.
That’s how the three party gets established, once the third group wins, if they do a good job, then the word spreads and they will likely be rewarded with more votes as the biggest alternative to the other two.
Of course there is a lot of randomness that can happen but in general the voters will see the third biggest as a good opportunity and once that gets confirmed as a good choice the word spreads to other geographic regions and in those outside regions the voters may replicate support for the third party.
Obviously to attain 33.33% (plus one vote) under Too Two, there will need to be a message of unity to attain enough votes, whether the message is from independents, partisans or multiples of parties.
But usually one party can utilize a message easier than several parties simultaneously, so it will likely be one party that consistently win under top two, rather than multiple parties/independents.
The last paragraph should have been:
But usually one party can utilize a message easier than several parties simultaneously, so it will likely be one “particular third party” that consistently wins (in a race between three of which two will win) under top two, rather than multiple random parties/independents, because for a message of unity to spread it’s easier from one party to have a consistent message than to have the same consistent message from multiple parties/independents.
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged PACK/CRACK gerrymander districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL = 25 or less percent minority rule OLIGARCHY —
IN ALL STATES SINCE 1776 and in the USA regime since 1789 (even worse in the USA Senate).
CA — Due to nonvotes — esp if 2D or 2R in top 2 primaries — and many illegal invaders counted in the 2010 USA Census — the minority rule is near such 25 percent.
BASIC P.R. —
PARTY MEMBERS = TOTAL MEMBERS X PARTY VOTES / TOTAL VOTES
DIFFICULT ONLY FOR MATH MORON LAWYERS AND HACK JUDGES.
If the CA primary math is used for the later winners, then the minority rule math is about 10 percent or less –
ie the Bolshevik faction of the CA Donkey party.
IT SHOWS in the many Bolshevik laws in the CA soviet socialist republic.
Don Willis: Please don’t ask that guy James Ogle any more questions. He rambles on enough already.
Like true political consultants, 38% hedged and said: “Both”
CA Assembly 25.8 percent minority rule math —
due in part to CA top 2 primary.
See- earlier
Democratic Party Has More U.S. House Candidates etc
Demo Rep on September 15, 2018 at 5:33 pm
—
Too many math M-O-R-O-N-S to count —
in media, in colleges, in election law gerrymander cases, in *reform* groups, etc.
— in addition to the pre-skoool super-morons on this list.
PR and AppV
Top2 is unfair and undemocratic! At least let voters get 2 votes for 2 candidates and no party should nominate more than 2 candidates tops! That is unless there’s more fairness towards third parties and independents by proposing things like a special primary only for independent voters or things like that!
Either REAL DEMOCRACY (via below Reforms) or nonstop killer/enslaver Stalin/Hitler type TYRANT MONARCHY regimes (gerrymander trend since 1776) will happen in the USA — make the choice.
Condorcet math (IRV/RCV done correctly) will have to wait a bit due to the LOW, LOW, LOW math skills of the math moron media.
Longer term – Abolish the minority rule USA Senate and minority rule USA Electoral College and divide larger States.
TOTAL Separation of Powers in all regimes.
18 States have voter petitions for State Const. Amdts. — since the courts are so brain dead ignorant about gerrymander math.
*******
SAVE DEMOCRACY ELECTION REFORMS 15 SEP 2018
ALL States have —
AA. ANTI-DEMOCRACY minority rule gerrymander systems —
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL = OLIGARCHY
— since 1964 SCOTUS gerrymander cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
Much, much worse primary math which nominates the persons who later get elected in the rigged gerrymander districts — est. 5-15 percent REAL minority rule.
and BB. PARTISAN executive and/or judicial officers = PARTISAN law enforcement.
CC. Remedies —
1. ONE election day.
NO primaries, caucuses and conventions.
2. Proportional Representation (P.R.) in all legislative body elections.
EQUAL votes to get elected = Total Votes / Total Members = TV/TM
ALL votes count.
BOTH majority rule and minority representation = REAL DEMOCRACY.
3. NONPARTISAN nominations and elections of all elected executive officers and all judicial officers.
*******
Democracy Constitutional Amendment
[OPTION ITEMS IN BRACKETS]
[The added or amended sections below shall apply to all elections, except if existing language applies.]
————–
Sec. 1. (1) Elections shall only be held on [date] of each year [(except for recall elections)].
(2) All elections shall only use mail paper secret ballots.
(3) The [state] shall pay the cost for the mail paper secret ballots to and from the Electors.
(4) All election laws shall be general and exist by [210] days before the election day along with all election districts.
(5) All elected officers shall be registered Electors [in the [state]] in addition to any other qualifications in this constitution.
(6) All incumbents and all other candidates shall respectively file a declaration of candidacy and any filing fees in (7) by [5 P.M.][203] and [196] days before the election day.
(7) The names of all candidates shall be put on the election ballots only by (a) nominating petition forms signed by Electors in the area involved equal to not more than [0.2] percent of the number of Electors who voted in the last regular election for [governor] in such area which shall be filed and verified respectively by [105] and [70] days before the election day, or (b) filing fees (signature number multiplied by a uniform money amount).
(8) Elector form- [9, 10 or 12] point type, [3.5 by 4.25 inches]
NOMINATING PETITION – [PARTISAN (for legislative offices)] [NONPARTISAN (for executive/judicial offices)]
I nominate (candidate’s name and address) (of the (one word party name – not more than [16] capital letters) Party) for (office) in (election area) at the (date) election.
Elector signature, printed name, address and date signed.
Return to- (address)
(9) No filing shall be withdrawn.
(10) Candidates shall have their party’s name in (8) or NONPARTISAN [and may by law have a [0.4 inch by 0.4 inch] symbol] next to their names on the ballots.
(11) A person may hold only 1 elected or appointed office.
Sec. 2. (1) The Electors shall elect all members of each legislative body for [1] year terms who may meet any time in person, by written proxy or electronically.
(2) Each legislative body shall have an odd number of members (at least [5]).
(3) As nearly as possible, each legislative body election district shall have 2 (rural) to 6 (urban) times the number of Electors who voted at the last regular election [for governor] in the legislative body area divided by the total members in the body, be 1 or more [local governments] or a part of 1 [local government] and be contiguous and square.
(4) A qualified person may be a candidate in any 1 [or] [2] [more] district[s].
Sec. 3. (1) Each legislative body candidate shall receive a list of all other candidates in all districts grouped by party names by [63] days before the election day.
(2) Each candidate shall rank such all other candidates (using 1 (highest), 2, etc.) and file such list by [5 P.M. 56] days before the election day.
(3) The lists shall be made public the next day.
(4) If a valid list is not filed, then the candidate’s name shall be removed from the ballots.
Sec. 4. (1) Each Elector may vote for 1 candidate for each legislative body.
(2) The Ratio shall be the Total Votes for all candidates in all districts divided by the Total Members, dropping any fraction.
Ratio = TV/TM
(3) A candidate who gets the Ratio shall be elected.
(4) The largest surplus more than the Ratio shall be moved to 1 or more candidates in any district who do not have the Ratio and who are highest on the candidate’s rank order list.
(5) Only the votes needed to get the Ratio shall be moved to any 1 candidate.
(6) Repeat steps (4) and (5) until all surplus votes are moved.
(7) If all members are not elected, then the candidate with the least votes shall lose.
(8) Such losing votes shall be moved to 1 or more remaining unelected candidates in any district who are highest on the candidate’s rank order list and subject to (5).
The moving order shall be original votes and then the earliest surplus or other loser votes.
(9) Repeat steps (7) and (8) until all members are elected.
(10) Each member shall have 1 vote in the legislative body.
(11) Example 100 Votes, Elect 5
Ratio = 100/5 = 20
—
Surplus Moved
C1 25-20=5 Surplus
C2 19+1=20
C3 14+4=18
—
Final
C1 20=20 Elected
C2 20=20 Elected
C3 18+2=20 Elected
C4 17+3=20 Elected
C5 15+5=20 Elected
Sum 90+10=100
Losers 10 are moved to elected persons.
[NOTE – slightly more exact/complex methods are possible]
Sec. 5. (1) All legislative body candidates and members shall file 1 or more rank order lists of persons to replace (temporary or permanent) the candidate or member during an election time or term respectively.
(2) The qualified person who is highest on the list shall fill such vacancy.
(3) If the preceding does not happen, then the other members of his/her party (if any) or the legislative body shall fill such vacancy with a qualified person of the same party immediately at its next meeting.
[NO more vacancy special elections for legislators.]
Sec. 6. (1) The Electors shall elect all elected executive officers [(at least a chief executive, a clerk and a treasurer in each government)] for [1] year terms at nonpartisan elections.
(2) The Electors shall elect all judicial officers for the [1 to 6] year terms provided by this constitution and law at nonpartisan elections.
(3) No law change shall reduce the term of any judicial officer.
(4) Each Elector may vote for 1 or more candidates for each executive or judicial office (including 1 write-in vote for each position).
(5) The candidate(s) getting the most votes shall be elected (for the longest terms respectively).
[(4)-(5) is the Approval Voting method.]
Sec. 7. (1) The terms of office involved shall start [at noon] [7] days after the election day.
(2) All legislation enacted from [35] days before an election day until the (1) starting time shall be temporary and shall expire not later than [35] days after such term starting time.
[Stop/reduce lame duck corrupt stuff]
[Sec. 8. (1) A general law shall provide for a recall election of any legislative body or elected executive [or judicial] officer upon petition of Electors equal to [25] percent of the number of Electors who voted at the last regular election [for governor] in the election area of the body or officer involved.
(2) The reason(s) in any petition (in not more than [50] words) shall not be reviewed, except in a libel case against the recall sponsor.
(3) A filed petition shall be verified within [35] days if (4) applies.
(4) The recall election day shall happen [21 to 28] days thereafter during the term involved with the result on the same day.
[(5) Any person recalled shall not hold any public office for [2 years] after the recall election day.]]
DR, I liked a lot, except for split the bigger states, three of which consist of 1/12th the total USA population which works fine and will work better under pure proportional representation. No need to advocate to divide and gerrymander.
The bigger a regime the bigger the POWER MAD CONTROL FREAK egos of the top folks — even in PR regimes.
See the current top POWER MAD MONSTERS in the USA, Russia, China, India, etc.
Earlier – the olde Empires- British, French, Spanish, German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian, Ottoman, Chinese, Japanese
State Guvs in CA, TX, NY, etc.
Even Mayors in BIG cities – New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc.
Reality check above dividing larger States —
In how many States do the political majority and minority groups have about ZERO *social* connections —
IE conservative whites moving as far as possible AWAY from liberal urban ghetto blacks/whites ???
The liberals love having CONTROL over the income/assets of such conservative whites — ie via TAXES — paid to liberals in various liberal spending schemes – esp. more govt liberal bureaucrats / welfare.
Regimes like CA, NY, IL — with takeover machinations in TX, FL, MI, etc.
IE NET TAX getters vs NET TAX payers (aka TAX S-L-A-V-E-S).
See the systematic destruction of many older cities — Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, etc., etc. — house by house, block by block, census tract by census tract.
PR and AppV
I apologise but the United Coalition organizes under twelve population-balanced districts, twelve being an important numeral we use for twelve population world districts.
We prefer that the states be grouped, California, Texas and NY, with nine groupings of states every ten years with population shifts, the effort is much easier to maintain than your proposed plan to divide and gerrymander the states.
Our plan makes no adjustment to ant exiting boundary.
It is very difficult to communicate here but please get me a more later revised version.