On February 16, it was revealed that California Congressmember Barbara Lee has filed with the Federal Election Commission to run for U.S. Senate from California in 2024. Already two other California Democrats had declared for that seat, Adam Schiff and Katie Porter. A possible fourth Democratic contender is Congressmember Ro Khanna.
If four Democratic congressmembers run in the California top-two primary, that opens the possibility that none of the Democrats would place first or second, if there are two Republicans who run and who both have substantial support. In 2012, in the 31st U.S. House district, a district which was predominently Democratic, two Republicans and four Democrats ran, and the two Republicans placed first and second because the four Democrats split up the Democratic vote.
If two Republicans ended up on the November 2024 California ballot for U.S. Senate, and with no write-in space on that ballot, disenfranchsing Democrats, that would be the end of the top-two system in California. Democrats would go all-out to repeal it.
“If two Republicans ended up on the November 2024 California ballot for U.S. Senate, and with no write-in space on that ballot, disenfranchsing Democrats, that would be the end of the top-two system in California.”
More Democrats please run.
Donkey Sen. Feinstein retiring due to senility.
Tyrant monarchs in Devil City commanding folks to run or NOT run ???
CA voters = current top one victims of USA Senate minority rule.
CA = smallest pop WY in USA Senate — math lunacy.
Will CA Legislature Donkeys NOW have an emergency special election to wipe out the FATAL top 2 primary —
BEFORE any 2024 stuff ???
CA Sen 31 D – 9 R
CA Ass 62 D- 18 R
—-
NOOO primaries
PR/AppV
This would be SO fricking funny.
Better yet? To go beyond Walter? Eight Dems run. Five or so GOPers run. And ONE Green run.
On a somewhat related note, does anyone here know who holds the record for the longest serving pair of senators? Boxer/Feinstein’s 24 years must be pretty high although I know that Grassley/Harkin beat them at 30 years.
Republican candidates received a majority of the vote in CA-31 in the 2012 primary.
Jim, yes, but it was still an overwhelmingly Democratic district. In the November 2012 election inside the 31st district, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney only received 41% of the vote. Also the Republican running for U.S. Senate inside the 31st district also just got 41% of the vote.
Duh, i wet myself.
“if there are two Republicans who run and who both have substantial support.” It does not appear that there are two Republicans in California that have substantial support.
In 2016 and 2018, no Republican candidate for US Senate made it to the November ballot. So far, no Republican has announced for this seat, and there has been no speculation about a Republican Senate candidate. So we might face a run-off with two Democrats this year. At least one of the Democrats will be a socialist-leaning progressive; the only alternative to that is Congressman Schiff, who voted in favor of the Iraq
California (and all states) should switch to the Alaska system. Much less chance for a lockout if 4 candidates get to advance instead of just 2 candidates.
@ Nick
The problem with the Alaska system is that the largest party in the state can end up with two, or even more, members of their own party running against each other in the final election. California Democrats would go crazy if they had 3 Democrats running against one Republican in the final election.
At the least, if a state has an open primary, it should either allow only one candidate from each party to advance to the final, or the state should allow the party to determine who may run on its label.
Nick, no minor party candidate for either Governor or US Senator in either California or Washington has managed to place better than sixth, in those states’ primaries since top-two started. It started in 2008 in Washington and in 2011 in California. So even top-five bars minor party candidates from gubernatorial and US Senate races.
Yes, but top 6 would solve that problem. Just ask Rob Miller and he will tell you all about it.
As it is, the prospect of one party getting more than one nominee in the final election of any top x system creates serious fund raising issues for that party.
Not a problem under my proposal. Voters stand in only one party corner on election evening. Winning party appoints and replaces peace officers. Voters pay poll tax. Poll tax proceeds are used to pay peace offers. No other taxes or positions, unless a winning party wants to revise laws, but that should rarely if ever happen, because laws would be very simple, like one printed page, with application to be judged by responding officers in the field. Simple!!