Steven Greenhut, writing in the American Spectator, says in this article that the idea of California replacing top-two with top-five is “gaining traction”, although the article does not provide specifics. Thanks to Fairvote for the link.
Steven Greenhut, writing in the American Spectator, says in this article that the idea of California replacing top-two with top-five is “gaining traction”, although the article does not provide specifics. Thanks to Fairvote for the link.
If it doesn’t allow a party to control which candidates use its label, it’s not an improvement.
Hopefully, the Libertarisn Party trademark case will establish a precedent whereby a candidate cannot run with a party label without the party’s permission. That would improve the top-x primaries somewhat.
Thank god top two is being replaced. I don’t know if top five is much better, but it is an improvement.
If they’re going to do a system like this, I think they should do top-five if there are 10 or fewer candidates in the primary. But if there are more than 10, it should be top-half to ensure more choices on the ballot. And if there is an odd amount of candidates, we round the number of candidates to qualify up to ensure some protection of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Oh, I thought it was getting replaced. My bad. But still, I think Top Two is a very bad system.
NOOO PRIMARIES
ONE ELECTION DAY
EQUAL NOM PETS / FILING FEES
PR LEGIS
APPV EXECS/JUDICS
TOTSOP
—
PENDING CONDORCET = RCV DONE RIGHT
@WZ
In California, the voters pamphlet includes party endorsements.
The ballot only includes the candidates party preference.
“The ballot only includes the candidates party preference”
Parties themselves have a right to decide who may, or may not, speak for them.
Top 5 is just a watered down version of a bad idea. If the establishment parties want to keep alternative candidates off the general election ballot in any particular race they can still do that with Top 5 in most instances.
Chris does make a good point. Because alternative candidates won’t be able to poll as high as major party candidates, this is a great way to ensure that no alternative candidates can be heard. And in some extreme cases, there might still be a one-party dictatorship.
“Top 5” is SO much better than “Top 2”-especially if “Ranked Choice/Instant Run-Off” voting is the General Election voting option! Alaska and Maine use it, and it worked well in both states.
Alaska elected commies with their system. It needs to go.
they should just run the general election as per the constitution. the way they have it now is not even close to how it’s set up by the constitution
@Coach,
See Article 2,Section 5 of the California Constitution.
I don’t think Coach knows what he’s talking about.
@WZ,
The candidates are speaking for themselves when they express their party preference on the ballot.
If a Nazi can call himself a communist and vice versa, those parties don’t have the resources to inform a significant enough percentage of voters otherwise. It becomes the same thing as having no party label for those candidates.
If a Democrat calls himself a Republican or vice versa, those parties do have those resources . If a Nazi or communist runs as a Democrat or Republican, those parties can likewise inform the voters, if they choose to do so.
If Republicans become unpopular and decide they have better chances running as libertarians without actually adopting those views, the libertarians don’t suddenly have enough money or attention to tell most of the voters which of their candidates are actually libertarians. If on the other hand libertarians wish to run as Republicans, the GOP has plenty of resources to inform the public those candidates are not real Republicans, if they choose to do so, and regardless of how they are labeled on the ballot. On the other hand they may not want to give them additional attention, figuring they won’t make it past the primary anyway, unless they run in a district where the Republicans have no practical chance of winning the general election, and perhaps not even then.
The harm done to smaller parties, less well known or poorer candidates, and less plugged in or more busy voters is asymmetrical if party labels are either not on the ballot at all or not under the control of party leadership to bestow or not under freedom of association and dissociation. That freedom does not exit unless association is mutually voluntary. A smaller party forced to accept a candidate falsely associating with them is harmed in ways a bigger party is not.