On January 28, Matt Mahan, Mayor of San Jose, entered the race for Governor of California. He is the ninth prominent Democrat to declare. See this story.
On January 28, Matt Mahan, Mayor of San Jose, entered the race for Governor of California. He is the ninth prominent Democrat to declare. See this story.
These top-x primaries don’t work well at all if there are a lot of candidates. They take a bad system and make it worse. The verdict should be in by now. I don’t know why the proponents keep pushing them.
The Democrats seem to be totally paralyzed about reforming the election system, even when it would clearly be to their own benefit.
Whenever a party has a lot of people on the ballot who have relatively strong support in a primary, there tends to be a shakeout before the election, and some of the campaigns suspend, frequently endorsing other candidates, before the vote taking place. This is especially true in a top 2 state if there is polling or other evidence that staying in would have the effect of keeping their party out of the general election. And all the more so if it’s in a big money, big stakes, heavily polled race like governor of California.
So, Richard Winger’s scenario that a lot of prominent dlDemocrats and few prominent Republicans being on the ballot is likely to result in two Republicans in the general election is unrealistic.
Party officers and big money supporters etc will put pressure on the lagging campaigns to suspend early enough to prevent this.
Without actively campaigning, with news of their withdrawal reaching their would be supporters, and especially if they endorse other candidates, remaining on the ballot will result in few votes, much like non prominent candidates.
Walter, it actually works out just fine for the California Democrats. They end up with the only two candidates in most California elections, or running against a non competitive minor party or Independent. Their dominance in California has only increased with top two. Why would they want to get rid of it?
Richard Winger has a fantasy scenario, but it’s likely to remain a fantasy.
* or against a non competitive Republican, but that has the same effect. Republicans are reduced to near minor party status as a result. I don’t see a realpolitik reason for Democrats to want to change this.
Iirc, certain California Republicans were prominent in pushing for top two, including the most recent California Republican governor. I would expect California Republicans to be against top two now, given how it worked out for them since it’s been in place. But maybe some of them are engaging in wishful thinking hoping for the same scenario that Richard Winger implies in this article and spells out explicitly in past article’s / posts.
California has only had one gubernatorial election with the incumbent not running for re-election, since top-two started. That was 2018.
NOOO PRIMARIES
APPV FOR NONPARTISAN EXECS/JUDICS IN GENL ELECTIONS
Paul Mitchell, the political statistician who drew California’s new U.S. House boundaries, said in December 2025 that there is a 10% chance that Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton would be the only two candidates on the November 2026 ballot.
I think he way overestimated the chances. There have been plenty of other elections in different top two states for various offices. There are very few cases of the less popular major party in that state or district getting both of the top two spots. Were any of them ever for a prominent statewide office? Not that I recall ever reading.
I bet none of them were for a prominent statewide elected office such as US senator or governor, particularly in California with its huge population and all the money and time spent on those campaigns.
I’ve seen and previously mentioned many reasons why nonpartisan elections are bad, so I don’t see any reason to go into it again unless someone other than the AZ spambot asks. Likewise for approval voting.
PARTISAN L+E+J = PARTISAN TYRANNY
Spambot screaming nonsense is spambot screaming nonsense.