The Flathead Beacon has two columns about top-two primaries, one advocating the idea for Montana, the other opposing it. See the columns here. Thanks to Nancy Hanks for the link.
The Flathead Beacon has two columns about top-two primaries, one advocating the idea for Montana, the other opposing it. See the columns here. Thanks to Nancy Hanks for the link.
Joe Carbonari, who authors the con viewpoint notes that partisan primaries have low turnout and attract more extreme partisans.
But as a consequence, when the general election arrives, voters end up with a choice between two extremists. And the extreme partisans like it that way. When the Top 2 Open Primary was on the ballot in Oregon, the state teachers union printed a hit-piece mailer to members suggesting that it was a scheme by a notorious sponsor of anti-government initiatives in Oregon. In fact, one of the main proponents was Phil Keisling, a highly respected former Secretary of State.
Why would the teachers union want to defeat Top 2? In any election, turnout is the key. If you can get your supporters to vote, while others stay home, you win. If everyone votes, then you may actually have to convince voters by debating issues.
If the press ignores the primary, or suggests it is only for partisans, ordinary voters may ignore it. Those who do vote, may vote somewhat randomly. But a small organized group can target its members, and advise them how to vote. If a group with 20% of the electorate, can get 90% of its members to vote for Candidate A, then it can defeat Candidate B who is favored 59%-41% by the less organized 80% of the electorate.
Primary turnout is low in Montana, and the Republicans were not happy that their candidates for US Senate and governor lost. Libertarians did get votes, but more importantly those Republicans had records to run on and there were plenty of voters, who were not going to vote for those Republican candidates, even if there were no Libertarians. The Top Two is dead this year in Montana. One Republican in HD 63 won the primary with over 50% of the vote and lost in the general to the Democrat. The Libertarian Party candidate had droped out. Under this Top Two the Republican would have been elected. This is why a number of Republicans liked this TOP Two.
Both Tester and Bullock ran well ahead of Obama. They won based on voters who voted for Romney for president and then Tester and Bullock for governor.
Rehburg would have needed 78% of the Libertarian vote to switch to him to defeat Tester. If only 20% sat out the final result, he would have needed 85% of the remainder.
Turnout in the primary was low, particularly for Democrats because they saw it as meaningless. Obama was not challenged, Tester was not challenged. Bullock’s opponent had moved to Montana in 2009. Being a non-politician and female will get you 13% of the vote in a primary. The only meaningful Democratic contest was to fill the open House seat. With bunches of candidates to choose among, it had about 10% fewer votes cast than for Tester. Conclusion: the only persons who voted in the Democratic primary were people who always vote, and always vote Democratic. They got to the US representative race, which is statewide in Montana and couldn’t figure out who vote for, and chose a weak candidate, who only received 24,000 votes who was easily defeated in the general election.
The Republicans had a contested presidential primary, a contested senatorial primary, and a contested gubernatorial primary. Libertarians did not have a primary ballot, so would use the Republican ballot to vote for Ron Paul and Dennis Teske. Independents, even those who would vote for Tester in the general election would still vote a Republican ballot. They could put the ballots side-by-side and see that the only interesting Democratic contest was for US Representative, and they didn’t know who the candidates were, and discard that ballot. Even Democrats who show up might choose the Republican ballot. There is practically no cost, other than choosing among a bunch of Democratic no names in the US representative race.
If you lived in HD 63 you certainly would not have picked the ballot based on voting in the state house primary which were not contested. You will go down the ballot and may or may not vote for the house candidate.
Statewide, 61% of voters voted the Republican primary ballot (based on votes in presidential primary). In HD 63, the R:D margin based on the HD 63 race was 55:45. That is, the district is less Republican as a whole.
Romney received 57% of the 2-way presidential vote statewide. But he probably outperformed the natural Republican:Democratic split. Romney has some connection to the West through the Salt Lake Olympics. Obama is from Chicago. If anyone in Montana is from Chicago, they moved to Montana to get away from Chicago. Obama went to college, and then moved to Chicago, and stayed. So let’s use the US House race, which was 55% for the Republican.
So overall, turnout was skewed 6% towards the Republicans. It does not matter if this was Democrats voting in the Republican primary, or Democrats staying home on election day. When they switched back to the Democratic party, or voted in the general election, it meant a 6% swing to the Democrats. Apply this to the HD 63 race, and a 55R:45D result in the primary, becomes a 51D:49R race in the general election – which is exactly what the final result was.
In a Top 2 primary, Democrats would have been working on their GOTV. And the Libertarian candidate would have at least been on the primary ballot. It is quite possible that there would not have been a majority for either Republican or Democrat.
And of course, a majority is not an essential element of Top 2. Nebraska has used Top 2 for its legislature since the 1930s. It is not unusual for a candidate to receive 50% in the primary, and it is not unknown for a candidate to come from behind in the general election. This was the case in California as well. If you are going to continue with an early primary, then it makes sense to give the voters a chance to reassess the Top 2 candidates in November. If you would move the primary to October, then a majority election makes sense.
Primary turnout is low precisely because the Primary election is NOT part of the actual election.
Primaries are a means, along with conventions and backroom dealmaking, whereby parties choose a candidate to appear in the general election – which is in November.
In a free electoral system, each party would have the option to determine how to pick their own candidates to appear in the General election – in November.
Independents – those who do not wish to be a part of any party – are also able to appear in the Real election – the General election, in November.
In a free electoral system, Every party and every independent candidate has the right to run in the general election and every voter has the right to choose among them.
Under the evil, “top-two” system, there is only one party – the “Top-two” party – and it chooses two candidates in a single, one-party primary. This primary, like all others, attracts a low voter turnout. It is controlled by the its one-party bosses with rules enforced by the state – as in the old USSR.
The single “Top-two” party is then the only party allowed to place candidates on the ballot for the actual election. The Real election – the General Election, in November – has only two candidates both chosen by the party bosses of the single, state-run, Soviet-styled, “Top-two” party.
Not only does the “top-two” scheme lead to a one-party state and the end of free elections, the candidates, over time, will become more and more extreme. Although they will be closer to each other and will adhere to positions as required by the “Top-two” party bosses, the “Top-two” candidates will move further and further from the views held by the electorate and the principles of liberty and good government. Thus, in the real world, they will be more and more extreme.
This is to be expected, however. When free elections are ended under a one-party, state-controlled system, there is no need for candidates to respect the wishes of voters nor to support liberty or good government.
Under “top-two” therefore, we will see a maximization of corruption, loss of liberty, and expenditures, deficits and taxation at the highest possible levels. Only the “Top-two” party bosses, their families, favored special interest supporters, party hacks and lickspittles will benefit through grants, privileges and exemptions in government contracts, payoffs and positions and exemption from laws, rules and taxation.
“Top-two” is evil.
“Top-two” creates a one-party state as in the old USSR.
“Top-two” means that Democrats, Republicans, third parties and independents are ALL Excluded from the General Election ballot.
“Top-two” means that the only candidates allowed to appear in the General election are those chosen by the single, “Top-two” party.
Under “top-two” voters have no choice at all in the General Election – the most extreme of all possible outcomes.
It is time to Stop “top-two” and repeal it wherever it has been passed.
Romney wasn’t in a two way general race as Johnson recieved a record number of votes in Montana. If all those Romney voters had decided to also for for Rehberg and Hill, both would be in office today. That didn’t happen even though Romney and Paul’s pac gave their support to Rehberg. Montana voters want choices in the general election.
@6 Exactly. This is what supporters of the evil “top-two” system want. By eliminating free elections and creating a one-party state, with that party being the “Top-two” party, they can make sure that their person always wins.
Under “top-two” only the two candidates representing the “Top-two” party are allowed on the ballot. All others are excluded. So the favored, hand-picked errand boy of the “top-two” power elite will have no competition in the General Election except for the other errand boy, hand picked by the exact same “top-two” party bosses.
Other than the “top-two” Power elite plotting their new system of total control, and their paid shills, it’s amazing that anyone would be foolish, stupid or naive enough to support this evil system.
Romney had 268K, Obama 202K, Johnson 14K
In the senatorial race it was:
Tester 236K, Rehberg 218K, Cox 32K
So Tester received about 34K votes from voters who had voted for Romney. Take those 34K from Romney and Rehberg trails Tester. That some of the Romney voters switched to Cox is irrelevant.
In the gubernatorial race, the same thing happened. The Republicans lost because voters switched to the Democrat.
“Montana voters want choices in the general election.”
Montanans were making a collective choice. You are thinking like if you went to a restaurant, where most people ordered steak or chicken, you would still like to be able to order sprouts or tofu. But it is more like a family-style restaurant, where everyone votes for what they want, but only one entree is served.
Under Top 2, all the choices are put on a primary menu, and then the top 2 are put on the general menu. You are still free to convince steak-lovers to vote for tofu in the primary. But once the final choice is being made, then you can decide what is actually served.
#8, the analogy is flawed, because in the U.S. and most places in the world, people are free to establish their own restaurants, and there is free competition. A better analogy to top-two would be the government telling the citizens that they can only eat the two most popular kinds of food; the government then steps in to confiscate all the kinds of food that are not the two most popular dishes.
#9 You are confusing two issues. The family is making a collective choice where to eat. They will be eating out several times, and may choose different types of restaurants for different meals, but each meal they choose a single restaurant.
#10, voting is an individual right. My freedom to vote for a candidate who represents my values cannot legitimately be taken away just because the candidate I want to vote for is not one of the two most popular candidates in the race. A family may make a collective decision to do something together, but the right to vote is an individual right.
Riley is a collectivist. He doesn’t seem to believe in individual rights at all. That’s why he can support creating a one-party state as in the old USSR under “top-two.”
Who needs liberty, the right to vote for the candidate of your choice, or free elections if you’re willing to aggregate all political power into the single, state-controlled “Top-two” party and exclude all other parties and candidates?
#11 Elections of public officials are a collective action. Jerry Brown may not be “your” governor or even “your” choice for governor. But I doubt that you believe that he is not California’s governor.
You as an individual have a right to participate in the collective decision, but the state has a legitimate role in framing how the collective decision is made.
Compare this to your right of free speech. It is your individual right, including whether you join with other individuals in the expression of your views. The government doesn’t tell you that you can only speak on one Tuesday in November every two years, or that you have to go to a special place to speak, and that you may not publicly speak, or worse seal in an envelope and mail to a government office.
“I’d rather vote for what I want and not get it, than for what I don’t want and get it.” –Eugene V. Debs.
“Except I won’t let you” — Jim Riley.
#14 Richard Winger is free to vote for who he wants in the primary system favored by Jim Riley. Jim Riley is not free to vote for who he wants in the primary system favored by Richard Winger.