The Institute of Governmental Studies, at U.C. Berkeley, publishes the California Journal of Politics & Policy. The latest issue, Volume 7, issue 1, 2015, has just been posted on-line and can be seen at this link. It contains six scholarly articles about California’s top-two system, and in addition contains commentary from eight individuals.
None of the scholarly studies mentions the impact of top-two on minor party and independent candidates. One of the commentaries, Darry Sragow’s “California’s Open Primary: Not an Open and Shut Case” does mention them, but merely asserts, “The open primary offers great promise for candidates who are something other than a Democrat or a Republican”, but Sragow provides no evidence. He suggests that the top-two system hasn’t helped minor party and independent candidates so far because they haven’t had enough money. He does not mention the fact that the independent candidate for Secretary of State in 2014, Dan Schnur, had significantly more campaign funds than the leading Republican in the race, Pete Peterson. Yet Peterson outpolled Schnur by 1,194,715 to 369,898. He also doesn’t mention the statistic that minor party candidates have run for federal and state office in a top-two system 118 times in which there were also two major party candidates running, and in all 118 instances, did not place first or second.
The commentary by Tony Quinn falsely asserts, “under the prior system, voters in a closed primary chose party nominees.” Actually, under the prior system, independent voters were told at the polling place that they were free to accept a Democratic or Republican primary ballot, in all congressional and state office primaries 2001-2010.
The commentary by Katie Merrill, “Is California’s Top Two Primary Bad for Women Candidates?” studies two particular races and makes the case that the answer is “yes”, but acknowledges that this is only an anecdotal approach.
The short commentary by Zabrae Valentine says that the top-two system might work better if the primary were in August instead of June.
Here is the Los Angeles Times story about the studies. The L.A. Times story reflects the fact that most of the scholarly articles (as opposed to most of the commentary) tends to suggest that top-two has not achieved beneficial results. Thanks to Blair Bobier for the link to the newspaper story.
“under the prior system, voters in a closed primary chose party nominees”
This is unequivocally true. Richard Winger appears to be saying that if a registered voter who was not affiliated with a party participating in the party-nominating primary, was permitted by party rule to “vote the ballot” (Elections Code 13102(c)) of a party, actually requests, accepts, and marks a ballot, and those marks are included in the canvass of votes, that the registered voter is not a “voter” nor that he participated in the nomination of party candidates.
How many expert math MORONS in CA ???
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 pack/crack totally rigged gerrymander districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL.
More and more NON votes due to NOT having 1 D and 1 R in each gerrymander district.
—
NO primaries.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Tony Quinn’s statement is unequivocally false. California did not have a closed primary 2001-2010. Tony Quinn knows that California did not have a closed primary 2001-2010. He and I debated on public radio in Sacramento in 2010, and I had the evidence in front of me in the studio. Yet he recently had a post in Fox & Hounds Daily again claiming California had a closed primary 2001-2010. Also he asserts it in his commentary for IGC’s journal. The harm he and others have done by spreading this untruth is considerable. The state court of appeals judges in Rubin v Padilla have been tricked into thinking it is true. They based their decision on this misinformation.
Top Two had contributed to more unity across partisan lines in 2014 because all the candidates may progress as one of the those top two whose names are placed into the ballot on the first Tuesday in November, by being two of three who reach the threshold of a three-way tie and which then must be broken by one vote.
Having tried to make coalitions across the party lines (and independents) in 2010 and 2014, I noticed a huge difference in the numbers of candidates interested in a unifying voting system among at-large state elections, between 2010 and 2014.
In 2010, virtually no Democratics or Republicans expressed interest in hearing more about unity from the United Coalition organizers.
But in 2014, a number of candidates were receptive to hearing about unity, among all parties and independents.
One of those candidates, Republican Ron Gold, won the primary and continued to keep in touch though the runoff after winning with 12.5% due to the “split vote problem” after he enjoined the third party Attorney General candidate Jonathan Jaech in several televised debates..
When candidates are speaking to each other, interested in unity and trying to reach out to more voters across party lines, that’s the exact situation we want in order to get things done collaboratively.
The opponents of Top Two proclaim that the Top Two system isn’t better than what we had previously, when no one candidate from the Ds and Rs had any interest in speaking across party lines.
No major party candidates and few minor party candidates ever expressed interest in unity in 2010 compared to 2014.
The anti-Top Two folks appear to be the same shrill antagonists who can’t envision any unity, conciliation, teamwork or cooperation in politics and who just want to fuss and fight over anything; including actually steps forward, in voting reform.
Top Two guarantees that no one candidate can win without a simple majority (50% plus one vote) and to fight Top Two appears that they are opposed to simple majority rule, they are lacking of any imagination, mathematical abilities and simply want to espouse vile and inflammatory rhetoric to all those seeking unity.
The voters are sick and tired of this antagonistic rhetoric and we appreciate small improvements in voting reform which generate unity, increase debate and joint appearances from all candidates including third parties and independents which and guarantee majority rule.
Before you criticize something you best understand what it is you’re trying to analyze. As Bob Dylan wrote in one of his songs; “Don’t criticize something you don’t understand.”
Clearly the opponents of Top Two never bothered with doing the math. Because Top Two is the best chance to break the two-party system I’ve ever seen in single-winner plurality elections since the three-way tie being broken in the primary can include any person who is trying to build allies and unity. All a candidate needs to do is to speak of unity and to attract 1/3rd of the votes (plus one vote) in a three-way race.
I contests with more than three candidates under Top Two, far fewer are needed to win the primary, as more candidates are in that same contest.
I recommend Top Two as a step forward in voting reform and I am angered by those who have only despicable words for such a minimal progress forward in voting reform.
Furthermore, the 29 candidates of the United Coalition, who were working together during the 2014 state primary and runoff elections i California, who were totally censored.
In articles about the election, the establishment press only gave ink to the conflicts and divisions caused by those candidates who never responded to my personal emails and phone calls about the United Coalition and who were obviously not interested in teamwork for the good of the whole.
The establishment press, the SF Chronicle and the Bay Area News Group writers like Carla Mariucci and Josh Richman, they only reported on the same old divisive rhetoric from candidates who weren’t trying to coordinate for unity.
But those who were working together and the United Coalition never received any ink. Their names appeared to be intentionally left out of the reporting and there was no reports of the unity by us in 2014 in joint appearances, votes on a Unity Platform and other announcements.
It’s the establishment media who should take the blame for the lack of excitement about the unity in 2014 and the appearance of no change due to Top Two.
Plus the party bosses who were so eager to spew their divisive rhetoric while giving unity a cold shoulder.
The establishment media was only reporting on the lawsuits and the fights being perpetuated by people who weren’t part of the United Coalition.
It was the 29 candidates for state and federal office who were listed as part of a United Coalition (against the grain of their own parties), those who expressed interest in a unifying voting system and those who agreed to have their names and email addresses listed as part of our team who were harmed by the lawsuits and actions over the past four years.
Were there voters in those events between 2001-2010? What did those voter choose?
In San Francisco, about half the independent voters would ask for a Democratic ballot and the other half would say they didn’t want any party’s primary ballot. Probably the latter voters felt unprepared to vote in a partisan primary.