On February 20, California Assemblymember Gregg Hart (D-Santa Barbara) introduced AB 2681, a one-sentence bill that changes the punctuation in the part of the Election Code that deals with write-in voting, but does not actually change anything. This type of bill is referred to as a “spot bill.” The deadline for bills to be introduced was February 20. Frequently California legislators who are thinking of introducing a bill on a particular subject, but who haven’t made up their minds by the bill introduction deadline, introduce “spot bills.” It seems likely that Hart is thinking about introducing a bill to restore write-in space on general election ballots for top-two offices. Write-ins for those offices were eliminated in 2012 with AB 1413. Bringing them back would possibly be useful to Democratic chances for retaining the governorship, just in case two Republicans place first and second on June 2.
Spot bills must be amended by late March to include the actual substance of the proposed bill. AB 2681 will not be heard in the Assembly Elections Committee until after the real contents of the bill have been revealed in late March. Of course the bill cold be amended sooner than late March if the bill’s author desires.
This would be such an odd change. While I think the top-2 system is dumb (and voted against it at the time back when I lived in CA), I do at least support that it produces a majoritarian outcome. This change would make that system even less philosophically coherent.
Why?
The Democratic Party might want to make write-ins possible because there is a chance (less than half but not zero) that the Top Two first round in June will advance two Republicans to the November second round. Richard Winger has linked to several articles about this situation. The significance of the late March deadline to add real bill language is that it means Assemblymember Hart can’t want for the June primary results to decide whether to go ahead with the proposal.
Or, this could be a spot bill (placeholder) for something else entirely. But I doubt that.
* Why would the change “make the system even less philosophically consistent”? (In case the previous question was unclear)
Q, top-2 with a 2nd-round write-in option isn’t majoritarian, doesn’t winnow the field as progressively as RCV/IRV does, doesn’t even winnow at all (if the candidates want to proceed as write-ins to the 2nd round), doesn’t establish diversity in the later round (like party ballot lines generally do), and doesn’t provide proportional representation. What goal does it actually accomplish?
Top-two is philosophically incoherent regardless of whether write-ins are permitted in November. The press frequently refers to the California November election (for congress and partisan state office) as a “run-off.” The press is trying to make the system seem coherent, and they only way they can do that is by pretending that the November election is a “run-off.” But it is not a run-off. A run-off is defined as something that takes place when the election itself fails to produce a winner. But the June event (March in presidential years) is not an election because no one can be elected. Even if someone gets 100% of the vote in June, he or she is not elected. Federal law requires all states to hold congressional elections in all districts in November, so the top-two was written so that June is never used to “elect” anyone. All the June primary does is act as a severe ballot access barrier.
Furthermore it is an irrational ballot access barrier, because someone can get as much as 33% in June and still fail to qualify for the general election; or someone might advance with just one write-in vote in the primary, if there are only two candidates in June and one is a write-in. The public support needed to advance is wholly arbitrary and dependent on how many people are running.
AB 1413 (2012) did not implement a write-in ban for voter-nominated offices; it clarified language from SB 6 (2009) which was the original implementing language for the Top 2 Primary. SB 6 said that write-in votes should not be counted (i.e., a voter could write the name of a person on the ballot paper, but it would never be tabulated). AB 1413 just clarified that there could not be write-in candidates for voter-nominated offices.
AB 1413 also implemented SOS Debra Bowen’s malevolent interpretation of “party preference”. Under California Elections Code, party “qualification” is derivative of party preferences expressed by voters on their affidavit of voter registration. If sufficient numbers of voters had expressed a preference for a party, there would be a partisan primary to choose the party’s nominee for the general election. A party preference literally meant to affiliate with the party at the next primary (e.g., “I intent to vote in the Prohibition (or Natural Law, Reform, Socialist, Democratic, etc.) primary. It was always aspirational. The voter meant they would vote in the Prohibition, Natural Law, Reform, Socialist, Democratic, etc. primary if there was one.
Bowen inverted the meaning. A candidate who had professed a preference for a “qualified” party could have that preference appear on the ballot. A candidate who had professed a preference for a “qualified” party would say that they had “No Preference”. It would be like if there was a state religion, a person could only say they were Anglican or non-religious. Even if there were several “qualified” religions (e.g. Anglican, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Baptist, Methodist) they could not say they were Russian Orthodox, Lutheran, Buddhist. Muslim, Latter Day Saint, ad infinitum). Since a party preference is a personally-held belief, the Bowen interpretation effectively says a candidate may only express a belief in a state orthodoxy or more popular opinions,
Fundamentally, the purpose of the Top 2 primary was to extirpate the privilege of “qualified” parties to have a primary and make nominations. They were no longer qualified to do so because no party was or could be qualified.
A party is qualified to have a presidential nominee, to have state-funded party elections, and to have endorsements appear in the sample ballot (mailed to all voters). But that does not mean that they are qualified to have candidates express a preference for them.
@RW,
California holds elections for Superintendent of Public Instruction, county supervisor, city councils, etc., at the June (or March) election, and which a majority winner is elected. If there is no majority, the top two candidates advance to a runoff at the November election.
When the 1872 Reapportionment Bill established a uniform congressional election date, most elections were write-in (including by printed party ballots which a voter might freely edit; some elections were viva voce, but the 1872 bill outlawed that for congressional elections). The intent was that all States choose their representatives at the same date, in part to prevent voters moving from state to state, and to make it easier to federally monitor elections. It also makes sense for all representatives to be chosen at the same time (i.e., a general election in the British sense of the word).
Exclusionary partisan primaries effectively prevent the electorate of a state as a whole from choosing their representative as provided in the Constitution, and results in them being chosen at non-uniform dates throughout the country.
Note: “election” is defined in Section 308 of the California Elections Code.
California should adopt the French electoral system.
All voting is in person. Ballot papers are small sheets of paper (3 x 5). On one side there is the name of the candidate, black type on a white face. The other side is a monochrome presentation of the candidate, which might include a picture, slogans, party names, etc. These are chosen by the candidate, but printed by a government (or an official vendor). A voter may pick up several of these from stacks after they check in. They go to a voting booth, select one, place it in an envelope, and deposit the envelope in the ballot box.
After voting is completed, the ballot papers are sorted into stacks and counted in full view of observers.
If no candidate receives a majority a runoff is held a week later. More than two candidates may qualify for the runoff (the threshold is 15% of the whole electorate, rather than 15% of the votes cast, but that is a small implementation detail). The runoff is a week later. When there are more than two qualifiers for the runoff it is typical for some to withdraw. In the 2024 parliamentary election, initially there are 306 constituencies with a 3-way runoff, and 5 with a 4-way. After withdrawals there were 89 three-way and 2 four-way. The runoff is decided by plurality.
All voting in person: yes, and on election night, along with all counting. Preferably standing count, but recorded viva voce as a backup might be ok for now.
Preferably vote by party only, but so long as voting by candidate persists, runoff only if none gets a majority, immediately afterwards while the voters are still in the election hall (if standing count) or the following day after that first round if viva voce. Given the archaic custom of voting on Tuesdays (iirc, having to do primarily with horse and buggy travel times on unpaved roads), the following week rather than the following day.
@Stanley,
Elections should be on Saturday.
Practically no States held elections on Tuesday. Unfortunately, the most populous State at the time, New York, did and they imposed their will on Congress when the uniform appointment date for presidential electors was set in the 1840s. They copied the date in 1872 when the uniform election date was set for Congress. It has absolutely nothing to do with travel. It was simply a matter of New York custom – stupid is as stupid does.
Per
https://www.overseasvotefoundation.org/post/why-election-day-united-states-america-tuesday
(First search result):
“because the majority of Americans were farmers at the time the federal law was passed, Tuesday in November worked best with the planting season. Tuesday gave U.S. citizens enough time (one day each way) to travel to the polling stations and back. As for Sunday, it was impractical because the majority of Americans attended church; and Wednesdays were market days for farmers, which made things impractical. So, Tuesday was chosen.”
I agree that Saturday would be better, although those practicing Judaism and Adventism would disagree. Religious Jews might still then be able to vote if sundown occurs before the polls close, but Adventists would not.
Everything else remaining equal, this might cause a change in middle east policy, since Jews would likely face more impediments to voting than Muslims. Of course, that presumes that there would still be such a thing as mideast policy of the US government. Neither of those is a good idea, but having a US government middle east policy greatly compounds the problem of having a US government.
Because I’m having insomnia I looked up the next few search results. Woke pedo jokeapedia, history.com, and Encyclopedia Britannica all make that same claim. Of course they could all be wrong. Maybe Wednesday was only market day in New York?
I’m reasonably certain that the claims that Sunday was off limits for most Americans of the time is correct.
Horse and buggy travel on bad roads is certainly slow. But a full day in each direction to the nearest town seems like an exaggeration. I’d guess most farmers could get to their closest town to vote and back the same day even with the roads and transportation system of the late 18th and early 19th century. It’s more likely that, having spent several hours getting there, they wanted to spend several hours and likely a night in town before heading back.
If the Sunday / Wednesday thing is correct, Friday ought to have worked as well as Tuesday. Saturday was generally a work day for most people then. Indeed, Friday would have been even better, as both Sunday and Wednesday would have had a buffer day on each side.
Was Friday a common election day in states other than NY?
Correction: per the logic above, spent the night in town before voting, as well. If they had to be back in town on Wednesday for market, logically they should then have brought their crops and wares on the trip, voted on Tuesday, did their usual market thing on Wednesday, then headed back home.
Otherwise, Friday would have made more sense.
They probably used the same erroneous source(s)? It seems odd. The description is at odds with itself, even. If we’re imagining a two day stay in town, Thursday voting might be better, if market day was Wednesday. If they have to be two separate trips, it would have had to be on Friday, not Tuesday.
The current California system is schizophrenic and irrational no matter how you look at it.
That first article is baloney. As you know the US Constitution was adopted in an extra-constitutional process. The constitutional convention of 1787 was supposed to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation. Instead, they went and wrote a whole new document, bypassing the Continental Congress and the state legislatures. To get around this, they had George Washington who was presiding officer of the convention send a letter to the Continental Congress asking that they forward the document to the States such that they could call ratifying conventions (bypassing the legislatures), to oversee the ratification process, and the initial implementation. This let the Continental Congress be an active participant in what was arguably an overthrow of the existing government.
In particular, the Continental Congress had to set the time for appointing electors, the date the electors met, and the meeting date and place for Congress. In 1788 when the 9th State had ratified the Constitution, the Continental Congress began working on an implementation. Since Virginia and New York (two of the Big Four, including Massachusetts and Pennsylvania) had not ratified and Congress was meeting in New York City, it took them a while to get it together. They also had to choose the meeting place for Congress. The original proposal would have set the three key dates as first Wednesday in December, January, and February. By the time the final calendar had been set it had slipped to the first Wednesday in January, February, and March.
The first Wednesday in March 1789 was March 4th. Under the Constitution representatives serve two year terms. If their first term began on March 4, 1789, when would it end? March 4, 1791. Neither House of Congress had a quorum, and they could not conduct any business, including their penultimate duty of counting electoral votes and if necessary choosing the president from among the Top five finishers. George Washington did not take office until April 30, 1789, two months into his first term. Congress realized it would not do to not have a a president. Recall that Washington personally commanded the troops that suppressed the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.
So they made a pragmatic decision for the outgoing Congress to count the electoral votes and if necessary to choose a president. So they worked backwards from March 4, 1793. A newly elected president would have to travel to the capital, and it would take time to inform the person that they had been elected. Congress would probably be meeting in January since the Constitution requires them to meet by December (they are required to meet once per year. If they can’t decide on a date, December is the last chance to comply with the Constitution.). It takes some time to transmit the electoral votes to the capital. And it takes time for the electors to travel to the meeting place in their state. If the appointment of electors is based on the popular vote, the results of the popular votes in each locality had to be transmitted to the state capital to be accumulated.
The Constitution requires that Congress set a uniform ***date*** for the meeting of the electors in each state. It permits Congress to set the ***time*** that the electors are chosen (Article II, Section 1). Recall at that time, many electors were chosen by the legislature. You aren’t going to have Congress dictating when legislatures meet. This is why Congress can not set the place for the election of Senators. Under the Constitution, senators were elected by the legislature. If Congress could dictate where that election took place, they could effectively control where a legislature met.
The uniform date for electors meeting was set to be in early December. The electors were to be chosen in the prior month (if electors were chosen by the legislature in a tiny state like Delaware or Rhode Island, the appointed electors could make it to the meeting place in a very few days). While this schedule might be practicable because of an agrarian economy (e.g., the mud roads would be frozen in December, malaria and yellow fever tamped down, and hard winter not set in), it was not necessarily because of the agrarian economy.
Moving forward to 1844, by that time all States except South Carolina chose their electors by popular vote (though some had a contingency in case the electors had not received a majority vote). It was now practicable to have a single election ***date***. They chose a date a month earlier than elector meeting date, to allow time for the statewide accumulation of votes and travel to the meeting place. They chose Tuesday because that is what New York used (the odd construction First Tuesday after the First Monday is so there is always the same number of days between the popular election and the meeting date of the electors. If a popular election were held on Tuesday, November 1st, the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December would be December 19, 41 days after the popular election. Delaying the popular election until November 8, results in 34 days until the meeting days of electors.
Here are elector election dates in 1844.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.10637320
Monday 131 electors in 15 states.
Tuesday 71 electors in 6 states
Wednesday 4 electors in 1 state.
Thursday 11 electors in 1 state.
Friday 49 electors in 2 states.
Monday was much more common than Tuesday, but New York used Tuesday. The 1844 election was reasonably close (Polk 170, Clay 105) and the “popular vote” was quite close 49.54% to 48.09%. The later dates were more favorable to Clay, and the concern may have been more about elections being strung out over two weeks, rather than Monday vs. Tuesday. During the debate, there were concerns about “pipelining”, which was the practice of voters moving between states. With no voter registration people could just show up and vote. In a small town, strangers would be recognized. In a larger city, there would always be people coming and going, staying in a boarding house or hotel or with friends or relatives.
Note that South Carolina legislature chose its electors in December, when the legislature met under its Constitution. When the 1845 law was passed there was serious consideration given to making a carve out for South Carolina, or they would be forced to switch to popular elections or hold a special session of the legislature. Ultimately Congress decided to nullify South Carolina.
Dubin in ‘United States Presidential Elections 1788-1860’ on Page xvi gives similar dates for the 1840 election, but says that New York held elections over three days (Monday to Wednesday). A few other states held elections over two days: Michigan (Mon-Tues), Mississippi (Tues-Wed), and New Jersey (Tues-Wed). I assume that this meant that it was local option, perhaps to coincide with market day in a town rather than three days of voting, which poses major security concerns unless poll watchers stayed overnight with the ballot box. It is possible that Tuesday was simply the average day used in New York.
With widespread adoption of a five day work week, Saturday is the best day for elections, especially if voters are going to have to be standing around for hours while being counted.
I’ve seen a standing count in a room of a thousand done in about ten minutes quite a few times. There were several vote tellers working sections of the hall and each vote took less than a second, generally involving sitting down except for those unable to stand (raised hand for those in wheelchairs etc), simultaneously with calling out a number.
Viva Voce likewise can be done with multiple vote tellers.
I’m interested in why all the quick standard references have the same erroneous information. Have you often found that to be the case?
I happened to read through the debates in Congress with regard to election-related laws see ‘A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates 1774 to 1875’
https://www.loc.gov/collections/century-of-lawmaking/about-this-collection/
I did a little more looking at New York elections. They indeed have three-day elections. Historically, congressional elections in New York were held in April. See ‘United States Congressional Elections 1788-1997’ by Dubin. New York appears to have combined the election of state officials (e.g., governor and legislature) with congressional elections.
Until 1822, legislative terms ran from July 1 to June 30; but the legislature would meet from January to early April. The elections for the following session took place in late April (in a sense they might be considered a referendum on the just completed legislative session). New York had annual elections for the legislature until 1938. New York did not have popular elections for presidential electors until 1828. Before then, the legislature would hold a special session in November to choose the electors. The dates indicate a session of two weeks so they may have done some other housekeeping.
New York apparently held congressional elections in April because that would mean one less election, even though representatives chosen in April would not begin their term until March, 10 months later, and often would not meet until December, 19 months later.
In 1822, New York changed legislative terms to run from January 1 to December 31. The legislature continued to meet from January to April, early in the term. In 1822, the legislature passed legislation moving elections to November. The legislation (Act CCL (250), 1822) provided complete details of election procedure. Elections were indeed held over three days, beginning on the first Monday in November, and the two subsequent days (i.e, the first Tuesday after the first Monday, and the first Wednesday after the first Monday). Voting was from sunrise to sunset. When the election adjourned each day, poll books and other material would be placed in ballot boxes which were relocked, one inspector (New Yorkie for election judge or clerk) would place a seal over the slots in the ballot boxes, and the other inspectors would take them home for safekeeping overnight.
It was not until 1842 that New York switched to single day elections. Newspapers in 1844 warned that it was a “One Day Election”. While most Americans would say, “doh, we’ve always done it this way”, New Yorkers would exclaim “what an innovation!”, or mutter “they should never have changed!” (some 17% would respond both ways). Because the single date that was chosen the middle of three days. it is described as the First Tuesday after the First Monday in November. It is quite possible, even likely, that the current construct derived from that transition in New York.
Many state legislatures met in winter, often for very short sessions of a month or even a few weeks. For example, the Georgia legislature met in Louisville from November 2 to December 5, 1801. This was likely so farmer-legislators could attend sessions. There was less work on the farm during winter (feeding livestock and repairing equipment). A wife or son of 14 or so could probably secure the farm for a couple of weeks, you would not want to leave the pigs in charge.
@Stanley,
Were those meetings conducted according to Robert’s Rules?
Don’t they provide for a voice vote (presiding officer judges vote by volume); show of hands; standing vote, or record vote (by roll call); as well as secret ballots. If you want accountability, isn’t a record vote (roll call) better?
Yes, and I’m about as far from a Roberts rules expert as you can get. Way too complicated for me.
With modern recording technologies, a quick standing count can easily be made a recorded roll call vote with each participant identified by video while making the vote easier and faster.
“some 17% would respond both ways”
98% would say they love taking surveys.
@Stanley,
The 4th Provisional Congress of the Colony of New York convened on July 9, 1776, and declare independence from Great Britain. The body reconvened the next day as the Convention of Representatives of the State of New-York, and began work on a constitution which was approved by the convention on April 20, 1777. It thus predates not only the US Constitution but the Articles of Confederation.
This constitution provided for terms from July 1 to June 30 of the following year. Elections were held in late April over three days, beginning on Monday. I suspect this was chosen because it was the beginning of the week (other than Sunday) and had nothing to do with market days, which likely varied over the State. In colonial times it appears that elections were by record vote, with freeholders marking their votes in a poll book. This practice of multi-day elections may have been adopted from Great Britain in the royal colonies such as New York. At later elections, the ballots were counted on Thursday, so commencing elections on Monday may have been part of an effort to get them finished within the week.
In 1821 a new state constitution was adopted after a power contest between the governor and the legislature. It moved the terms from January 1 to December 31, with elections held in November ***commencing*** on a Monday. The switch to November elections appears to have been made to align the election calendar to match legislative sessions which ordinarily began in January. Under the pre-1821 calendar, elections were held after the legislative session, and eight months prior to beginning of the term. Under the post-1821 calendar, elections were held a couple of months prior to the legislature meeting.
Congressional elections were held coincident with the general election, presumably to avoid the expense of an additional election. Thus before 1822, representatives for New York were chosen in April, and from 1822 in November. Prior to adoption of the 20th Amendment, November elections for Congress were stupid. Until 1872, congressional elections were spread out over two years, held when convenient for each State.
Until 1828, presidential electors were chosen by the New York legislature, who would hold a special session in November every fourth year for that purpose. After the 1824 John Quincy Adams-Andrew Jackson election which was eventually decided by the House of Representatives, New York switched to popular election of presidential electors. Under the 1825 legislation, electors were chosen by congressional district. At the time, New York had some multi-member congressional districts, and those districts also chose multiple presidential electors. When the electors met, they would choose the two electors corresponding to the two senators.
In 1844, New York switched to one day elections. This appears to be part of a complete recodification of the election code. In addition to one day elections, provisions were made for electoral districts (New York term for voting precincts). Because of the reduced voting days, fewer voters could be accommodated at a voting place.
Based on newspaper accounts, the selection of Tuesday was a result of compromise. The initial legislation called for the one day to be Wednesday (after the first Monday). Ballots were counted on Thursday. There were concerns that voters from other States that voted on Monday might be pipelined in. So it was suggested that Monday be used. Monday was the day that elections commenced. But it was pointed out when November began on a Monday, that this would be too early relative to December 1. I am not sure where this constraint came from. The 1821 Constitution said that the 1822 election should commence on the first Monday in November, but provided that the legislature should set the date of subsequent elections to be in October or November.
It was then suggested that Tuesday be used, which was approved on a 36:30 vote.
Thank you. Still wondering where the error crept in all those top search results and standard references from.
@Stanley,
This is the earliest (2012) I could find. It would be helpful to listen to the story.
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/10/23/162484410/why-are-elections-on-tuesdays
The theme is that Tuesday is a bad day for elections, rather than why it was chosen. See the Britannica “article” where the subhead suggests blaming 19th Century Farmers. This appeals to certain urban elites who mainline on soylent green. Centralists also intentionally seek to suppress state and local governments.
There is a kernel of a truth to the story. State legislatures did meet in winter. Large scale gatherings in the summer in cities with non-existent sewage systems and no air conditioning was hazardous. It is not an accident that Washington, D.C. is referred to as a swamp. It literally was. Farmer-legislators could more easily go to the capital in winter when mud roads were frozen, and there was less work on the farm. The Massachusetts legislature would meet on Saturdays, so that legislators could get the session over and they could go home. Massachusetts had a very large House in part because towns could have as many representatives as they were willing to support in Boston. As rail transportation improved, Saturday was cancelled, and the week did not begin until afternoon Monday. Nowadays, daily commuting is likely feasible for all except in the Pioneer Valley and the Berkshires (maybe the Islands and Cape Code are out of range).
It is simply not true that elections were held in November or on Tuesday. Some were, but Monday and August or October were more likely. North Carolina and Tennessee usually used Thursday. Presidential appointments were clustered in early November because Congress had designated the first Wednesday in December as the meeting date for electors, and required appointment over the previous 34 days. If the legislature was making the appointment, they could choose a convenient date. Popular election of presidential electors often required statewide aggregation of votes, then summoning the electors, and finally travel to the meeting place. There would be an incentive to have elections earlier to influence later results (New Hampshire/Iowa syndrome). Some States had used multi-day elections and had seen problems with multiple voting or voters moving to another area, or simply efforts to bring out the vote or suppress. In New York it was claimed that the Federalists (representing the moneyed interests) would make it hard for the elderly or infirm to reach the polling place.
In 1844-45, it was likely that Tuesday was chosen because of central bloc of New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio had Tuesday elections (79 of 223 representatives). New York had only recently switched from three-day voting beginning with the first Monday in November. They chose Tuesday as the one day. Tuesday was the first Tuesday after the first Monday. They would not have used Tuesday, November 1, because that would have meant starting on Monday, October 31. In addition, Tuesday, November 1 was 36 days before the first Wednesday in December, outside the 34-day window set by Congress.
@Stanley,
I came across a recreation of voting in Colonial Williamsburg. The sheriff, candidates, and their clerks would be sitting behind the rail in a courtroom. The voter in breeches would approach the rail and announce his vote. The chosen candidate would rise, and thank the voter for their support. Doesn’t that sound better than massed mobs simultaneously milling about and treated as mere numbers to be counted?