This blog has mentioned the two state gubernatorial elections being held in November 2009, but it has not previously mentioned that the Northern Mariana Islands, a Commonwealth of the United States in the northern Pacific, also holds a gubernatorial election this year. The election is on Saturday, November 7. The term is 4 years. At the last gubernatorial election, in 2005, the nominee of the Covenant Party, Benigno Fitial, narrowly won a 4-candidate race. The 2005 results were: Covenant Party 28.1%, Independent candidate Heinz Hofschneider 27.3%, Republican nominee Juan Babauta 26.6%, Democratic nominee Froilan Tenorio 18.0%.

The Covenant Party incumbent is running for re-election. The Republican Party will choose its gubernatorial nominee in an open primary on June 27. The Democratic Party is not running anyone for Governor, but there will be at least one independent candidate.

The Covenant Party does not appear to have a webpage, but according to two webpages that have information about the party, D.C.’s Political Report and wikipedia, the party stands for populism, environmentalism and neoliberalism. The party won 4 seats in the House (out of 20 seats) in 2007, down from 7 seats in the 2005 election. Here is a newspaper story about the Covenant’s recent campaign rally on the island of Tinian, which featured a motorcade of over 300 vehicles.

The Covenant Party did not participate in the November 2008 election that elected the Commonwealth’s first non-voting Delegate to Congress. At that election, independent Gregorio Sablan defeated his Republican and Democratic opponents and five other independent candidates. Sablan is listed in the Congressional Directory as an independent, but he has joined the Democratic caucus.

The Northern Mariana Islands had 13,848 registered voters in 2008. In the 2005 gubernatorial race, a total of 13,517 votes were cast.

On June 19, the new government of Nova Scotia, controlled by the New Democratic Party, announced the new cabinet. See this story. The New Democratic Party won the Nova Scotia provincial elections on June 9 for the first time, defeating Canada’s two major parties, the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives.

Thomas D. Elias has this op-ed in favor of the “top-two” system in the June 17 issue of the Long Beach, California, Press-Telegram. The op-ed has several important factual errors.

The op-ed says the system is “just like special elections”, but in California, special legislative and U.S. House elections are not like “top-two”. The first round in California special elections is an election. An election is defined as an event that can elect someone. The first round in the California “top-two” proposal is never an election. No one can be elected in the first round under “top-two.” The first round is nothing but an exclusionary device to keep candidates off the general election ballot.

The op-ed says under current California law, “voters can only cast ballots (in the primary) for candidates in the party where they’re registered.” In reality, independent voters may vote in California Democratic primaries for all office, and in California Republican primaries for all office except President.

The op-ed says the California legislature is “loaded with ideologues”, but the op-ed doesn’t say who they are. Proponents of “top-two” constantly make this claim but they never have the nerve to list which legislators they mean.

The op-ed says Louisiana has been using “top-two” “for more than 50 years”. Louisiana started using its current system for state office (in which there are no party primaries) 34 years ago. Also the Louisiana system is not quite the same as “top-two” because in Louisiana, the first round is an election.

Elias ignores all evidence of how “top-two” worked in Washington state in 2008, the first time it had been used there. Only one incumbent state legislator (out of 124 seats that were up) was defeated in the primary, and the percentage of Washington state legislative seats that switched parties was lower than in California that same year. Also, Washington state’s first “top-two” primary, in 2008, had a lower voter turnout than in 2004, when Washington state used a classic open primary. “Top-two” proponents commonly assert that turnout increases under “top-two”, but ignore the actual evidence.