California to Eliminate Party Primaries?

[ZirconBlue]

In the primary round of "top two" voting, all candidates will be included in a single election open to all voters, regardless of party registration. Candidates have the option to declare a party preference or appear on the ballot with no affiliation.

The two candidates with the highest vote totals in the primary will then advance to the general election. Write-in votes will be ignored. The November ballot could thus feature two members of the same party as the only options.


Full Story here (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Media/california-votes-eliminate-party-based-primaries-presidential-races/story?id=10866764).

On one hand, these seems like this could keep one dominant part in power. On the other hand, it could maybe open the door for some third-party candidates.

Any thoughts?

[dudalb]

It is going to be interesting to see how this turns out.

[Brainster]

I fail to see how this is going to help third-party candidates. In fact, it's going to mean that they will only be on the ballot during the primary round and will not be listed in the general election.

[elbe]

It will be interesting to see how it works. I guess it could be possible it will force the candidates to fine tune their platforms to those of the district, allowing the voters a better choice from all candidates instead of just those in one party. Or it'll allow one party to dominate an election.

[dudalb]

Given how other voter approved changes to the poltical system in California have worked out, I am not optimistic. "Government by plebiscite" in California has proved to be a disaster.

[EvilSmurf]

Given how other voter approved changes to the poltical system in California have worked out, I am not optimistic. "Government by plebiscite" in California has proved to be a disaster.

Yeah...I hate Ballot Measures. We have them in Ohio too, and they pretty much define "Tyranny of the majority".

[Lisa Simpson]

I hated this proposition and I voted against it. Meh. I'm a Democrat living in a highly Republican district. My choices will be someone I hate or someone I hate more.

[quixotecoyote]

I hated this proposition and I voted against it. Meh. I'm a Democrat living in a highly Republican district. My choices will be someone I hate or someone I hate more.

As opposed to now, where it's someone you hate or someone that doesn't matter. ;)

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I've never really understood the popularity of this reform. How exactly is it supposed to -scratch that- what problem is it supposed to solve?

[Travis]

I've never really understood the popularity of this reform. How exactly is it supposed to -scratch that- what problem is it supposed to solve?

In conservative districts you'd get two conservative candidates. In liberal areas you'd have two liberal candidates. No more of this "one from each side" BS. :rolleyes:

[INRM]

Since I always assume if two things can happen, one good, one bad; the bad one will happen, I assume this is going to work out bad.

Shut third parties out of the election, perhaps end up with one party in the whole election is my assumption.

[Beerina]

Do not like.


Districts that swing heavily one way or the other can thus lock up the November vote by ensuring 2 from "their" party will win the primary.

Says another state did this already. Is there an analysis of the kinds of things that actually happen?

[Travis]

Do not like.


Districts that swing heavily one way or the other can thus lock up the November vote by ensuring 2 from "their" party will win the primary.

Says another state did this already. Is there an analysis of the kinds of things that actually happen?

Every analysis I've seen has shown pretty much that would happen. People supported this idea here thinking it would simply allow them to vote for someone from another party not knowing that party affiliation would be completely eliminated. Now that people are waking up to that they are lot less supportive.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Hi. I live in Washington. We have the top two primary. None of this happens.

[thaiboxerken]

This "might" make sense if they also limitted the funds that could be used in campaigns.

[ZirconBlue]

Hi. I live in Washington. We have the top two primary. None of this happens.

Can you elaborate? There seem to be a lot of theories about the likely outcome, but I'm curious how it's been demonstrated to work elsewhere.

[Beerina]

So one guy says it doesn't actually happen. Another says multiple analyses show it does indeed happen. Need clarification. :)

[ZirconBlue]

So one guy says it doesn't actually happen. Another says multiple analyses show it does indeed happen. Need clarification. :)

Nope. Rika's statement was vague as to exactly the effect was in Washington, so I asked for more details. I don't have an opinion, yet. That's why I started this thread.

[Brainster]

I can understand the theory behind this. Say you have a district that is largely (but not overwhelmingly) liberal, where the Democrat is virtually guaranteed election every outing. Then the Democratic primary effectively becomes the election, and in the primary the most liberal candidate has a decided advantage. With this scheme in place, the two top vote-getters would probably both be Democrats, and the more moderate Democrat might have an advantage in the rematch, with the district's conservatives now rallying around him as the lesser of two evils. Meanwhile, in a blue-blood area, a similar thing is happening with two conservative candidates, resulting in the more moderate Republican being elected. So the net result is a less polarized legislature.

Not sure it will work. But it does make some sense.

[geni]

Sounds somewhat like the french system (although there you can't just declair for a party the party has to select you). Suffers badly from the cloneing problem which resulted in Jean-Marie Le Pen geting to the final runnoff.

[Retrograde]

I can understand the theory behind this. Say you have a district that is largely (but not overwhelmingly) liberal, where the Democrat is virtually guaranteed election every outing. Then the Democratic primary effectively becomes the election, and in the primary the most liberal candidate has a decided advantage. With this scheme in place, the two top vote-getters would probably both be Democrats, and the more moderate Democrat might have an advantage in the rematch, with the district's conservatives now rallying around him as the lesser of two evils. Meanwhile, in a blue-blood area, a similar thing is happening with two conservative candidates, resulting in the more moderate Republican being elected. So the net result is a less polarized legislature.

I think that was the theory behind the initiative. Our legislative districts are so gerrymandered that they're essentially "safe" - individuals may come and go but the parties don't change. I'd love to see this initiative give my district some actual choice in the congressional race: the Democratic incumbent ran unchallenged in the primary, as usual; the Republican primary selected a loon, as usual. If we can get some middle-of-the-road Republicans running for a change I'll be happy.

[ZirconBlue]

I can understand the theory behind this. Say you have a district that is largely (but not overwhelmingly) liberal, where the Democrat is virtually guaranteed election every outing. Then the Democratic primary effectively becomes the election, and in the primary the most liberal candidate has a decided advantage. With this scheme in place, the two top vote-getters would probably both be Democrats, and the more moderate Democrat might have an advantage in the rematch, with the district's conservatives now rallying around him as the lesser of two evils. Meanwhile, in a blue-blood area, a similar thing is happening with two conservative candidates, resulting in the more moderate Republican being elected. So the net result is a less polarized legislature.

Not sure it will work. But it does make some sense.

It the plan actually did result in more moderates - on both sides of the aisle - getting elected, I'd count that as a positive.

[KoihimeNakamura]

The 2008 elections:
http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/Results.aspx?ElectionID=25&JurisdictionTypeID=3&ViewMode=All

It's pretty evenly split. I will note just from a quick glance it DOES lead to vote splitting though. Interesting. (Also, on a side note, there is this editorial today:

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/06/15/1227160/election-process-might-be-turning.html

It has a more interesting take on it, one that I admit I hadn't really thought of til now.)

[ZirconBlue]

The 2008 elections:
http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/Results.aspx?ElectionID=25&JurisdictionTypeID=3&ViewMode=All

It's pretty evenly split.

Yeah. It looks like most races ended up with 1 Republican and 1 Democrat, even if there were 2 or 3 running from the same party.

I take it that the candidates can write in whatever they want for their party preference? (I'm assuming that "Cut Taxes G.O.P. Party" isn't an actual political party.)

[KoihimeNakamura]

Yeah. Although, to be fair, this year will probably be a better test as there a lot of candidates for one race..

[Beerina]

No politician does anything for the reason they say -- it's always some other reason. And others oppose it for that other reason, too.

For example, extending voting rights to 18 year olds was resisted by Republicans because they felt it was just a way to get a bunch of young liberals to vote Democrat. It turned out exactly the opposite, but that wasn't the point.

They weren't for the 18 year old vote because "well, if they are old enough to go off to war, they're old enough to vote for the politicians sending them there", which is a perfectly valid reason.



So what's the real reason here? Which side thinks they're going to benefit from this?

[geni]

So what's the real reason here? Which side thinks they're going to benefit from this?

Most likely neither (classicaly the left would suffer more from the cloning problem than the right). However those who wish to bribe provide campain contributions to politicians would have them more over a barrel than ever.