By Steven Hill
Published October 27th 2004 in Progressive Trail
This November 2, voters in California and the state of Washington will
weigh in on their states' primary election system. Both Proposition 62
in California, sugar-coated with the name "Voter Choice Open Primary
Initiative," and Initiative 872 in Washington???the so-called "People's
Choice" initiative???will result in a harmful change to each state's
political system and a big loss for voters.
These ballot measures would transform their states' political primary systems into a system practiced by only one other state???Louisiana. Think about that for a second???Louisiana. Not exactly a place known for its clean elections or its moderate politics.
The popular "blanket" primary previously used in both California and Washington was lost due to an unfavorable U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Contrary to common perception and news misreports, the Supreme Court actually did not declare the blanket primary unconstitutional. The Court ruled that you cannot force political parties to use it, since parties have "freedom of association" rights allowing them to decide whether they want voters from the opposition's political party to help pick their party's nominee. After that legal setback, proponents began pushing Louisiana's primary method suggested by, oddly enough, the most conservative Supreme Court justice, Antonin Scalia, in the Court's opinion. Proponents say that this is a more legal version of the previous blanket primary, but that's just campaign hype.
Here's the crucial difference: Under California and Washington's earlier blanket primary, the nominees from all political parties competed against each other in a single primary free-for-all reminiscent of California's gubernatorial recall election. Then the highest vote-getter for each political party advanced as their party's nominee to the November election???Democrats, Republicans and third-party candidates. Voters had a range of partisan choices in the November election.
In contrast, under Proposition 62 and Initiative 872, only the top two vote-getters in the primary will be eligible to appear on the November ballot. And here's the catch: The top two could be from the same political party!
In a liberal district, that means the top two candidates probably will be two Democrats. In a conservative district, the top two probably will be two Republicans. And third-party candidates never will appear on the November ballot, becoming an extinct species in California and Washington, which have had fairly active third party movements.
In a recent op-ed published in The New York Times , Washington's Secretary of State Sam Reed and former Secretary of State from Oregon Phil Keisling (who wants to bring the top-two primary to his state) reported with satisfaction that the ballot measures "would eliminate spoiler candidates"???read: third party candidates. Reed is a Republican, and Keisling a Democrat, and they apparently don't mind advancing and cementing into place the two-party system by wiping out third-party and independent candidates.
But it's important to remember that it has been minor parties on the left and right in this country that have brought to the mainstream ideas ranging from Social Security, women's rights and abolition of slavery to limited government and budget deficit reduction. On the American political landscape, third parties have functioned as the laboratories for new ideas, and their loss will be everyone's loss.
Limiting Voter Choice
Rather than provide "voter choice" or the "people's choice," these two propositions actually will reduce voter choice in the decisive November election, when most voters are paying attention. If California's Proposition 62 had been in effect since 2000, more than 350 candidates would have been barred from appearing on the November ballot. Those candidates garnered more than 8.2 million votes. These are votes that would be eliminated by Proposition 62. Washington will see similar impacts resulting from Initiative 872. That doesn't sound very "open."
But that's not all. The major reasons cited by proponents for pushing the top-two primary are threefold:
*It will increase voter turnout
*It will elect more moderates
*It will solve the problem of gerrymandered legislative districts
Yet the top-two primary fails on all counts. Louisiana often ranks near the bottom in voter turnout. In 2002, just over a third of eligible voters showed up at the polls to cast votes in that state's congressional elections. That's not surprising, given that voters have so few choices on the final ballot.
And these ballot measures do absolutely nothing about the problem of redistricting. If proponents were serious about that very real crisis in American democracy caused by partisan gerrymandered districts, they would promote independent redistricting commissions that use nonpolitical criteria to enhance competition, like Iowa and Arizona have done. Or, even better, states would adopt forms of proportional representation, which get rid of the need for redistricting and the backroom deals that accompany it. Proponents' attempts to piggyback on this issue is nothing more than campaign trickery. One would have expected better from a current and former secretary of state.
The Myth Of Moderation
Louisiana's experience also negates the assertion that Proposition 62 will elect more moderates, especially in competitive statewide races. Really, did you ever think you would hear the words 'Louisiana' and 'moderate' in the same sentence?
Ex-Klansman David Duke made it into Louisiana's 1991 governor's runoff with only 32 percent of the vote. His core of rabid supporters held together while moderate candidates split the rest of the vote, allowing Duke to make the final election with a low percentage.
His opponent with 37 percent, Democrat Edwin Edwards, had been twice indicted and eventually was convicted for bribery and fraud. One infamous bumper sticker read "Vote the Crook, not the Klan."
Moderate? In Louisiana's 1995 gubernatorial primary, candidates from the political middle again split the moderate vote and were eliminated. The top two candidates included a right-wing state senator supported by David Duke with 26 percent of the vote, and a second candidate with a mere 19 percent. The right-winger won the final election and the governor's office.
As Louisiana columnist Bill Decker has written, "The fact is that Louisiana's primary system isn't a good test of the state's mood and intentions. The multi-candidate primary is about who can attract 20 percent to 30 percent of the vote on one day."
While California may not have to worry about ex-Klansmen candidates, it has had its own version of polarizing candidates and demagoguery around issues of immigration and race. Washington has right-wingers making gains in state and local politics, including a Christian conservative winning the Republican primary for governor under the old blanket primary system. The "top-two" system has a track record of exaggerating these kinds of divisions. Proponents have never explained why they believe Washington and California should fare differently than Louisiana. In fact, they don't want to talk about Louisiana at all.
Reed and Keisling hope that lopsided partisan legislative districts might elect slightly more moderate winners since Republicans in a Democratic district can vote for the more moderate of the final two Democratic candidates, and vice versa in a Republican district. In short, they want to give opposition voters sort of a veto over the major party winners. If successful, such an outcome in Democratic districts could result in a decline in racial minorities being elected, and the legislatures being less diverse.
But in reality this outcome is highly unlikely, since most districts have been grotesquely gerrymandered to elect partisans by huge landslide margins. Real redistricting reform is urgently needed, especially in California, but the top-two primary does nothing to advance a real solution. In fact, most of the current group of legislators in California and Washington???which Reed, Keisling and other proponents find so immoderate???all were elected originally under the blanket primary system before it was lost. Hello? This is political deception and chicanery at its worst.
Another facet, in California, at least, is that Proposition 62 has been backed mostly by wealthy politicians like Richard Riordan and state controller Steve Westly. They opened their Rolodexes and the real estate, financial and insurance industries responded to their calls, ponying up millions of dollars. Westly, who made millions at EBay before he ran for controller, has gubernatorial ambitions. He and his wealthy friends figure he has a better chance to buy himself a governorship after Arnold Schwarzenegger exits the stage if this initiative passes. And he has stated publicly that he likes the idea of knocking third parties off the November ballot who might spoil his run. Naked ambition, pure and simple.
No question, representative democracy in California, Washington???indeed, all across America???needs major resuscitation. But this attempt at a quick fix is the wrong way to do it. There's nothing "open" about any version of Louisiana's top-two primary. This is political deform masked as reform.
These ballot measures would transform their states' political primary systems into a system practiced by only one other state???Louisiana. Think about that for a second???Louisiana. Not exactly a place known for its clean elections or its moderate politics.
The popular "blanket" primary previously used in both California and Washington was lost due to an unfavorable U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Contrary to common perception and news misreports, the Supreme Court actually did not declare the blanket primary unconstitutional. The Court ruled that you cannot force political parties to use it, since parties have "freedom of association" rights allowing them to decide whether they want voters from the opposition's political party to help pick their party's nominee. After that legal setback, proponents began pushing Louisiana's primary method suggested by, oddly enough, the most conservative Supreme Court justice, Antonin Scalia, in the Court's opinion. Proponents say that this is a more legal version of the previous blanket primary, but that's just campaign hype.
Here's the crucial difference: Under California and Washington's earlier blanket primary, the nominees from all political parties competed against each other in a single primary free-for-all reminiscent of California's gubernatorial recall election. Then the highest vote-getter for each political party advanced as their party's nominee to the November election???Democrats, Republicans and third-party candidates. Voters had a range of partisan choices in the November election.
In contrast, under Proposition 62 and Initiative 872, only the top two vote-getters in the primary will be eligible to appear on the November ballot. And here's the catch: The top two could be from the same political party!
In a liberal district, that means the top two candidates probably will be two Democrats. In a conservative district, the top two probably will be two Republicans. And third-party candidates never will appear on the November ballot, becoming an extinct species in California and Washington, which have had fairly active third party movements.
In a recent op-ed published in The New York Times , Washington's Secretary of State Sam Reed and former Secretary of State from Oregon Phil Keisling (who wants to bring the top-two primary to his state) reported with satisfaction that the ballot measures "would eliminate spoiler candidates"???read: third party candidates. Reed is a Republican, and Keisling a Democrat, and they apparently don't mind advancing and cementing into place the two-party system by wiping out third-party and independent candidates.
But it's important to remember that it has been minor parties on the left and right in this country that have brought to the mainstream ideas ranging from Social Security, women's rights and abolition of slavery to limited government and budget deficit reduction. On the American political landscape, third parties have functioned as the laboratories for new ideas, and their loss will be everyone's loss.
Limiting Voter Choice
Rather than provide "voter choice" or the "people's choice," these two propositions actually will reduce voter choice in the decisive November election, when most voters are paying attention. If California's Proposition 62 had been in effect since 2000, more than 350 candidates would have been barred from appearing on the November ballot. Those candidates garnered more than 8.2 million votes. These are votes that would be eliminated by Proposition 62. Washington will see similar impacts resulting from Initiative 872. That doesn't sound very "open."
But that's not all. The major reasons cited by proponents for pushing the top-two primary are threefold:
*It will increase voter turnout
*It will elect more moderates
*It will solve the problem of gerrymandered legislative districts
Yet the top-two primary fails on all counts. Louisiana often ranks near the bottom in voter turnout. In 2002, just over a third of eligible voters showed up at the polls to cast votes in that state's congressional elections. That's not surprising, given that voters have so few choices on the final ballot.
And these ballot measures do absolutely nothing about the problem of redistricting. If proponents were serious about that very real crisis in American democracy caused by partisan gerrymandered districts, they would promote independent redistricting commissions that use nonpolitical criteria to enhance competition, like Iowa and Arizona have done. Or, even better, states would adopt forms of proportional representation, which get rid of the need for redistricting and the backroom deals that accompany it. Proponents' attempts to piggyback on this issue is nothing more than campaign trickery. One would have expected better from a current and former secretary of state.
The Myth Of Moderation
Louisiana's experience also negates the assertion that Proposition 62 will elect more moderates, especially in competitive statewide races. Really, did you ever think you would hear the words 'Louisiana' and 'moderate' in the same sentence?
Ex-Klansman David Duke made it into Louisiana's 1991 governor's runoff with only 32 percent of the vote. His core of rabid supporters held together while moderate candidates split the rest of the vote, allowing Duke to make the final election with a low percentage.
His opponent with 37 percent, Democrat Edwin Edwards, had been twice indicted and eventually was convicted for bribery and fraud. One infamous bumper sticker read "Vote the Crook, not the Klan."
Moderate? In Louisiana's 1995 gubernatorial primary, candidates from the political middle again split the moderate vote and were eliminated. The top two candidates included a right-wing state senator supported by David Duke with 26 percent of the vote, and a second candidate with a mere 19 percent. The right-winger won the final election and the governor's office.
As Louisiana columnist Bill Decker has written, "The fact is that Louisiana's primary system isn't a good test of the state's mood and intentions. The multi-candidate primary is about who can attract 20 percent to 30 percent of the vote on one day."
While California may not have to worry about ex-Klansmen candidates, it has had its own version of polarizing candidates and demagoguery around issues of immigration and race. Washington has right-wingers making gains in state and local politics, including a Christian conservative winning the Republican primary for governor under the old blanket primary system. The "top-two" system has a track record of exaggerating these kinds of divisions. Proponents have never explained why they believe Washington and California should fare differently than Louisiana. In fact, they don't want to talk about Louisiana at all.
Reed and Keisling hope that lopsided partisan legislative districts might elect slightly more moderate winners since Republicans in a Democratic district can vote for the more moderate of the final two Democratic candidates, and vice versa in a Republican district. In short, they want to give opposition voters sort of a veto over the major party winners. If successful, such an outcome in Democratic districts could result in a decline in racial minorities being elected, and the legislatures being less diverse.
But in reality this outcome is highly unlikely, since most districts have been grotesquely gerrymandered to elect partisans by huge landslide margins. Real redistricting reform is urgently needed, especially in California, but the top-two primary does nothing to advance a real solution. In fact, most of the current group of legislators in California and Washington???which Reed, Keisling and other proponents find so immoderate???all were elected originally under the blanket primary system before it was lost. Hello? This is political deception and chicanery at its worst.
Another facet, in California, at least, is that Proposition 62 has been backed mostly by wealthy politicians like Richard Riordan and state controller Steve Westly. They opened their Rolodexes and the real estate, financial and insurance industries responded to their calls, ponying up millions of dollars. Westly, who made millions at EBay before he ran for controller, has gubernatorial ambitions. He and his wealthy friends figure he has a better chance to buy himself a governorship after Arnold Schwarzenegger exits the stage if this initiative passes. And he has stated publicly that he likes the idea of knocking third parties off the November ballot who might spoil his run. Naked ambition, pure and simple.
No question, representative democracy in California, Washington???indeed, all across America???needs major resuscitation. But this attempt at a quick fix is the wrong way to do it. There's nothing "open" about any version of Louisiana's top-two primary. This is political deform masked as reform.
Election Day '09 was a roller-coaster for election reformers. Instant runoff voting had a great night in Minnesota, where St. Paul voters chose to implement IRV for its city elections, and Minneapolis voters used IRV for the first time—with local media touting it as a big success. As the Star-Tribune noted in endorsing IRV for St. Paul, Tuesday’s elections give the Twin Cities a chance to show the whole state of Minnesota the benefits of adopting IRV. There were disappointments in Lowell and Pierce County too, but high-profile multi-candidate races in New Jersey and New York keep policymakers focused on ways to reform elections; the Baltimore Sun and Miami Herald were among many newspapers publishing commentary from FairVote board member and former presidential candidate John Anderson on how IRV can mitigate the problems of plurality elections.