By Steven Hill and Roy Ulrich
Published April 7th 2004 in North County Times
California voters may be asked to vote again on our primary election
system in November. Voters created an open primary system but lost it
in 1996 after an unfavorable U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
State leaders, including Leon Panetta, Richard Riordan and Controller Steve Westly, are pushing a voter initiative suggested by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. It's political deform masked as reform.
The initiative would adopt a version of Louisiana's "top-two" primary which, like the blanket primary, allows voters to choose any candidate, regardless of party, in primary elections for state and federal office, except president. But there are important differences with the blanket primary that proponents are fudging.
Under the blanket primary, the highest vote-getters from each party compete in the November election ---- Democrats, Republicans and third-party candidates. But with the top-two primary, only the top two go to a runoff. And the top two can be from the same political party.
In Louisiana, the two finalists often are from the same party -- two Democrats in a liberal district, or two Republicans in a conservative one. Third-party candidates never appear on Louisiana's final ballot.
What impact will it have on California's already low turnout, to have even fewer choices in November, perhaps two from the same party? What impact will it have on California's third parties? In Louisiana, they have been wiped off the ballot.
This hardly seems a step forward.
Proponents say the measure will increase voter turnout and will help elect more moderates. Yet the system fails on both counts.
Louisiana often ranks near the bottom in voter turnout. In 2002, just over one-third of eligible voters showed up for congressional elections. That's not surprising, given that voters had so few choices on the final ballot.
California democracy took a hit when incumbents gerrymandered their own legislative districts to guarantee themselves safe seats. Adding the top-two primary will reinforce these one-party fiefdoms, increasing voter alienation.
That alone is reason enough to reject the top-two primary. And Louisiana shows this will not elect more moderates. Ex-Klansman David Duke made it into Louisiana's 1991 governor's runoff with 32 percent of the vote. His rabid supporters held together while moderate candidates split the rest of the vote, allowing Duke to make the runoff.
Louisiana columnist Bill Decker wrote, "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."
California has its polarizing candidates and demagoguery around issues of immigration and race. The top-two system has a record of exaggerating such divisions.
The top-two primary tends to elect members from the parties' extremes, and third parties and independent candidates are locked out. So the gain is minimal, while the loss is great. The desire to improve California's democracy is commendable, but any version of Louisiana's top-two primary is the wrong way to do it.
State leaders, including Leon Panetta, Richard Riordan and Controller Steve Westly, are pushing a voter initiative suggested by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. It's political deform masked as reform.
The initiative would adopt a version of Louisiana's "top-two" primary which, like the blanket primary, allows voters to choose any candidate, regardless of party, in primary elections for state and federal office, except president. But there are important differences with the blanket primary that proponents are fudging.
Under the blanket primary, the highest vote-getters from each party compete in the November election ---- Democrats, Republicans and third-party candidates. But with the top-two primary, only the top two go to a runoff. And the top two can be from the same political party.
In Louisiana, the two finalists often are from the same party -- two Democrats in a liberal district, or two Republicans in a conservative one. Third-party candidates never appear on Louisiana's final ballot.
What impact will it have on California's already low turnout, to have even fewer choices in November, perhaps two from the same party? What impact will it have on California's third parties? In Louisiana, they have been wiped off the ballot.
This hardly seems a step forward.
Proponents say the measure will increase voter turnout and will help elect more moderates. Yet the system fails on both counts.
Louisiana often ranks near the bottom in voter turnout. In 2002, just over one-third of eligible voters showed up for congressional elections. That's not surprising, given that voters had so few choices on the final ballot.
California democracy took a hit when incumbents gerrymandered their own legislative districts to guarantee themselves safe seats. Adding the top-two primary will reinforce these one-party fiefdoms, increasing voter alienation.
That alone is reason enough to reject the top-two primary. And Louisiana shows this will not elect more moderates. Ex-Klansman David Duke made it into Louisiana's 1991 governor's runoff with 32 percent of the vote. His rabid supporters held together while moderate candidates split the rest of the vote, allowing Duke to make the runoff.
Louisiana columnist Bill Decker wrote, "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."
California has its polarizing candidates and demagoguery around issues of immigration and race. The top-two system has a record of exaggerating such divisions.
The top-two primary tends to elect members from the parties' extremes, and third parties and independent candidates are locked out. So the gain is minimal, while the loss is great. The desire to improve California's democracy is commendable, but any version of Louisiana's top-two primary is the wrong way to do it.
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.