The so-called "open primary": questionable "solution" to a real problem
Backers of the top two system argue that it will include more voters in securing who gets to to reach the general election. Right now, turnout in those primary elections can be extremely low, and independents are often kept out of voting at all. The result can be general election candidates who don't fully represent the electorate, allegedly contributing to polarizing partisans running legislatures.
But the top two system seeks to address this problem at the expense of party association rights (political parties typically lose the right to control who uses their name and how), voter choice in in higher turnout elections in November (if passed, Californians would only have at most two candidates to consider for each office in the final six months of their campaigns) and quirky distortions (if one party has four candidates run in the primary and the other party only two, the party with two might secure both general election positions). And, at the end of the day, representation is likely to look very similar. It's hard to imagine Democrats losing control of the California legislature very soon nor its caucus being much different in its composition as long as it;s elected in winner-take-all, single-member districts.
One of the longest experiences with the top two system at at state level is in Nebraska (for state legislative races, which are nonpartisan in its unicameral legislature) and Louisiana. We wrote about the Louisiana system in a 2004 analysis showcasing its troubling outcomes. (Note that Louisiana changed its top two system for congressional elections before the 2008 elections to a traditional primary, so the state's most surprising recent election result - the victory of Republican Joseph Cao in New Orleans last December -- was under a closed primary system, not the top two.)
As to Louisiana under the top two, its Members of Congress (and such governors as Mike Foster, who served two terms from 1995-2003) were not known as being particularly centrist. Consider the National Journal's ratings for Members of Congress in its 2004 almanac based on congressional votes in 2001-2002. These ratings of Members are based on what percentile of Congress their voting record on economic, social and foreign policy issues places them. For example, a rating of 4% liberal mean that only 4% of Members of Congress are more conservative than that Member. Here are the ratings for the state's US House Members:
- Vitter (R), district 1, who beat a more moderate Republican in a 1999 runoff in David Duke's congressional district (and in 2006 was elected U.S. Senator in the top two system)
* 2001 - Economic - 0% liberal - Social - 0% liberal - Foreign - 14% liberal
* 2002 - 0% in each area
- Jefferson (D), in district 2, long-time African American representative (who in 2008 lost due to corruption charges)
* 2001 - Economic - 68% liberal - Social - 79% liberal - Foreign - 83% liberal
* 2002 - Economic - 62% liberal - Social - 66% liberal - Foreign - 69% liberal
- Tauzin (R), in district 3, long-time representative who changed parties in the 1990s
* 2001 - Economic - 15% liberal - Social - 20% liberal - Foreign - 21% liberal
* 2002 - Economic - 0% liberal - Social - 0% liberal - Foreign - 15% liberal
- McCrery (R), in district 4, long-time representative
* 2001 - Economic - 13% liberal - Social - 38% liberal - Foreign - 4% liberal
* 2002 - Economic - 28% liberal - Social - 25% liberal - Foreign - 0% liberal
- Alexander (D), in district 5, and won open seat in 2002 so no voting record -- note that Alexander ultimately switched parties after running as a conservative in a very conservative district
- Baker (R), in district 6, long-time representative
* 2001 - Economic - 7% liberal - Social - 20% liberal - Foreign - 4% liberal
* 2002 - Economic - 19% liberal - Social - 0% liberal - Foreign - 0% liberal
- John (D), in district 7, moderate who is the only Member to "fit the profile" sought by advocates of the top two system. John was first elected in 1996 in a runoff against another Democrat (in an 8-person race where his leading Republican challenger finished 8 votes out of being 2nd)
* 2001 - Economic - 52% liberal - Social - 38% liberal - Foreign - 49% liberal
* 2002 - Economic - 53% liberal - Social - 48% liberal - Foreign - 52% liberal
The bottom line for FairVote is that if you really want to fully represent the spectrum, including centrist positions, you should do so with systems of proportional representation. That empowers voters wherever they live to elect candidates of choice. More on this point to follow!
Comments currently closed for The so-called "open primary": questionable "solution" to a real problem
-
Posted by FairVote.blog » Blog Archive » FairVote chair Krist Novoselic makes key point about rights of association in short-term candidacy, 2009-06-17 09:19:59 (4 years ago)
-
Hi Rob, I'd say that "moderate" is a relative term... and that LA's democracy is riddled w. problems of race and poverty that tend to corrupt its democracy anyways, so I'd be loathe to base my entire judgment of "top two" primary on the LA experience. To get a sense of if T2 has a moderating influence, you'd need data like that found in WA where one can observe a before and after effect on diff measures of "moderateness". And I think there also is a matter of learning by doing, and so I also would want to give WA the chance to have another election before casting full judgment. Methinks groups will catch on to the need to increase turnout in open primaries. Hopefully, they'll also look into giving primary voters the right to approve of two candidates and maybe finding ways to restrict the no. of candidates to make the costs of shopping around lower. But w. LA, I'd say average the percentages and compare them w. other southern states with similar demographics... That would maybe give us a sense of the impact of T2 in LA. I'd also mention that it's not a winner-takes-all contest between the different election systems... Different types of elections may warrant different types of elections. I'd say a "top two" primary for state senate cd be paired easily w. the use of pr in the sate assembly. I suggested such to a cousin of mine who's going to be working for a prominent Republican candidate for gov'r in 2010. The MNGOP are fearful about redistricting after the Census and so they have a stronger incentive to push pr than the MNDFL. But, on the other hand, they're not going to even the playing-field for third parties that much, so one way to keep the system rigged to favor two parties is to push for both "top two" primary and pr to be implemented at the same time. dlw
Posted by dlw, 2009-06-15 20:07:47 (4 years ago) -
Ted -- New York City's experience with the choice voting form of proportional representation in fact was very strong. It just ran into serious opposition from the old Tammany Hall Democrats who liked winner-take-all because they could bette dominate the city council. See: http://www.fairvote.org/rcv/brochures/NYC_History_of_Choice_Voting.pdf Cambridge has competitive elections __every__ time. Check it out. With nine seats elected at large, and candidates able to win with 10% of the vote, no seat is safe unless you earn it. Note that this is different than instant runoff voting, which requires candidates both to have substantial first choice support and the ability to earn 50% of the vote. Nader would have won in 2000 if he had managed to have more first choice support than Gore or Bush and then picked up the second choice support you describe. But in that case, he should win, right, rather than having someone win who a majority strongly opposes?
Posted by Rob Richie, 2009-02-21 08:23:02 (4 years ago) -
The IRV leads to crazy candidates winning which is why they dropped it in New York City in the 1930's. As an example that is not an exact fit, but makes it understandable, a Ralph Nader could have been elected President in 2000 by being the second choice of both Gore and Bush votes. In local races that would happen way too often as it has in most cities where this system has been tried. I know Cambridge Mass is an exception, but when was the last time they had a truly competitive election. That city is controlled by an elite that has run it for decades.
Posted by Ted Lawrence, 2009-02-20 21:11:33 (4 years ago)
[...] I argued in a post earlier this year, Washington’s top two system as current constructed is particularly problematic in how it narrows the field? to two for every seat nearly three months before the general election [...]