California Created Single-Party General Elections And Now They're More Competitive Than Ever.

Talking "Top Two" primaries with IndependentVoice.org's Jason Olson

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

California Created Single-Party General Elections And Now They're More Competitive Than Ever.

HD Video Download

"Those old elections, where you had a Republican who's always going to win because a Republican district versus a sacrificial lamb Democrat, you might feel a little better for five seconds as you check the box for 'sacrificial lamb Democrat. But you didn't really have any power," says Jason Olson, director of IndependentVoice.org and co-author of the a new study on California's "Top Two" primary system

Top Two went into effect in 2012 after voters passed a ballot initiative approving the changes to the state's primary system. Now, primaries are "open," meaning that anyone can vote for any candidate regardless of party affiliation, and the top two vote-getters compete in the general election. As a result, California voters have often found themselves facing a choice between two Democrats or two Republicans in the general election.

Olson argues that this outcome has actually forced more competitiveness into the system, as candidates now must work harder to appeal to voters outside their core constituency in the general election. His study found that in terms of both margin of victory and incumbency turnover, California went from one of the least competitive to one of the most since the enactment of Top Two.

Olson talked with Reason TV's Zach Weissmueller about the pros and cons of Top Two, its potential effects on third-party voters, independents and libertarians, and gave examples of how the system has shaken up otherwise predictable races across California.

Approximately 10 minutes. Shot by Paul Detrick. Produced by Zach Weissmueller.

Scroll down for downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for daily content like this.

Comments

[Rohdewarrior]

This isn't exactly on topic, but certainly related --
Can anyone explain to me how we ended up with a two-party system in the U.S.? Why do the Democratic and Republican party get to make up as many rules as they do, have elections paid for by the taxpayers, etc.?
I don't believe there is anything in the Constitution or other "founding documents" that set forth two parties. In fact, I thought the Federalist Papers actually warned against this kind of thing.
Maybe someone should file an anti-trust suit?

[Chocolate Starfish ( . )]

It's not a system. As to why... FYTW!
🙂

[ace_m82]

When government gets involved in anything, it becomes an oligopoly or monopoly. Which one our current 2 party system is right now is up to the definition of the observer...

As to why there are two parties now, there were once 2 major parties and they decided they liked that better than having to compete, so they wrote laws that make it really hard to compete as another party.

Also, people are tribalists and they like "winning".

[DRM]

It's the expected outcome under game theory for a single-vote plurality winner-take-all system. As long as we decide the winners of Presidential elections the way we do, a two-party system is what we'll have.

[Robert]

Not just presidential elections, but elections generally.

[Long Woodchippers]

Because representative are elected by district, not on a proportional basis (modeled after the British parliament). To get elected, one must get the majority of the vote cast in that district, and it's very hard for any party past the second most popular to be able to get a majority, unless it's a regional party - but the electoral college is set up to ensure the presidential winner has broad based geographic appeal, and works against regional candidates.

In a proportional system, if the Libertarian Party received 20% of the votes they'd get 20% of the seats. Voting by district, winner takes all - 20% gets them nothing.

[AD-RtR/OS!]

CA elections are now more competitive?
Someone has made too many trips to CO.

[jace]

Anyone who is worried about a sacrificial lamb from the Democrat party in California(!) needs to move to CO, which is clearly still too purple and ripe for an "IndependentVoice.Org' to move squarely into the Blue column.

[brady949]

The "Democrat Party" thing is the dumbest fucking thing in the history of things.

[rocks]

Why only top two, wouldn't top ten be more competitive?

[Robert]

Probably in some cases, but probably less competitive in others.

[Long Woodchippers]

Because it takes 50% to win, and they don't want to do more than two rounds of voting.

It's technically not a primary, but the first round of the general election. Everyone runs.

If any candidate gets 50% or more of the votes, they are declared elected.

If no one gets 50%, the top two vote-getters run off against each other. With only two on the ballot, it's guaranteed that someone will get 50%.

[Long Woodchippers]

You already had the plethora of candidates in the first round. After that, time to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[rocks]

Why only top two, wouldn't top ten be more competitive?

[RT Deco]

No, top ten would be a feature of David Letterman's shows.

[RT Deco]

So now you get to vote for either the flaming Liberal or the really flaming Liberal?

Well, I can see how that might make the race more competitive as the two try to out socialist each other with ever more aggressive Big-Brother policies, but I wouldn't necessarily call it an improvement.

[Robert]

Only if the voters are also flaming. But since the entire electorate is allowed to vote in the runoff, on avg. you probably get less flaming-whatever candidates than if only the members of the majority party selected hir.

[MikeP]

California Created Single-Party General Elections And Now They're More Competitive Than Ever

As a Californian who is completely disenfranchised in the general election by Top Two, I find this claim completely specious.

[Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper]

That's exactly what I was going to say.

At least the Republican-with-no-chance-of-winning can at least get the other side's ideas out there and heard - even these sure-losers will usually get 40% of the vote.

Now these alternative viewpoints are forced to be in a four-way where it actually makes the 1 Republican look like a kook because the other Top Five are flaming asshat socialists.

You wind up with "4 OUT OF 5 TOP. MEN. AGREE- SOCIALISM IS THE BEST" and the 1 opposing viewpoint is completely ignored.

I wish Moe Howard was around to gouge Jason Olson in the eyes. What a fuckin' dope.

[MikeP]

Yep. As I put it in 2012:

Weren't such lame nondistinctions supposed to be washed out in the primary? Why yes, yes they were. Thank you so much California voters.

Welcome to moderation, where your Democrats now must look even more Democrat than their Democrat rival.

And in 2014:

Not one mention of the Top Two primary system, certainly a significant contributor to the absolute lack of any interest in California this season.

The actual election happened in June, when no one was paying attention. There isn't even a token campaign in most races in November.

So the electorate was both disenfranchised and disinterested: the incumbents couldn't have asked for a better result from Top Two primaries.

On the bright side, with no one to vote for I went through the six-page ballot very rapidly!

[Robert]

Why would those ideas get heard, when everyone knew the Democrat was going to win? 40% of the vote, but far, far less than 40% of the att'n. Come to think of it, even the winner would get hardly any att'n, being a shoo-in. So neither would get a significant chunk of the att'n paid to in elections by either the media or the public.

[Long Woodchippers]

But suppose the electorate is 60% Dems and 40% Republicans. The one R basically gets that 40% of the total vote, plus or minus.

The 4 D's have to split the 60%, making it pretty certain the R will at least make the final 2 in the runoff. The RF would only need to pull 17% of the other party to win the first round outright.

[MikeP]

That's a nice story, but it doesn't happen that way.

What really happens in actual experience is that the local Democrats meet in no-longer-smoke-filled rooms and decide which of the four will be eventual winner and tell the other three they can't run.

Top Two is a disaster in every possible way.

[H. Protagonist]

Concur. Absolute horseshit.

[The Heresiarch]

Yeah - This is total horseshit. The speaker talks about "government working again" and "getting rid of gridlock," as if gridlock is bad. I love gridlock. I'd love repeal of legislation better, but if the choice is between an ineffective legislature and a legislature passing more B.S. laws, I choose the former.

Has there been an analysis of the increase in the kind and scope of legislation since this passed? An analysis of polarization of candidate's actual positions? Of how many voters drop out because of this? As far as I'm concerned, the actual result of this is that I stop voting in general elections, because it's a choice between Socialist A and Socialist B.

[H. Protagonist]

Is this "Independent Voice" outfit just partisan BS in disguise? You be the judge. From it's national parent, Independent Voting:

"With the top analysts citing Obama as America's "first Independent President," convener and strategist Jaqueline Salit delivered the multi-media keynote, which examined Obama's election victory, through the lens of America's independent voters...She documents its evolution over the next 16 years into a center-left, multi-racial movement that changed the rules of engagement in 2008. This movement powered Obama's upset victory in the Democratic primaries against the Clinton old guard and cemented his majority coalition that carried him to victory in the November general election."

http://www.independentvoting.org/video/

No wonder this guy is so happy to tout the "success" of the top-two in completely removing what small brake the GOP had on the crazy train of legislation pouring out of Sacramento. You got snowed, Zach.

[PapayaSF]

I agree with the skepticism above. I really don't care if there are inland GOP districts where they get a choice of Republicans. All I care about is that when I go vote, I get a choice of Democrats and no chance to vote Libertarian.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

Well Obama is a stealth libertarian, or so I'm told, so...

[Robert]

You can vote for a LP candidate in the 1st round of voting, i.e. the "primary". And the thrown-away vote problem is no longer, because then you can still vote in the runoff between those who were going to win anyway. It's having your cake & eating it too, AFAICT. It may not affect you, but there are plenty of people who previously had to choose between voting LP & trying to cast the tie-breaking vote between the major candidates; now they can do both.

[MikeP]

I would have no problem with a December runoff of the top two from November, or with an IRV that did the same.

My problem is that the state has usurped the parties' nomination process to run a general election, negating the parties themselves. This makes the minor parties irrelevant but also makes a major party that wants to be sure a candidate makes it to November go back into smoke filled rooms and buy off contenders. It's just awful.

[Robert]

The Party of Principle and Bad Spelling? Maxi...um...um...freedom? See 8:50 in the video.

[helen387]

Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
http://www.jobnet10.com

[helen387]

Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
http://www.jobnet10.com

[IMissLiberty]

But, but, but...how does it help me? I used to have a few Libertarians to vote for, and I could help them campaign between June and November, but now they don't get that far.

I don't want a compromiser elected (trying to make everyone happy at everyone's expense), I want someone to vote for who will defend freedom whether they get elected or not. I've lost that with Top 2. I don't have anyone to vote for and support in a campaign, because they're eliminated in the first round.