Wednesday, November 14 , 2018, 4:20 pm | Fair 70º

 
 
 
 

Steven HIll: ‘Top-Two Primary’ Has Benefits but Choice Isn’t One

As frustrated voters realize Sacramento won't fix itself, many are looking around for a better option.

With the state government lurching from budget crisis to budget crisis, many frustrated Californians are thinking about what political reforms might make the Legislature more functional. Californians passed Proposition 11, but the impact of the independent redistricting commission won’t be felt until the 2012 elections. With Golden Staters still seemingly hungry for reform, what other changes might clean up the mess in Sacramento?

Steven Hill
Steven Hill
One of the proposals being discussed in various circles is what is known as the “top two” primary. Under that method, the nominees from all political parties, including multiple candidates from the same party, compete against each other in a single primary free-for-all, reminiscent of California’s short-lived use of the popular “blanket primary” back in the mid-1990s (which was done away with as a result of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling).

But unlike the blanket primary, which advanced to the November election the primary winner for every political party, resulting in a multicandidate field, the top-two primary advances only the top two finishers. And those two final candidates can even be from the same political party.

The top-two primary was rejected by California voters in 2004, but proponents are trying to revive it, saying that the top-two primary will:

» Give voters more choice

» Create more competition

» Elect more moderate legislators

» Get rid of spoiler candidates and elect majority winners

Let’s examine each of these claims. Certainly, the top-two primary would give voters more choice during the primary election. But it actually would reduce voters’ choices to just two candidates in the November election, which is when most voters turn out. Moreover, in a very liberal district, such as in the urban areas, the top two candidates in November very likely would be two Democrats; in a conservative district, the top two probably would be Republicans. Third-party candidates and independents almost never would appear on the November ballot.

Would the top-two primary foster more competitive races? To answer that question, I examined elections from the state of Washington, which used the top-two primary for its 2008 state legislative elections. Here’s what I found:

Of the 98 state House races, only five (5 percent) were won by a competitive margin (defined as a 4 percentage-point difference between the top two candidates). Sixty-five races (66 percent) were won by landslide margins of 20 points or higher, with 17 of those races uncontested.

The results in the 26 state Senate races were very similar, with 62 percent of races won by landslides and only two races competitive. That’s a level of competition that is no better than what we have now in California.

How about electing moderates? How did the Washington elections do in that regard? The term “moderate” is a relative one, with different definitions from state to state, so a better way to examine this is to look for how many opportunities are available for moderates to get elected. In theory, when you have two Democrats running against each other in November, or two Republicans, the voters from the other party could cross over and act as a moderating influence against either the most conservative Republican or the most liberal Democrat winning.

In Washington’s House races, only six out of 98 (6 percent) had two candidates from the same party, and in the Senate, two out of 26 races (8 percent) did. So that’s not a lot of races in which moderates could have an opportunity to get elected. With Washington’s elections being so noncompetitive generally, that greatly limited electoral opportunities for moderates.

One positive from the Washington elections is that for the handful of races that were decided by competitive margins, they did not have to worry about spoiler candidacies coming from third-party candidates. But is essentially banning third parties from participating in the November election really the best way to handle this?

A far better way would be to use instant runoff voting, in which voters could rank a first, second and third choice, and the runoff rankings would be used to elect majority winners in a single election. Third-party candidates would not be spoilers, and this would preserve voters’ choices.

As discussion of the top two primary proceeds in California, it seems important that the discussion be fact-based. And the facts from Washington state’s elections at least show that the top-two primary this past year did not result in more competition or many opportunities for moderate candidates to get elected. It gave voters more choices in the primary but at the cost of reducing their choices in the November election. It elected majority winners and got rid of the spoiler problem, but at the price of greatly restricting third parties from the November ballot.

All in all, a cautionary tale about the consequences of the top-two primary as political reform.

Steven Hill is director of the Political Reform Program for the New America Foundation’s political reform program and author of 10 Steps to Repair American Democracy. He can be contacted at [email protected] This commentary, published with the permission of the author, originally appeared in the Sacramento Bee.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made using a credit card, Apple Pay or Google Pay, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Email
Select your monthly membership
Or choose an annual membership
×

Payment Information

Membership Subscription

You are enrolling in . Thank you for joining the Hawks Club.

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.
You may cancel your membership at any time by sending an email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.