California's New Primary System

[Lord Jim]

Last Tuesday, voters in The Altered State passed a new political primary system.

Under this system, the primaries will become unitary. All candidates for a given state or federal office, (except the Presidency) Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Socialist Workers, will all run in a single primary. Then the top two vote geters, regardless of party affiliation, will face off in the general election.

Whether this will actually come into affect is debatable. There will undoubtedly be a round of court challenges. Neither of the major parties, (or the small ones either) like the system. It passed most likely because voters in this state are so frustrated with the current dysfunctional political situation, (a national problem, but particularly acute in California, where the Legislature has raised district gerrymandering to a fine art.) that they are willing to embrace any reform in the hope that it will make things better . Arnold was a major proponent of this reform; supposedly it will help to encourage the nomination and election of more middle of the road legislators and congressional reps who might be more inclined to make compromises in order to actually get things done.

But while I share Arnold's concern and frustration over the current state of affairs, I fear that like term limits, (which I predicted at the time they were passed would not have the desired affects, and would instead make things worse in a variety of ways...which has turned out to be exactly what has happened) that this new system will fall prey to the law of unintended consequences and could make things worse rather than better, (possibly much worse.)

I simply do not follow the logic of why this system is supposed to produce more centrist candidates. I can easily see plausible scenarios where the exact opposite will happen.

Say You have a multi-party primary with six or seven candidates. Your two top vote geters could easily be people who who didn't get more than 22 or 23 per cent of the vote. (Or possibly even less.) This could easily be two extreme lefties, or two extreme righties, or one of each. Then what happens is the voters are forced to make a choice between two extremists, neither of whom received any truly substantial support in the first round of voting. In all likelihood had their been regular primaries and a run off, neither of these hypothetical candidates would even be on the final ballot. How can this possibly be good for democracy?

It seems to me a better idea would be the system we had back in Virginia; open primaries.

Under the Virginia system, each party held it's own primary, but anyone (Democrat, Republican, independent, etc.) can request a ballot to vote in what ever primary they choose to on this particular day. This approach encourages independents to participate in the nominating process, and it seems to me that this would have a much better chance of helping candidates who are committed to working with the opposition (rather than candidates who are openly and proudly hostile to the idea...which is frequently the case now...)

[Gob]

The more I hear about your politiocal system..

Fuck me pink, talk about making things complex for complexities sake...

[Scooter]

I think Louisiana does its elections for statewide office that way. Nuff said.

[rubato]

The more I hear about your politiocal system..

Fuck me pink, talk about making things complex for complexities sake...

Making things complex for the sake of disguising a bought election.

In the past there was some ideological and programmatic differentiation between the parties so that someone in a position to heavily influence the outcome of an election* with the application of money would always wind up running against someone else in the general election whose likely actions would be opposed to the ones they wished.

Now they can find 2 candidates running in the primary (or 3-4, any number) and back them heavily enough to remove any real choice in the general election. They can also run 'spoilers' intended to split the votes of ideologically opposed candidates to ensure their defeat in the primary. You may not need to 'select' the one you want as long as you can 'deselect' the ones you dislike.

This new primary system is far worse for democracy.

But the capacity of Calif. voters to vote for stupid things like term limits and a supermajority requirement to pass a budget or change taxes.

yrs,
rubato

*Buy an election. See the elections of GW Bush to the Texas Governor's office and to the Presidency for examples.

[rubato]

I think Louisiana does its elections for statewide office that way. Nuff said.

There is a direct financial incentive to their system, running for office is a career track in La. People run expecting not to get enough votes but know they can sell their votes to someone else in exchange for a sinecure.

yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

Am I rememberlucinating or did we in California have an 'open' primary election years ago? I seem to remember it happening just one time, but I did take a few mushrooms when I was young, so my memory is psychedelicized.

[rubato]

Am I rememberlucinating or did we in California have an 'open' primary election years ago? I seem to remember it happening just one time, but I did take a few mushrooms when I was young, so my memory is psychedelicized.

We briefly had a primary where you could vote for the candidate of a party you did not belong to. But it was still only to select the candidates of each party.

yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

Thanks, rubato.

I thought I remembered something like that.

I wonder why it didn't continue?

[rubato]

Thanks, rubato.

I thought I remembered something like that.

I wonder why it didn't continue?

I've forgotten. I never cared for the idea but it was not especially harmful compared to the current scheme.

yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

Under the Virginia system, each party held it's own primary, but anyone (Democrat, Republican, independent, etc.) can request a ballot to vote in what ever primary they choose to on this particular day. This approach encourages independents to participate in the nominating process, and it seems to me that this would have a much better chance of helping candidates who are committed to working with the opposition (rather than candidates who are openly and proudly hostile to the idea...which is frequently the case now...)

I think Louisiana does its elections for statewide office that way. Nuff said.

So does Illinois. MORE than enuf said. :twisted:

(Though it does seem more sensible than the new Calif. "unitary" system Jim described. IIRC there have been some calls to institute something like that in Illinois, but it's always been rejected by the mainstream D's and R's...which proves that there's at least a little common sense left around here...)

[Scooter]

Sorry, my failure to reference that to which I was responding was misleading. I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that Louisiana runs their statewide elections similar to the method which just passed in California. I'm not sure if the first election is called a primary, or the first round of an election, but the essence is the same; the top two votegetters go to a runoff.

[Gob]

Why not just make it the top vote getter wins?

[Lord Jim]

Because that way you could wind up with somebody "winning" with 16% of the vote. (or less)

[Gob]

Yes, and?

[Lord Jim]

Our Congress already has enough kooks (on both sides) in it without going down that road....

It's funny you ask that question Strop...it points out a cultural difference. To the average American the answer is self evident....

In this country we believe that office holders should have a larger mandate from the constituencies they represent. We don't want to have representatives elected when 84% of the voters voted for someone else.

[rubato]

Sorry, my failure to reference that to which I was responding was misleading. I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that Louisiana runs their statewide elections similar to the method which just passed in California. I'm not sure if the first election is called a primary, or the first round of an election, but the essence is the same; the top two votegetters go to a runoff.

With the exciting addition that candidates with lesser fractions of the vote can then designate them to another candidate, putting the whole thing on a paying basis.

yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

But you only have two parties Jim? I could see that being a problem in the UK or Aus where we have three or even four way contests, but you have a two party system.

[Lord Jim]

In reality Strop, we have a lot more than two parties, (plus independents) but we only have two that amount to anything...and anyone who can get the signatures, and/or the filing fee, can run, calling themselves anything they like....

A system where the two major parties had no officially nominated candidates to oppose each other, and (as you seem to be suggesting) had no provision for a run off between top vote getters would in many cases yield "winners" with very little actual support overall.

With the exciting addition that candidates with lesser fractions of the vote can then designate them to another candidate

I wasn't aware that that was also a provision of the new California law...Good lord, that's just nuts...

I can't imagine that provision possibly surviving a court challenge...