California's Jungle Primary Needs To Be Tamed
Even though I live and vote in California, there's a fact which keeps slipping my mind. I've written a number of articles already about Senator Barbara Boxer stepping down, and I never even took this fact into account while writing them, for instance (and for which I apologize, if I said anything flat-out wrong in them). This is nothing more than simple denial, I'll admit, because I dislike this new fact so much that I'm doubtlessly intentionally forgetting about it in the hopes that it will go away. I speak of the new primary voting system our state has instituted, the "top two" or "jungle" primary. Now that Barbara Boxer has announced she will not be running for another term as senator, the issue is about to get a little higher profile, because 2016 will be the first time the new system is used for an open Senate race.
Let's take a look at how this is going to work, for those unfamiliar with the concept. In a normal primary/general election system, all the candidates from each individual party appear on separate partisan ballots in the primary election. Emerging from the primary is one candidate from each party. In the general election, all these partisan candidates appear on the same ballot, and the voters choose which person (and which party) they want to support. This is the system most states use, so it should sound familiar to most people (although things are slightly different for states with caucuses rather than primaries, the model is close enough for the purposes of this discussion).
Instead of this system, the way it now works in California is that all candidates from all parties appear on a single giant primary ballot. What emerges from this jungle primary are only the top two vote-getters. Doesn't matter what party they're from -- they can even be from the same party. These two face each other in the general election, and the winner is the one with the most votes.
This is a bad idea for a number of reasons. The first and biggest is that it doesn't even guarantee that there will be a Republican on the ballot in the general election. That doesn't exactly seem fair. Even if there are a Democrat and a Republican, it absolutely guarantees there will be no third parties on the general election ballot -- no Libertarians or Greens available to cast a protest vote for, should the mood strike you. This also seems massively unfair. But the biggest reason this is a bad idea is that it essentially turns the general election into a runoff election, and the biggest decision is thus made by the smallest electorate.
California may actually have three elections in 2016, if they remain true to form. This is a gigantic waste of taxpayer money for the sole purpose of making life easy for our elected representatives in the state government. California's traditional primary date was in June. But recently there has been a rush to the "front of the line" for presidential primaries, and California was tired of being ignored by the candidates (June is awfully late in primary season). So California moved their primary up -- but only for the presidential race. All other statewide offices have the traditional June primary, because the state-level candidates don't want to endure a longer campaign season -- that's the only reason we have three elections in one calendar year. Because of this inefficiency (for self-serving purposes), fewer people show up to vote on both the primary dates. Meaning fewer people make the big decision about who should be on the general election ballot.
Will there be a national outcry if we wind up with no Republican candidate on the November ballot for the United States Senate? Possibly. But there'd be an even bigger outcry if there were no Democrat on the ballot. Think this is impossible? Well, it may be a stretch, but it certainly could emerge from the jungle, so to speak. Say four popular Democrats run for Boxer's seat, and only two popular Republicans thrown their hats into the ring. Let's also posit that the state's electorate splits 60/40 for the Democrats (this may even be understated, California's an awfully blue state these days). Now, let's also say that the race is incredibly tight on both sides of the aisle. Each Democrat pulls roughly (give or take a few percent) an equal amount of their base voters, and each Republican manages to do the same. This leaves four candidates in the 15 percent range, and two candidates in the 20 percent range. Meaning the two Republicans appear on the November ballot, much to everyone's surprise. Even though 60 percent of the voters voted for Democrats.
That may be a longshot, but it is still within the bounds of possible outcomes. Does anyone think it is a fair outcome? It'd be just as unfair if no Republican candidate appeared on the November ballot, which is much less of a longshot. To say nothing of the thousands of third-party voters who are essentially disenfranchised in the general election.
One party dominating both candidate slots in the general election has already happened, but it has mostly happened in very local races (like House seats, or state legislators). It's only been a prominent news story locally (with the possible exception of Mike Honda's 2014 House race against fellow Democrat Ro Khanna, which did attract some national press). But the stakes are going to be higher for Barbara Boxer's Senate seat.
Call me a traditionalist, but I think it is grossly unfair for voters not to have a choice from every registered political party in California on their general election ballot -- no matter how small that party may be. I think it is monstrously unfair that we're not even assured a choice between the two major political parties in the general election. The general election is the big (and capitalized) Election Day -- it is the day when more people vote than in either of our primaries. To restrict partisan choices on the day when the most people participate in our democracy is mind-bogglingly stupid.
California's jungle primary needs to be tamed. We need to go back to the concept of allowing people as many choices as there are parties on Election Day. Simple fairness demands it. If two Democrats wind up vying for Boxer's seat in the 2016 general election, there will likely be a lot more attention paid to the unfairness of the system. If this does come to pass, I will have to count myself sympathetic to Republican complaints. If Democrats effectively lock out any Republican challenger on the November ballot, then the party determination of one Senate race will have effectively been made months before the general election. No matter what happens during the main campaign season, the seat will be out of reach for Republicans.
That is unfair. It is unfair to Libertarians, Greens, and all the other third parties, pretty much no matter what happens in the primary. If two Democrats (or, shockingly, two Republicans) lock up the seat before summer even begins, I'd be willing to bet we'll be hearing from a lot of other voices pointing out this unfairness.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I agree that it's a horrible design, in every way you've mentioned except one, and more. The exception is that I don't see any fairness issue over who gets into the runoff (so-called "general") election per se. If a reasonable design resulted in a runoff between two candidates of the same party, that would mean that that party was the choice of twice as many voters as the next most popular party. And excluding minor parties is a feature of runoffs in general, not a bug.
If I were dictator, there would be a rule that runoff elections have to include a none-of-the-above option. Maybe I would have it as a rule for all runoffs, but at least whenever the candidates in the runoff don't have some specified supermajority. (I would be a really weird dictator, confining my dictates to subjects that interest me, like meta-rules governing the rules of elections.)
I see what you are saying, CW and you are correct...
However, consider an alternate viewpoint..
California's Primary system ignores political Partys and relies STRICTLY on the power of the people...
It's the epitome of the Popular Vote...
I would think, in light of the 2000 POTUS election, that would appeal to many on the Left....
Just another way of looking at it... :D
Michale
DWS -
I like the concept of a none-of-the-above vote if it acts as a a genuine reset mechanism. If a majority of patrons don't like what the Political Waffle House is serving, it makes a good case the menu ought to be revised.
How about elections organized as a bracket system? Start with an open petition phase. The top 8 (16?, 32?) gathering the most signatures move on to the playoffs. A candidate's rank in signatures determines their seeding. A first set of 4 primaries, they could be regional or general, followed second set of 2 primaries, than on to the final election (adjust number of primaries to power of 2)! If I were a political donor, I would encourage my candidate to display a sponsor logo, sized according to contribution level, emblazoned on suit campaign vehicles and all manner of public display. Vanity + the lure of advertising across multiple media platforms would do more to encourage relative financial disclosure than any law could ever hope to achieve. To those who say this would somehow cheapen our politics, I say "duh" but only in the same sense of kids peeing in a well chlorinated pool.
CW may recognize this proposal from a few years back
I like the bracket system. It's not perfect, but no voting system is (Arrow 1951). One of my favorite criteria is that it can be adapted to favor multi-party politics. If candidates are competing for one office at a time, almost no matter how the elections are set up, there's a tendency toward two-party politics: if there are three or more, there's an incentive for the smaller parties to merge; if there's only one, there's a tendency toward schism. With a bracket system, you can leave off the last round if you're selecting two winners, or start with the top 12 instead of the top 8 if you're selecting three winners, and so on.
I like the idea of checks and balances. Specifically, I like the idea of a system where one part of the government (e.g. the executive) is chosen in a way that favors two-party politics, another part (e.g. one chamber of a bicameral legislature) is chosen in a way that favors forming majority coalition from many small parties, and another (e.g. the other chamber of the legislature) is chosen in a way that favors a few independent parties.
I also like the idea of having party structure form on its own, as a result of individual choices made under the influence of institutional incentives, rather than having parties be hard-coded into the system.
So a bracket system with three winners, for example, sounds good to me for a few-parties legislative chamber.
Philosophically, I like the California primary system. Though you can cobble a few basic rights together and justify the existence of political parties, they do not appear in any form in the constitution. The state should not support them with exclusive votes. To many democrats, republicans, or any other parties candidates on the ballot? Have a private primary, paid for and administered by each party to give one candidate the official nod. We have the technology to do it, the state should no longer be required to run and pay for what is inherently a private matter.
Philosophically, I like the California primary system. Though you can cobble a few basic rights together and justify the existence of political parties, they do not appear in any form in the constitution. The state should not support them with exclusive votes. To many democrats, republicans, or any other parties candidates on the ballot? Have a private primary, paid for and administered by each party to give one candidate the official nod. We have the technology to do it, the state should no longer be required to run and pay for what is inherently a private matter.
here, here!
Well said....
Michale
Though you can cobble a few basic rights together and justify the existence of political parties, they do not appear in any form in the constitution.
So leave parties out of it. The California system still stinks. Should the final round of an election really be between the first choice of 40% of the previous-round voters and the second choice of the same 40%, whom the other 60% would rank lower than NOTA if that option were on the ballot, just because the 40% split their votes two ways while the 60% split theirs four ways?
Have a private primary, paid for and administered by each party to give one candidate the official nod.
How is the party supposed to keep other candidates off the ballot, if it has no official existence?
You can invite anyone you want to your own private social event, while refusing to invite anyone else. Making the primary an absolutely private matter would mean that in one-party states or districts, where the primary decides the election, elected officials could be effectively chosen in a whites-only election. That's how it was done for decades when the Solid South was Democratic, until the SCOTUS said no in 1944.
DWS-
I'm unable to find any real political election system based upon a bracket system. Do you know of any?
No. I strongly suspect there is none.