On November 4, 2008, 43 states held regularly-scheduled partisan legislative elections. In these 43 states, 5.9% of all the seats switched parties.
But in Washington state, using “top-two” for the first time, only 3.2% of the seats switched parties. By contrast, in 2006, when Washington was using a normal primary, 11.4% of the seats switched parties. And in 2004, when Washington was also using a normal primary, 4.1% switched parties.
Concerning the entire nation in 2008, there were 5,801 regularly-scheduled partisan elections up. 206 of them switched from Republican to Democratic. 124 of them switched from Democratic to Republican. Twelve of them switched in other ways (such as Constitution Party to Democratic Party in Montana, or Democratic to Green in Arkansas, etc.). These figures could still change slightly since some recounts exist.
“Top-Two” eliminates parties and independents and gives us a one party state controlled electoral system. It IS A FORM of COMMUNIST ELECTIONS.
“Top-Two” must be opposed and abolished everywhere.
Amen! Top-two = token choices.
“Concerning the entire nation in 2008, there were 5,801 regularly-scheduled partisan elections up.”
Do we know how far down the ballot[s] this count goes? Here in Michigan, it was an off-year for the major statewide races . . . so we only elected one US Senator, 15 US Representatives, 110 state reps, and two members each of four education boards. But we also have 1,242 townships (according to their ssociation’s Website) — and they have a lot of elections — and they’re partisan.
ANTI-Democracy gerrymanders control ALL.
Somewhat amazing that ANY New Age computerized gerrymander area incumbents ever lose.
NO party hack primaries, caucuses and conventions are needed — from the now ancient political Stone Age.
Equal ballot access via equal nominating petitions.
P.R. legislative and A.V. nonpartisan executive/judicial.
re-election rates are pretty darned high everyone, regardless of primary method used. it matters whether the incumbent is running, whether it’s a one-party district, and what’s going on at the state and national level. turnout was excellent for both the Top 2 primary in the dead of summer and for the General. Per polling, we know that people liked Top 2–Democrats, Republicans, independents. Turnout for General, including the finalists picked via Top 2, could well set a record. It’s clearly not for everyone — Oregon voters turned it down, and continue to allow registration by party, etc. — but it seems to fit our particular history and political culture. AND we still love our political parties, and they were able to endorse their favored candidates and make this information known to voters.
i meant to write pretty darned high EVERYWHERE
Courtesy of Richard Winger, here’s a site that has links to several debates on the Oregon “top two”/”open primary” ballot measure: BallotFreedom.
#5: “… we know that people liked Top 2– Democrats, Republicans, independents.”
Washingtonians like the “top two” because of the state’s long history with the old blanket primary (I wonder how many people in 2004 thought they were voting to bring back the BP). Minor parties don’t like the “top two,” since it makes it nearly impossible for their candidates to reach the second round and thus have a chance to be elected. And independent candidates don’t like it, for the same reason.
“… we still love our political parties, and they were able to endorse their favored candidates…”
Many Washingtonians DESPISE political parties. If you really loved the parties, you would let them perform their basic function of officially nominating candidates, and you would give them the right to have a candidate in the final, deciding election. Yes, the parties can endorse candidates in the “top two,” but they have no legal way of stopping other candidates of the same party from running and splitting the party’s vote.
If a minor party’s message is kept out of the final, deciding election, the party loses its main reason for existing.
The links to the two debates are at “Willamette Week Endorsement Interview” (video of Phil Keisling vs. ex-Gov. Barbara Roberts) and “Portland City Club Debate” (audio of Keisling vs. Paul Gronke, a political science professor).
BallotFreedom
Thanks to David Ammons of the Washington Secretary of State’s office for chiming in. But when he says “We love our political parties”, I think he means “We love our Democratic and Republican Parties”, and he does not mean “we love our minor parties.” As noted earlier, 2008 is the first election since Washington became a state in 1889, at which no minor party or independent candidates appeared on the November ballot for either congress or statewide state office. That is because of “top-two”, which kills minor parties and independent candidates.
David Ammons, secretary of state’s office, likes “top-two.”
Members of the Politburo like Communism.
No kidding.
It’s the people who will get screwed by the “Top-two” communist electoral system. It took generations for most of the people in the USSR and the world to wake up to the evils of communism. Top-two communism is just as evil and will lead to the same kind of corrupt, evil government with the same kind of corrupt, evil laws, rules and regulations. Let’s hope the people of America wake up in time to avoid this catastrophy.
Say “NO!” to the evil, “top-two” communist electoral system.
Abolish “top-two” everywhere.
#7 The function of the People in a republic is to choose their officers in free democratic elections.
Political parties interfere with this function when they establish laws and procedures that are designed to exclude candidates from the ballot, or to prevent the voters from voting for candidates.
Elections have many additional functions besides deciding who will hold office. Election season is the prime opportunity for residents and citizens of the United States to talk to each other about public policy. A candidate has an automatic relationship to the voters in his or her jurisdiction. There is no substitute for it.
Sam Reed was touted by those Democratic party groups calling themselves “Progressive” and even went so far as to send out a “Progressive Voter’s Guide” endorsing him. Needless to say the real Progressive Party was unimpressed.
The push poll refered to was a choice between the awful Top Two primary and the worse “Pick a Party” primary. There were no other choices. And the poll was taken before the general election. Needless to say, Sam didn’t plan another poll after the general election, for fear someone might change their minds.
In 2008, 3,279,757 votes were cast in legislative primaries; vs. 2,146,197 in 2006; and 2,616,176
in 2004. IOW, 2008 was up 53% vs. 2006; and 25% vs. 2004.
The comparable figures for the top level statewide primaries (gubernatorial race in 2004 and 2008, and senatorial race in 2006), were 2008 – 1,442,457; 2006 – 1,091,645; 2004 – 1,304,024; and
2008 v. 2006 – 32%; 2008 v. 2004 11%).
That is, while voter participation increased in the top of the ballot statewide primary, it increased even more for the legislative races.
Washington holds either 2 or 3 legislative races in each of 49 legislative districts, 2 house races every 2 years, and a senate race every 4 years (in 1/2 the districts). So the average voter could cast about 2.5 votes for every vote they cast in the top statewide race.
In 2008, 2.27 legislative votes were cast per gubernatorial vote. In 2006, the ratio was 1.97 legislative votes per senatorial vote, and in 2004 2.01 legislative votes per gubernatorial vote.
If we take the top turnout among the 2 or 3 races for each legislative district, turnout was up in 48 of 49 LD’s in 2008 vs. 2006.
The lone exception was LD 43 in Seattle. In 2006, there had been a 6-way race for the nomination for the the Position 1 Representative seat, plus a single representative seeking the Republican nomination. In 2008, the winner of that race was unopposed in the primary and general election.
Re #12
Surely the fact that citizens (and even other residents) talk to each other about public policy during the election season, is a side effect, and not the purpose of the election.
I don’t understand what you mean by “A candidate has an automatic relationship to the voters in his or her jurisdiction. There is no substitute for it.”
“A candidate has an automatic relationship to the voters in his or her jurisdiction. There is no substitute for it.â€
Baloney. I lived in a district where come election time our congressman picked up campaign checks and ran and hid, avoiding debates and all public appearances, and when he did get cornered was shown to be a short-tempered fool. Yet because he hid while advertising, he kept getting re-elected until he got nailed by his own ethics committee and got mixed up in military base location kerfluffles once too many. He was a product of money and his party, not his constituents.
WA STATE REPS ELECTION 4 NOV 2008
SUMMARY MINORITY RULE MATH
49 GERRYMANDER DISTRICTS – 2 STATE REPS ELECTED SEPARATELY IN EACH DISTRICT – TOTAL 98
VOTES PCT TOT
1,721,991 *28.0 50 LOW D WIN
605,506 9.9 + 12 HIGH D WIN
2,327,497 *37.9 = 62 D WIN
1,252,539 20.4 + 36 R WIN
3,580,036 58.3 = 98 WIN
1,731,811 28.2 + ALL LOSERS
5,311,847 86.5 = SUBTOTAL
831,231 13.5 + NONVOTES
6,143,078 100.0 = TOTAL VOTES X 2
* ANTI-DEMOCRACY MINORITY RULE PERCENTAGES
TOP 2 PRIMARY RESULTS
3 DISTRICTS HAD 2 D CANDIDATES
3 DISTRICTS HAD 2 R CANDIDATES
4 DISTRICTS HAD A D AND A MINOR PARTY CANDIDATE
39 DISTRICTS HAD A D AND A R CANDIDATE
TOTALS 94 D, 81 R, 4 OTHER — TOTAL 179 (MAX 196)
13 D AND 4 R ELECTED WITH NO OPPOSITION — LIKELY TO CHANGE IN FUTURE ELECTIONS WITH THE TOP 2 PRIMARY
——-
6 DISTRICTS ELECTED A D AND A R — MOST UNUSUAL.
28 DISTRICTS ELECTED 2 D
15 DISTRICTS ELECTED 2 R
—-
IN OTHER WORDS – ONE MORE ANTI-DEMOCRACY INDIRECT MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDER ELECTION — REGARDLESS OF THE TOP 2 PRIMARY.
NO PRIMARIES ARE NEEDED.
TOTAL VOTES / TOTAL SEATS = EQUAL VOTES NEEDED FOR EACH SEAT WINNER USING VOTE TRANSFERS BY PRE-ELECTION CANDIDATE RANK ORDER LISTS.
There were (8 of 49) LD’s where turnout was down in the 2008 legislative primary vs. the 2004 legislative primary. All 8 LD’s: 11, 34, 36, 37, 43, 45, 46, and 48; are in King County, including all 6 that are completely or mostly in Seattle.
The Chief Executive Officer for King County, Ron Sims, was a candidate for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, and this would have increased turnout. Christine Gregoire defeated Sims 70:25:5 outside King County, and 59:38:3 within the county.
6 of the districts have been represented by 3 Democrats for at least the last 3 elections. There is unlikely to be a real primary contest (partisan or Top 2, unless an incumbent is retiring). In 2004, there were 4 races with 2 or more Democrats, 2 races with 2 or Republicans, 1 race with 2 Libertarians. In 2006 there were only 3 races in which there were 2 Democrat candidates.
“… in 2006, when Washington was using a normal primary…”
Only 10.5% of votes cast in these “normal primaries” had any effect on the who appeared in the November ballot.
In the 2004 legislative primaries, there were 38 contested nominations, 19 Democratic, 18 Republican, and 1 Libertarian. 467,071 votes were cast in these races vs. 2,616,176 in all legislative races. Thus only 17.9% of the votes cast had any actual effect on who appeared on the general election ballot. Compared to the votes cast in the gubernatorial primaries, only 35.8% of legislative votes had any actual effect (the average voter had slightly more than 1/3 chance of having any meaningful legislative primary).
In the 2006 legislative primaries, there were 18 contested nominations, 8 Democratic and 10 Republican. 225,394 votes were cast in these races vs. 2,146,197 in all legislative races. Thus only 10.5% of the votes cast had any actual effect on who appeared on the general election ballot. Compared to the votes cast in the senatorial primaries, only 20.6% of legislative votes had any actual effect (the average voter had about 1/5 chance of having any meaningful legislative primary).
In the 2008 legislative primaries, there were 30 primaries with more than 2 candidates. 866,479 votes were cast in these races vs. 3,279,757 in all legislative races. Thus 26.6% of the votes cast had any actual effect on who appeared on the general election ballot. Compared to the votes cast in the gubernatorial primaries, only 60.1% of legislative votes had any actual effect (the average voter had a 3/5 chance of having a meaningful legislative primary).
Summary:
Year %Leg %Gov
2004 17.9% 35.8%
2006 10.5% 20.6%
2008 26.6% 60.1%
%Leg – Percentage of votes in legislative primaries with any effect on November ballot.
%Gov – Votes in legislative primaries relative to votes in gubernatorial/senatorial primary with any effect on November ballot.
#13: “… the awful Top Two primary and the worse “Pick a Party†primary.”
I would argue that the reverse is true. In the “top two,” there are never more than two choices in the final, deciding election, although Washington state does allow write-ins. In the “Pick-A-Party” primary, in contrast, each voter chooses a party’s ballot on primary day, and each party has the right to nominate one candidate per office in the general election. And all qualifying independent candidates are listed on the general election ballot.
I’m certainly glad that we had more than two choices for president on November 4.
#20. In the 2006 general election for the Washington legislature (in which major party nominees were chosen by the Pick-A-Party primary), there was only one candidate who was not a Republican or a Democrat (incidentally the author of response #13 above).
Comparing 2008 to 2006, almost 3.85 as many votes in the 2008 primary had an actual effect on the outcome.
If Mississippi had used a Top 2 system for choosing its presidential electors, you would have had many more choices than you were actually permitted to vote for on November 4.
#21: “If Mississippi had used a Top 2 system for choosing its presidential electors, you would have had many more choices than you were actually permitted to vote for on November 4.”
Mississippi had seven slates of presidential electors on the November 4 ballot.
You seem to be talking about dispensing with presidential primaries and caucuses and having a slate on the first-round ballot for every single presidential candidate who ran. Then the top two slates, regardless of party, would meet in the runoff.
Hell will freeze over before the national parties go for that (even Louisiana and Washington state give the parties the options of choosing their delegates by primary or caucus). But, just for the sake of argument, let’s say that all states used the “top two” for presidential elections.
I assume you would also eliminate national party conventions, since they would no longer be able to ratify the decisions made in primaries and caucuses, as there would be neither.
The final choice in a state could be between slates of electors pledged to Romney and McCain; or it could be Obama vs. Clinton; or Huckabee vs. Edwards; or McCain vs. Huckabee; or McCain vs. Nader; or Nader vs. Obama, etc., etc. The number of possibilities boggles the mind.
I suppose it would be OK with you if two teams from the same conference played each other in the Super Bowl, or if two teams from the same league played in the World Series.
BTW: Seven is still a larger number than two– even in Texas.
On reflection: There would still be national party conventions. Even if a state had a “top two” for choosing its presidential electors, each party in that state would still be able to choose its convention delegates by whatever method it wanted to. Since the state would no longer finance primaries, there would NEVER be presidential primaries in such a “top two” state.
And any candidate who sought and lost a party’s presidential nomination would not be able run under that party’s label (unless a state party decided to break away from the national party and run a candidate other than the national party’s nominee). Such a candidate, of course, could run as an independent or as the nominee of another party.
So, as I see it, unless you had a bunch of “sore losers” staying in the race after the national party conventions, your cherished “top two” would provide few, if any, additional choices for the voters in the first round.
As much as you might like for political parties to disappear, that simply isn’t going to happen.
#22 I would not eliminate national political conventions. Even if I thought that it was a good idea it would be unconstitutional. I would eliminate public funding, and remove any purported right of those conventions to nominate candidates for State offices.
Certainly it would be better not to have teams that use adulterants such as the DH from participating in the World Series.
#23. There were 3 candidates on the Texas presidential ballot, plus 7 write-in candidates.
#24. Why should the State spend money on behalf of private sectarian organizations?
Or a State could hold an open non-partisan primary. Any candidate who receives 1/10 of 1% of the vote qualifies for the general election ballot. Anyone else will have to gather signatures. Parties would be free to use the result for any purpose they saw fit.
#25: “I would eliminate public funding, and remove any purported right of those conventions to nominate candidates for State offices.”
I agree on the public funding, since it empowers government to take a citizen’s money by force and give it to a candidate whom that citizen does not support. I favor no limits on private contributions… and immediate disclosure on the Internet.
I assume you mean STATE conventions nominating for state offices. Among the few states that still use conventions, primaries are used in some circumstances and conventions in others. I sometimes think it was a mistake to replace conventions with party primaries, but primaries are here to stay, and the convention will continue to be a nominating option where the state approves it.
Then you would have no World Series at all, since both World Series teams use the designated hitter in American League parks (I don’t like the DH either).
#26: In ’95, a federal appeals court said that, when the state requires parties to nominate by primary, the state must pay for those primaries (Republican Party v. Faulkner County, Arkansas). If a state stopped requiring and paying for primaries, the parties would be very unlikely to nominate by primary. Then the voters would raise hell; so, as a practical matter, states will keep mandating and funding party primaries.
In every state– except Washington– where a “top two” (or “nonpartisan primary”) measure has been on the ballot for state and/or congressional offices, the voters have rejected it. Most recently, nearly two-thirds of Oregonians defeated that terrible idea.
I’d like to see some state try this: have one big election, with all the candidates on the same ballot, on the first Tuesday in November, and use instant runoff voting (IRV). Citizens would only have to vote once, and officials would always be elected with 50-plus percent of the vote.
#25: “There were 3 candidates on the Texas presidential ballot, plus 7 write-in candidates.”
Is there some type of listing of the approved write-in candidates at the polling place– or do the voters just have to be aware of who the write-in candidates are?
I think you may have miscounted.
For 2008 I count the following switches:
2 Senate
6 Representative 1
6 Representative 2
Both seats changed parties, with incumbent beaten in both cases.
17 Representative 1
Incumbent did not make Top 2, but it was nonetheless a party switch.
26 Representative 1
41 Representative 1
Incumbent had switched parties and then ran for the senate. But this is a different party result than the previous time it was contested in an election.
44 Representative 2
Was concurrent election for remnant of 2-year term, and full 2-year term. Technically you could claim the party switch occured prior to the start of the new term for which other legislators were elected. But the partisan result was the opposite of 2006 election.
7/124 (98 house + 25 senate + 1 senate special)
= 5.6%.
===================================================
2004
We apparently agree on number of switches 5, but there were 126 races (98 house + 25 senate + 3 senate special)
5/126 = 4.0%.
===================================================
2006
I count 13 partisan switches:
6 Senate
6 Representative 1
23 Representative 2
24 Representative 1
26 Senate
28 Representative 1
31 Representative 2
44 Senate
45 Senate
45 Representative 1
47 Senate
48 Senate
48 Represenative 2
13/122 (98 house + 24 senate)
= 10.7%.
=================================================
So in summary:
2004: 4.0%
2006: 10.7%
2008: 5.6%
#29: This comment seems to belong on another post, not this one.
#29: Oh I see. You’re commenting on the post itself, instead of my comments.
So not only is the turnover percentage higher for 2008 relative to 2004, it is right at the national average. If there were one more change, Washington would be further from the national average than it is now.
Historically, Washington has had a downward trend in partisan turnover. For the House, 4 of the 5 lowest turnovers in the 18 elections since 1975 have occurred in the last 5 elections. These were conducted under 3 different primary systems: Blanket Primary in 2000; Pick a Party Primary in 2004 and 2006; and Top 2 Primary in 2008. The 5th of the recent elections, in 2002 was tied for the 7th lowest turnover.
2006 did have a high senate turnover, especially considering that only half the senate seats were contested.
But Washington has an odd geographical distribution of senate terms. 17 of the 26 districts in the 3 big counties of King, Pierce, and Snohomish elect their state senator in the off-year (non-Presidential, non-gubernatorial) year. But 16 of the 23 districts outside this Tacoma-Seattle-Everett area elect their state senator at the same election as that for president and governor.
This geographical imbalance has led to a political imbalance. Republicans won 13 of 25 senate seats in 2008, but only 6 of 24 in 2006. The political imbalance is not necessarily permanent. In 1972 and 1974, the overall senate party balance was the same as it is now (30D-19R), but the districts electing in the presidential/gubernatorial year was 18D and 7R, and those elected in the off-year 12D and 12R.
But if there is a re-balancing, it will have to occur in 2010 or 2014.
Note to passersby: Washington for the most part continues its legislative districts across redistrictings, with an occasional shift of a single district from one area of the state to another. So for the most part, the districts slide, but senators are elected for 4 year terms that are continued across redistricting.
In Washington, each legislative district elects 3 members, one senator and two representatives. The representatives are elected by position for the entire district (there have been exceptions in the fairly recent past where a few representatives were elected by subdistrict. But there are none now.
After the 1972 election, 25 of 49 districts had split delegations (2 D and 1 R; or 1 D and 2 R). After 2008, there are only 11 remaining split delegations.
An incumbent may have about a 10% advantage. In a evenly split district, this is enough to survive a substantial partisan shift. But eventually, incumbents retire, and the newcomer will most likely reflect the current partisan complexion of the district. Or sometimes, an incumbent of a now-minority party will be narrowly defeated. At the subsequent election, the new incumbent will handily win re-election.
In 2008, the Republicans picked up a single senate seat. They had captured the two representative seats for the district in 1994, and had slowly expanded their victory margins (close to 60:40 in 2008), and were finally able to gain a narrow victory in the senate race.
As more and more districts have an all Republican or all Democratic delegation, there are fewer opportunities for such delayed switches.
Increased reliance on media that is focused on national or state or metropolitan issues, will result in fewer people knowing who are the representatives for their current blob on the map, especially if they themselves have recently moved. So there may be less opportunity for an individual legislator to be recognized beyond their party affiliation.
There may also be reduced bipartisanship. Since a voter may vote for two representatives, they may choose one from Column R and one from Column D. When female legislators were more of a novelty, some voters may have voted for a woman candidate rather than basing their vote on party.
Summary:
There has been a long-term decline in partisan volatility in Washington, and thus it can not be attributed to the recent changes in the primary system.
Moreover, partisan turnover in 2008 was higher than it was in 2004. You don’t even have correlation with the change in primary system – let alone causality.
#26 I meant the national convention. Presidential electors are officers of their respective States, appointed according to the laws of the State.
State conventions when mandated by State law (or permitted as an alternative), are really no different than primaries, in that they both serve to exclude both voters and candidates. In Texas, where minor parties are required to use conventions, candidates must file declarations of candidacy at the same time as major party candidates file for the primary. The conventions are held in the same time period as the primaries, and the rules restricting cross-party participation are the same.
#27 If the state held an open primary for the purpose of qualifying candidates, the people would love it. The parties would ignore it at some risk. Certainly any overt action to discourage participation in the electoral process would invite legal action under the 14th Amendment.
#28 The list of declared write-in candidates is posted in each polling booth.
Re: #34 — Really? In Michigan, they won’t even post the names of write-ins on the wall at the polling place where a sample ballot is posted.
Each precinct has the official list. That’s necessary, so they can count only those who’ve filed in time to say they *are* write-in candidates (*sigh*).
But you can’t even get the names from the poll-workers (“election inspectors”) at the polling place. If you ask, they will (as the Bureau of Elections at least believes state law requires them to) tell you to go ask the local clerk.