Comments on: Possible Solution to the Conflict Between Supporters of “Top-Two” and Minor Party and Independent Activists

By: Steve Rankin

Steve Rankin — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:20:27 +0000

In Louisiana’s “top two” in 1987, the top two vote-getters for governor were Congressman Buddy Roemer (33%) and Gov. Edwin Edwards (28%), both Democrats.

Knowing that he would lose a runoff, Edwards then dropped out. Since Louisiana has no provision for such a situation, Roemer was considered elected.

(LA, to be sure, does not have a runoff in its “top two” when one candidate gets 50%-plus in the first round. This happened in the 2004 race for US senator and the 2007 race for governor.)

By: Steve Rankin

Steve Rankin — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:11:47 +0000

Or just have one election and use IRV.

The “possible solution” described in this post sounds like the way France conducts its parliamentary elections. Most of the candidates there who do poorly in the first round drop out and endorse one of the remaining candidates.

By: CaliforniaScreaming

CaliforniaScreaming — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:46:03 +0000

Fix it. I like this concept better, because the Greens and Libertarians would be boxed out of the main election.

By: Jim Riley

Jim Riley — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:25:31 +0000

Why should a candidate be permitted to withdraw? Doesn’t that disenfranchise the people who supported them in the primary? It would also lead to either coercion to withdraw, or inducements to do so (if you withdraw, I’ll make you Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Commerce, etc.).

If you don’t want to be elected, simply don’t campaign. Submit an unflattering picture for the voters’ guide. Include an essay about your encounter with space aliens.

Withdrawal should only be permitted in extreme cases – death, severe disability, or conviction of a felony.

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:00:36 +0000

I believe many candidates would voluntarily dismiss themselves from the November election. The typical Republican or Democrat who was outpolled by someone else from the same party would probably voluntarily withdraw.

But, in a sense, under “top-two”, the primary could be completely dispensed with, because it has no real function.

By: Michael Seebeck

Michael Seebeck — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:48:50 +0000

Uh, wouldn’t that simply make a primary unnecessary if nobody is eliminated? Am I missing something here?

By: Coming back to the LP

Coming back to the LP — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:30:00 +0000

The Washington State “top-two” system is communism.

Don’t try to fix it.

Abolish it.

By: Bob Richard

Bob Richard — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 03:10:37 +0000

The problem with this proposal is that it doesn’t respect majority rule any more than plurality does. In fact, is is plurality in the second round.

Here’s a simpler alternative with a substantial track record and at least some respect for majority rule. Each party chooses a candidate by whatever means (convention, caucuses, privately run primary) it wants. Independents collect signatures. Parties retain control of the use of their names by candidates.

All of the candidates run in a top-two election, with a second round only if no one gets a majority in the first round. IRV is both better and cheaper, but — unlike Washington, Oregon and Peace/Schwarzenegger — this form of top-two would be better than plurality.

Admittedly, my proposal isn’t intended to appease top-two supporters in Washington, whose real agenda isn’t ensuring majority support, but rather the weakening of political parties.

By: Tom McLaughlin

Tom McLaughlin — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 02:38:03 +0000

Ok — so the proposal is that you have an open primary where anybody can vote for anybody and regardless the outcome, all the same candidates are free to run in the General Election??????????? I don’t support IRV but this proposal could change my mind. :-)

By: Mr. Anon

Mr. Anon — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:42:53 +0000

Under that idea, shouldn’t the Democrat and Republican who recieved the most vote recieve some sort of note of endorsement?

Although one may argue that the only way for an endorsement would come from getting the votes of a plurality of registered party members. Which could also bring back the idea of cross-endorsement. Say a Democratic candidate gets the most votes from registered Republicans and can run in November as “Democratic – Endorsed by the Republican Party”.. which is probably beneficial in close districts.

As to what would happen if an endorsed candidate drops out, idk if passing the endorsement down or clearing it would do much.

Then again, the random alphabetical order doesn’t discriminate based on major/minor parties in California.

Also, any future Top Two should only allow candidates registered as a voter as DTS to pick out a label. The whole thing with “Republican/R/GOP” in Washington made the system a bit silly, party-preference-wise.