1. Abolish all primaries.

   P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.

2. The Peace & Freedom Party, the Libertarian Party of California, and the Green Party should try to get rid of Top-Two System with another ballot initiative.

3. I’m not sure that would work though. The major problem I see with trying to get rid of Top Two via a ballot initiative would be convincing enough Democrats and Republicans that it’s a botched and even corrupt election law. They might be able to get a decent number of independents on board, but many of the Democrats and Republicans I’ve seen on social media sites don’t give a hoot about third parties, and would be glad to see them gone. They’d vote to keep Top Two, particularly the Democrats since Top Two benefits them most. Plus many voters are easily swayed by advertisements, and the Democratic and Republican Establishment would have an overwhelming edge there.
   The courtroom route is the best way to go because if the Peace and Freedom, Green, and Libertarian Parties can manage to convince a judge that Top Two is bad, it would help swing the court of public opinion in their favor so that in addition to legal pressure, the state government would have to contend with growing numbers of voters who feel that Top Two needs to be repealed (assuming the mass media does its job and reports it, and that’s a big if these days…).

4. Based on the results under the blanket primary, there is not a significant difference between the composition of the primary electorate and that at the general election. In contests where there was one Democrat, one Republican, and no more than one candidate for any minor party, the minor party candidates did better in the primary than the general election.

   That is, if both the primary and general election ballots had:

   Donna Democrat
   Ron Republican
   Larry Libertarian
   Greta Green

   Larry and Greta received a larger share of votes in the blanket primary than they did in the general election. This is likely because voters were willing to vote their true beliefs in the primary, and were squeezed in the general election.

   If it is OK for Washington to have a Top 2 primary in August, but not for California to have one in June, then the solution is to change the primary date, not change the election system.

5. Actually, top two primary was opposed by all of the parties:
   http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2010/05/6923-top-3-facts-and-fantasies-big-6-no-prop-14-press-conference/

   http://calwatchdog.com/2010/02/19/new-will-prop-14-kill-third-parties/

   And efforts to get rid of top two primary systems in the courts have failed in other states as well which leads me to think that they will fail in California too.

   There are likely enough registered Peace & Freedom Party, the Libertarian Party of California, and the Green Party members that they could provide the signatures to get it on the ballot. If you can get a good ballot designation that would be very helpful (prop 14 was called increase voter choice). There is not a lot of money put into initiatives about election law, so having third party members campaigning could be the difference.

6. Mister Darcy, no one has ever sued Louisiana to overturn the top-two primary, so when you say lawsuits “have failed in other states”, there is no such other state except Washington.

   Jim, a majority of minor party members who ran in blanket primaries in California got a higher percentage of the vote in the general election (or the run-off, if one is talking about special elections), than they did in the primary. California used a blanket primary for all special legislative and congressional elections 1967-2010, as well as for all primaries in 1998 and 2000.

7. Mr. Winger can again inform the list about the number of gerrymander areas in 2012 NOT having 1 Donkey and 1 Elephant — i.e. lots of unhappy Donkey or Elephant voters in such areas.

   ANY chance for having only 2 Donkeys on the general election ballots for a statewide office ???

   The ban on write-in votes is a blatant violation of 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 — not noticed by armies of moron lawyers and judges for about 40 years.

8. There’s a fair chance that the California election for Controller will have two Democrats on the November ballot and no one else.

9. In 1998, there were 12 congressional races where there was 1 Republican, 1 Democrat, and 1 to 3 minor party candidates on both the primary and general election ballot (with no more than 1 from any minor party). There were 12 Democrats, 12 Republicans, 9 Libertarians, 7 Natural Law, 1 Reform, 1 Green, and 1 Peace&Freedom, for a total of 19 candidates.

   The races were CA-1 (Lbt); CA-8(NLP); CA-11(Lbt); CA-12(Lbt); CA-13(NLP); CA-16(NLP); CA-21(NLP); CA-31(Grn, Lbt, NLP); CA-32(Lbt); CA-47(Lbt, NLP, Ref); CA-49(Lbt, NLP, P&F); CA-51(Lbt, NLP).

   In all 19 instances (100%) the minor party candidate did better in the primary election than the general election.

   Where there was only one major party candidates and no more than one minor party candidate of any any party, the minor party candidate did better in the general election.

   The same pattern was true in 5 senate districts, with 6 minor party candidates: SD-12(Lbt), SD-18(Lbt), SD-24(Lbt), SD-30(Lbt), SD-40(Lbt). 5 of 5 = 100%.

   *SD-38 had an independent candidate on the general election ballot, and is excluded, though the minor party candidates did worse in the general election.

   To be continued …

10. There have been 487 instances in which a minor party candidate ran in a California blanket primary and also ran in the following general election. Out of those 487 instances, the minor party candidate got a higher percentage of the vote in the general election 299 times, and got a lower percentage in the general election 188 times. So 61.4% of the time, the minor party candidate does better in the general election.

    Furthermore, when minor parties do worse in the general election than the primary, it is typically just slightly worse. But quite often, when the minor party person does better in the general election, it is several times better.

11. The pattern also held in 20 Assembly districts with 28 minor party candidates (13 Libertarians, 5 Natural Law, 3 Reform, 3 Peace&Freedom, 3 Green, and 1 American Independent).

    In 1998, there 37 races (congressional, senate, and assembly), where there was 1 Republican, 1 Democrat, and 1 or more minor party candidates, with no more than one from any minor party. These 37 races had 53 minor party candidates.

    In every single instance, 53 of 53, or 100%, the minor party candidate did worse in the general election than they did in the blanket primary.

12. Your analysis is flawed.

    You need to separate races where there was (1) only one major party candidate; (2) all major party candidates were from one party; (3) there was more than one candidate from one major party, and one of the other; and (4) there were multiple candidates from both major parties; and (5) there was 1 Republican and 1 Democrat. You should also distinguish between special elections and general elections.

    In a blanket primary, voters were choosing the nominees of each party. If there were 3 Republicans, 1 Democrat, and 1 Libertarian, any vote for a Democrat or Libertarian was a missed opportunity to choose the Republican nominee.

    So the Libertarian support would be somewhat reduced. And in the general election, some of the supporters of the losing Republican candidates would switch to the Libertarian candidate. This was not because the Libertarian was who they wanted, but because they were banned from voting for their preferred choice, who had received many more votes than the Libertarian candidate.

    Now consider the case with one Democrat, one Republican, and one Libertarian on the blanket primary ballot. All will advance to the general election ballot. It is illogical for someone who favors one candidate, to vote for another. “I hate Debbie Democrat, but I really want to make sure she is the Democratic nominee”, does not make any sense.

    In the 1998 blanket primary, 53 of 53 minor party candidates in similar situations did worse in the general election.

    The lawsuit suggest voters weren’t paying attention during the primary; or the minor party was better able to articulate its beliefs.

    In effect the claim is that minor parties do better when the voters are not paying attention; or once they do know what they are advocating, they reject the parties.

    But the better hypothesis is that some voters do prefer minor party candidates. In the blanket primary, they are free to express their support. In the general election, voters may calculate that they may not vote their true preference and are squeezed. Voters may also have more of a tendency to vote a straight ticket.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.