The Independent View: Other Options for the U.S. Primary System

Theses ideas were published on June 11, 2014 by Rob Richie, Drew Spencer, and Anthony Ramicone.

On June 3, California held primaries for nearly all major state and federal offices, including governor and 53 U.S. House seats. Since the approval of a 2010 ballot measure, the state has used a “top two primary,” versions of which are also used in Washington and Louisiana. In the top two primary, all candidates for an office run against one another, and voters select a single candidate. The two candidates with the most votes advance to the November election, regardless of party affiliation.

CLICK HERE to read the article.

Reformers Should Go Forward, Not Back

Many officials in California are talking about repealing Top Two. But reformers should not go back to California’s old, discredited system that led to mostly lopsided contests in both primaries and general elections.

The authors of the article feel it would be far better to take what’s good about the current system and make it better. They see fixing top two as easy as 1-2-3.

1. We must banish the idea that general elections provide sufficient choice if they limit voters to two candidates. We are used to two parties dominating contests, but it should be illegal to ban other options from the November ballot, which the Top Two system effectively does in almost every contest. Furthermore, while it can be interesting to have two candidates of one party make the general election, that does not make it right to eliminate every other perspective. Evidence from the 31st congressional district in 2012 shows that about half of the Democratic voters who make up a majority of that district’s electorate just skipped a contest between two Republicans. California could advance four candidates to the November ballot, rather than two. Doing so would dramatically increase the number of elections with more than one candidate from the majority party without shutting out the second largest party as long as it ran a candidate. A “top four” rule also would open up the ballot to far more third parties and independents, including in three statewide contests this year.

2. With four candidates on the November ballot, ranked choice voting should be used to ensure the election of the candidate with the strongest overall support. Doing so would uphold majority rule and reward candidates who reach out to more voters. Using ranked choice voting to reduce the field to four in the primary would eliminate “spoilers” in that election as well.

3. Just as candidates are able to indicate their preferred party, parties should be able to indicate their preferred candidates. More information is good for voters and better upholds first amendment rights of political association.

A Solution: Top Four with Ranked Choice Voting

With ranked choice voting in November, voters would be able to rank three candidates in order of choice. Those rankings would enable the state to simulate runoff elections, with the last-place finisher eliminated before each round of counting, and everyone’s ballot counted in each round for the advancing candidate they ranked highest. Using ranked choice voting in both the primary and the general would be ideal, as it would reduce "wasted votes” all the more, but even using it just in the general election would greatly add to the value of general elections with four choices. Candidates would need to earn their vote to win and would do best by campaigning to voters rather than going negative on their opponents. They would need to be more inclusive in their campaigns and more representative by reaching out to be the second choice of backers of other candidates.

It is clear that something must be done. California should reform Top Two, and those interested in imposing the California model of Top Two in other states like Oregon should think again. Top Two distorts outcomes, too easily resulting in elected officials who do not represent their constituents and too often resulting in general elections that shut out a majority of the electorate from being able to vote for a preferred candidate. By limiting voter choice and placing the most power in the hands of a small, unrepresentative group of primary voters, the top two system falls short of its promises. California policymakers should act to reform Top Two by advancing more candidates and using ranked choice voting, while backers of open primaries in other states should expand their vision of what we deserve in a fully representative democracy.

But I think there is a better way. Blanket Primaries with all register voters participating.

Under this type of primary in California: the major party (Democrat, Republican) candidates, the minor party candidates (American Independent Party, Libertarian Party, Peace and Freedom Party), the independent (No Party Preference) candidates, and the write-in candidates, with the most votes in each contest, goes on to the general election.

To keep the party's right of association, only party members would be able to vote for party position. I also agree with Ranked Choice Voting and candidates are able to indicate their preferred party and parties should be able to indicate their preferred candidates.