Via Ballot Access News:
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was the leading proponent of California’s top-two ballot measures, both in 2004 (when the proposal lost) and in June 2010 (when it won). The July 20 Sacramento Bee has this discussion with Rob Stutzman, who was the Governor’s chief of staff for communications and who still supports top-two systems. In the piece, which discusses the failure of a leading independent candidate for Secretary of State this year to qualify for the November ballot, Stutzman says, “I think an independent can win in a general election, but its extremely difficult to advance through the top-two primary.”
The piece also includes comments from Darry Sragow, a former supporter of Americans Elect. Sragow seems to sidestep taking a position on whether top-two systems are good or bad for independent candidates.
Even though both Stutzman and Sragow are experts on political campaigns, neither one of them mentions the subsidiary harm done by California’s top-two law, relative to independent candidates. The California law does not permit an independent candidate to have the ballot label “independent” on the ballot. The candidate is stuck with the unappealing label, “no party preference”. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
How is eliminating all but two candidates not limiting choice?
Top Two does not limit choice at all. Those who are too lazy to vote in the June primary to fight for their candidate do not deserve choices.
Jed, exactly! Well said.
“Even the infamous recall election, which was the one time when there actually were a large number of candidates for one office on the general election ballot, went off without a hitch and people were able to find their candidates on the ballot.”
I just came in here to make that point. Arnold Schwarzeigswhngsghswhgrruesweahgar himself was elected by beating 134 candidates (plus write-ins). For all the crap I heard about that election being a “circus” from the major media, the voters didn’t seem to have any problem picking their candidate from that long list. The myth of crowded ballots is just that: a myth. Other countries have far more “crowded” ballots than ours, and those countries with multiple, thriving parties tend to have a lower prison population. More voices breed more nuanced solutions to complex problems. Limited voice means everyone’s looking for the quicker fix.
There was no problem with ballot crowding in California. Even the infamous recall election, which was the one time when there actually were a large number of candidates for one office on the general election ballot, went off without a hitch and people were able to find their candidates on the ballot. Debate organizers held a top five debate for that office that time. Top Two is a conscious and deliberate effort to remove independent, alt party and non-establishment voices from the debate.
I read a few of the arguments for top two in California, and most seemed to use a logistical defense. On paper, it did make sense for them to use Top Two due to the operational dysfunction of unreadable ballots. It also made debates more difficult as there were so many candidates the viewers would’ve had used up two or three days in order to listen to them all.
In regards to liberty, Top two is a total loss. Removing multiple choice in a Primary makes branding a new party almost impossible. It would take a small fortune and a perfect integrated marketing strategy to work the entire state of California.
Top Two also has a residual of keeping voter turn out fairly low. A third or fourth choice might get more people involved in their responsibilities as a citizen of America.
Also, having a republican aide tell us it is dangerous is a waste of time. The long term effect will be to force people to take over the two major parties from the inside which will cause splitter groups within them. The tea party and the republicans is a good example.
The major party system is antiquated. People and their systems need to evolve.
Why would anyone think limiting choices is a good thing? Limited democracy is a sign of a dictatorship! The goal of election reform should be to get more candidates on the ballot, not less.
A compromise is to allow more candidates — Fair Vote suggests 4 — to advance from the primary and use Ranked Choice Voting to handle having more choices. See this Colorado proposal based on this idea. http://www.changepoliticsnow.org/
I remember that Arnold Schwarzenegger said that getting Top Two Primary passed in California was one of his biggest priorities before leaving office as Governor. He personally fundraised over $500,000 that went to the campaign to get Top Two Primary passed in California.
Independent and minor party candidates need an exceptional campaign in order to win. They need all the time they can get. Jesse Ventura campaigned all year long in 1998, but by September he was still only at 10% in the polls. Top-two systems rob independents of the long campaign season they need if they are to have a prayer of winning.
“dw
July 21, 2014 at 6:48 pm
If an independent candidate can’t finish in the top two in the primary, why on earth would (s)he be able to finish in the top one in the general election?”
First off, Jesse Ventura would have been eliminated under Top Two Primary, and he went on to win in the general election. Second of all, it is not just about winning the election, as another reason that minor party and independent candidates run is so they can get a message out to the public and help build a movement for the future, plus to apply pressure to the better funded major party candidates. Top Two Primary takes these things away.
If an independent candidate can’t finish in the top two in the primary, why on earth would (s)he be able to finish in the top one in the general election?