The Libertarian Party of California is backing an effort to repeal the state’s top-two primary system, reaffirming its earlier support for a proposed constitutional amendment now in the process of collecting signatures to place the question on the 2028 ballot.
In a statement published earlier in August, the party said its Executive Committee unanimously reaffirmed its endorsement of the “Undo the Top Two” initiative at its monthly meeting. The committee previously endorsed the proposal without objection during its July 14 meeting, the same day California election officials first cleared the measure for circulation among registered voters.
The proposal would amend the California Constitution to end the top-two system the state currently uses for congressional and state elections, under which all candidates compete in the same primary and only the two highest vote-getters advance to November, regardless of partisan affiliation. It would instead require the Legislature to establish a process in which the leading candidate from each political party advances to the general election.
“California voters deserve the opportunity to vote for candidates who represent their values in the General Election,” Libertarian Party of California Chair Loren Dean said. “The top-two system has largely eliminated third-party candidates from the November ballot and, because California also prohibits write-in votes for partisan offices in the General Election, leaves millions of voters without the opportunity to vote for a candidate who represents them.”
California voters adopted the top-two system through Proposition 14 in 2010, approving the measure at the time with roughly 54 percent of the vote. Before its implementation, each qualified political party generally selected its own nominee to advance to the general election—a system the proposal now being circulated would effectively seek to restore.
Supporters of the proposal must collect at least 874,641 valid signatures from registered voters in order to qualify the measure for the statewide ballot. Organizers have said they’re seeking to place the measure on the November 2028 ballot, meaning they will need to submit petitions to county election officials by next January.
The Libertarian Party of California has opposed the current system since its adoption, including in court. The party joined the Green Party of California, Peace and Freedom Party, and others in a federal lawsuit against Secretary of State Shirley Weber in November 2024, arguing that the top-two system creates an unconstitutional barrier for alternative party candidates seeking to reach the general election. However, a federal judge dismissed that challenge this past April, along with another challenge to the state’s prohibition on general election write-in votes under the same system.
California Libertarians add that they have also called for additional changes to the state’s election system beyond the repeal of top two, including ranked ballots and proportional representation. For now, however, the party said it considers the repeal proposal a “meaningful step” toward giving California voters a fuller range of candidates in future general elections.
Libertarian Party of California Backs Initiative to End Top-Two Primary
I mean, there is a slight exception, especially in the matter of Top 4 primaries in Alaska.
A Libertarian who finished eighth in the state’s at-large Congressional primary is on the ballot in November due to three Democrats and a Republican withdrawing from the race.
Source: https://alaskabeacon.com/2026/09/01/jim-mcdermott-a-libertarian-from-fairbanks-makes-top-four-for-alaskas-u-s-house-race/
@Andrew
I don’t think you and Aiden understand the concept of a nonpartisan primary.
Read the book. The Primary Solution.
Or not….I don’t care that much.
@Seebeck
Mike, a nonpartisan top 2 primary obviously advantages the duopoly because it only advances two candidates to the general election, most likely a R and a D.
On the other hand, a top 4 nonpartisan primary advances 4 candidates to the general election. And the voters choose the best 4 candidates to advance regardless of party affiliation.
Anyway…there is much more research and data on the benefits of a nonpartisan top 4 primary, and the negatives of a nonpartisan top 2 primary, in the book I mentioned previously. The Primary Solution.
A question for Joseph. How proportional can the outcome of the general election be if the candidates in the general election were filter through a non-proportional primary? I suggest not very.
And I would like to point out Aiden did address your concern about the funding in one of his previous responses. I quoted it below to point it out:
Aiden said “if you’re genuinely only concerned about the funding aspect (which I doubt; that’s a cover story for the fact you think extremes are winning nominations), then the better solution is to yes have a single primary, but take the highest polling candidate from each party and the two highest polling independents and move them to the general election. Not simply the Top 4…. only one nominee from a party should be allowed in the general.”
I think what he is suggesting is structuring a primary system more like the ADL (Alaska Independence – Democratic-Libertarian) open primary system that was used in Alaska prior to the change to top 4. The Republican Party opted out of this system but every other ballot recognized party in the state took part in it. You can find an example by looking up Alaska statewide primaries (governor, US Senator, US Rep, etc ) pre-top 4 on Wikipedia.
What Joseph doesn’t understand about proportional is that in many proportional systems there are no primaries. The intra-party determination of who gets seats is determined by voters in the general election, or by the party’s committee.
As they should.
In 2010-11 we fought hard and long against Top Two, including a lot of coordination across time zones, from airplane seats, and between the LNC and LPCA to try to defeat Top Two. I was smack in the middle of it, as were a LOT of LPCA. We failed, but not from any lack of trying; we busted our behinds to try to defeat it. The net result was that LPCA had to do a voter registration drive to break 100k registered Ls in CA to keep our ballot line because the general election route was effectively cut off. LPCA rose to that challenge and got it done, but Top Two has been a fixture of permanent Democrat rule in California ever since–emphasis on “fix”.
@Aiden Straw-man.
My original point, the structure of election primaries, is independent of your argument for proportional representation.
These are two different things. You are arguing a different topic, although related.
You can have proportional representation with a nonpartisan top 4 primary using RCV.
In fact, it makes it easier to do so.
Again, I support proportional representation, but it has nothing to do with my original point regarding government funded and run partisan primaries.
Why don’t you answer that point instead of deflecting to proportional representation, that is, partisan v. nonpartisan primaries.
For those that want to read why proportional is superior, here’s some academic journals:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00358533.2011.609691
https://psaparliaments.org/2018/04/19/electoral-procedures-scottish-parliament/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324052595_Back_from_Holyrood_How_mixed-member_proportional_representation_and_ballot_structure_shape_the_personal_vote
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345311659_REVIEW_OF_ELECTORAL_SYSTEMS_IN_SELECTED_COUNTRIES_IN_2020
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298429031_Perspectives_on_the_Comparative_Study_of_Electoral_Systems
@Joseph… To each their own. I’ve done years of research on the topic, but you’re the genius I guess.
There’s a reason nearly every other democracy in the world has switched to proportional representation, because it creates better functioning governments that actually solve problems.
@Aiden You have no idea what you’re talking about.
It’s comical actually.
A wise man once said not to argue with the ignorant.
I believe I will take his advice.
For everyone else looking on, if you’re interested, read Mr. Troiano’s book.
He makes a compelling case, using decades of election data from multiple states, that a nonpartisan top 4 primary helps all 3rd party candidates with ballot access and loosens the grips on elections by the duopoly.
I need to make a minor correction to my last comment, NBC’s election page listed all third-parties as Independents:
Only one nominee from a party should be allowed in the general. Thus in the case of say the US Senate election in Alaska the primary would have resulted in Mary Peltola (Dem), Dan Sullivan (GOP), Earl Southworth (Alaskan), Scott Kohlhaas (Libertarian), Reece Roberts (Ind.), Sid Hill (Ind.), and Richard Grayson (Green) moving to the general election. One Democrat, one Republican, One “Alaskan”, One Libertarian, One Green, and the top two highest polling independents; all the other Republicans and Democrats would be skipped over.
Thus 7 would make it to the general; then keeping using IRV, I have no objection to that aspect.
@Joseph… And BTW, if you’re genuinely only concerned about the funding aspect (which I doubt, that’s a cover story for the fact you think extremes are winning nominations), then the better solution is to yes have a single primary, but take the highest polling candidate from each party and the two highest polling independents and move them to the general election. Not simply the Top 4…. only one nominee from a party should be allowed in the general. Thus in the case of say the US Senate election in Alaska the primary would have resulted in Mary Peltola (Dem), Dan Sullivan (GOP), Earl Southworth (Ind), and Scott Kohlhaas (Ind) moving to the general election. One Democrat, one Republican and the top two highest polling independents; all the Republicans and Democrats between Sullivan and Earl Southworth would be (rightfully) skipped over…. if that seems “unfair” then those other people shouldn’t run as Republicans or Democrats; what’s unfair is having multiple people from the same party cluttering up the general election ballot, creating ideological stagnation and crushing genuine dissent.
@Joseph…. Everything in my post is relevant; you’re entire argument for changing the primary system is built on the idea that ideological extremes drum up enough plurality support to win the primaries. But you’re clearly stubborn, so keep being delusional. It doesn’t effect me, so whatever. Just so you know it’s looking like the repeal in Alaska will likely pass; unfortunately they’ll be undoing the entire thing. I do support IRV (particularly Single Transferable); just not the moronic blanket primary. Go ahead and change the system, it won’t make a difference, no matter how much you think it will. You’re just denying reality to make yourself feel better, at the expense of actually solving the problem. Again the only solution is proportional representation.
If you want the short version of “The Great Realignment” by Stephen Davies here’s a video presentation by him on the matter: https://youtu.be/XLLJOS14vQE
@Aiden Nonsense. Just because a 3rd party didn’t finish in the top 4 in the 2026 Alaskan election cycle is not evidence a nonpartisan top 4 primary is not beneficial for 3rd parties. It absolutely is. You can’t look at one data point.
A good 3rd party candidate, who knows how to run a campaign, and can relate to people, would have an easier path to the general election if 4 candidates advanced. Common sense, and the data Mr. Troiano presented in his book confirms this fact.
To answer your question, why have so many Republicans fallen in line behind Trump?
Because they’re gutless weasels without principles or integrity, afraid Trump will call them mean names on Truth Social.
They care about one thing…getting reelected and the $$$$ that follows that.
The Constitution failed in its purpose to limit government.
The structure of the election system needs to be changed. Why is the government funding and running primaries for private organization? Rhetorical.
If the taxpayers are going to fund election primaries, it must be nonpartisan. Which I surmise you don’t understand what that means because you mentioned primary ballot access, which isn’t the point.
A top 4 primary is about more choices in the general election, not the primary election. The structure benefits 3rd parties to get their names on the general election ballot.
The rest of your post has nothing to do with the topic, that is, the structure of the election system, which is designed to favor the duopoly, so I will ignore.
@Joseph… I’ve read it, he’s absolutely clueless and delusional too. Neither of you understand the fundamental problem.
Read “The Great Realignment” by Stephen Davies. Our current political environment is not driven by extremism or fringes, but rather a realignment. Neo-conservatism is dead and not coming back (same is true with the traditional center-left)…. this is what the majority of voters that align with Republican Party want, you can blatantly see this in the presidential polling for the Republican Party of 2028; Vance is WAY in the lead.
You can also see this realignment globally in every country in the world…. the UK with the rise of Reform and the Greens, the AFD and the Greens in Germany, the Sweden Democrats and Greens in Sweden, New Zealand First and the Greens in New Zealand, the National Rally and the New Popular Left in France, One Nation and the Greens in Australia…. it’s literally happening everywhere, under every imaginable electoral system.
Ultimately the problem is the Republican and Democratic Parties are controlled in a top down fashion that prohibit intra-party dissent (see AOC’s “present” vote on Israel a couple years back). They’re highly structured hierarchical organizations, so it doesn’t matter which candidate from either party gets elected; they are required to do party leadership’s bidding. They’re required to fall inline or they get primaried in the next election (i.e; the party dumps in millions against them in the primary – that will still happen regardless of which primary system you use).
Why do you think so many Republicans in congress have fallen in line behind Trump and the only dissenters in the party (see Massie) lost their primaries. And no a blanket primary would not have changed the outcome; Ed Gallrein would have still come in first in the primary and would still win the general election.
What we need is mixed-member proportional representation. Thus the factions in each party can break off and form their own parties, each creating their own party leadership. The supposed “fringes” or “extremes” (simply the new dominate factions) increasing control leadership; that’s the problem.
“But regardless, A nonpartisan top 4 absolutely helps 3rd party with ballot access.”… primary ballot access doesn’t matter, that’s already a non-issue in most states for most parties as they petition or nominate by convention; winning the general election matters. Nothing changes unless third parties get ELECTED. I also suggest you read http://www.ballot-access.org because multiple third-parties have lost party status recognition because of the blanket primary system.
You want any moderates to get elected at all? We need proportional so at least SOME moderates can get elected.
Here’s the results from the last Alaska primary… not a single third-party made it to the General Election:
Senate: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-primary-elections/alaska-senate-results
Governor: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-primary-elections/alaska-governor-results
@Aiden You don’t know what you’re talking about.
If you want to actually understand read “The Primary Solution” by Nick Troiano.
Or don’t.
But regardless, A nonpartisan top 4 absolutely helps 3rd party with ballot access.
@Joseph… I’m sorry sir, but you’re clueless. No third-party has placed in the top 4 in any Alaska primary election since the system was implemented. The only reason you’ve seen any third parties in the General is because the lower ranking Republican or Democratic candidates drop out and that pushes up 5th, 6th ,7th, and 8th place finishers up the rankings. If the lower placed Dems and Repubs didn’t drop, there would be ZERO third parties in the general election. Quite honestly I don’t know why any of the lower ranked Dems or Repubs drop, since the general election uses instant run-off; it’s not like they’re going to negatively effect the higher ranked Republican or Democrat.
Top 4 has actually solidified the two-party system.
The government should not be running and funding primaries for private organizations, namely, the Republican and Democratic Parties.
The best election model is Alaska’s model, a non-partisan top 4 primary, where the top 4 finishers advance to the general election.
There is a reason why both the R and D parties in Alaska are heavily funding a ballot initiative to repeal the nonpartisan top 4 primary.
The reason is, the top 4 primary levels helps to level the playing field for 3rd parties.
“California Libertarians add that they have also called for additional changes to the state’s election system beyond the repeal of top two, including ranked ballots and proportional representation.”
IMO, parties should be allowed to choose what voting method they would prefer in their own primaries. General elections should retain plurality voting, with a run-off provision if no one gets 50%+ People are used to plurality voting, and tend to reject voting systems that they consider too “complicated” out of fear that they could be manipulated. Run-offs are used in a few states, and haven’t met with great resistance, possibly because they give voters a tangible “second chance” even if ranked voting would spare the cost of a second election.