This news story is brought to us by way of the Poli-Tea blog. The original story is from AZIVN.
Earlier this month, the Arizona Open Government Committee officially launched its campaign to bring a top-two style open primary system to the Grand Canyon State by ballot initiative in next year’s elections.
On August 3rd, the group unveiled their proposed constitutional amendment, entitled “The Open Government Act,” that would do away with the state’s current semi-closed partisan primary elections and instead institute a top-two open primary system similar to that adopted by California voters last year. Under the top-two open primary, all candidates for a given office – regardless of their party affiliation – run on the same primary ballot, and all registered voters – regardless of their party affiliation – are eligible to cast their vote for the candidate of their choice. The two candidates who receive the most number of votes then proceed to the November general election, regardless of their respective party affiliations. Thus, it is possible that voters may end up with a choice between two Democrats, two Republicans, one of each or any other possible combination on the November ballot.
Why tell ‘us’ now ?????? Where were you when no one was doing any anti Top Two promotions ??????
A better alternative than “top two” is the system known as “Instant Runoff Voting, or “Ranked (preference) Voting,which does not limit only the top two. Here is a blog post I just wrote on the subject:
The answer to a third party candidate situation?
In America, we have a political system that is based upon a single seat, winner-takes-all election. Under this type of system, the possibility is very real that a winner might only have a plurality, and not a majority of the votes cast in a given election. This exists because of how our system was established. The theory credited to Duverger, known as “Duverger’s Law or Duverger’s Principle states that under a “Single Member, Disrict Plurality” system, the two party system is favored, because it is a “winner-takes-all” situation. Coming in second, or third, or fourth gets you nothing.
Currently, according to this system, third parties tend to favor the lesser candidate by “splitting” the vote between two or more desirable candidates. A quick example – let’s say there is an election coming up, and there are three candidates, two of whom share more or less strongly conservative views compared to the third. For this example, we will use a universe of 180,000 voters. If the majority of voters tend to be conservative, let’s say 55%, this would be 100,000 of the 180,000 voters. If it were only a two person race, chances are the more conservative candidate would win. Enter candidate number three, also somewhat conservative, and now the 100,000 voters split 70 to 30, the non-conservative candidate wins on this basis – the 80,000 votes for that candidate are more than the (70%) or 70,000 of the previous conservative candidate, with (30%) or 30,000 votes going to the second conservative in the race. Even though there is a winner, there is no MAJORITY winner, only a PLURALITY winner. Under our current situation, this is the continuing argument against third party candidates, they are always portrayed as the “spoiler”. IF we institute a requirement that there must be a MAJORITY winner, i.e.more than 51% of the total votes cast, the situation above would require a second election, or a run-off to decide a majority winner.
What if there was a way to correct this and provide a more accurate portrayal of the preference of all the voters? Good news! There already is one! It goes by several names – “Instant Run Off” voting or, “Preferential Voting”, or “Ranked Choice Voting”. This is the procedure used – there is one ballot with all the names, just like a single selection election. But, in this situation, the voter must state a numerical preference for each candidate, using a ranking system, say 1 to 3, for a three person race. In addition to marking their ballot for their first choice candidate, they assign a preference number to their second and third choices, respectively. In this scenario, there must be a MAJORITY winner, not a PLURALITY winner; that is very important! Here is an example:
The three candidates are John Smith, Joe Sixpack and Lenny Liberal. Joe and John are Conservatives, John actually more favorable, and Lenny is a flaming liberal. If it were a traditional race, chances are Joe and John would split their constituencies, and Lenny would have his united 45%, and would win. If this was a Preferential system, voters would cast their vote for their number one choice, then rank the others in order of their preference. After the first round and count, there is no clear MAJORITY (more than 50%) vote getter, hence there is no winner. Using the ranking system, Lenny would stay at his 45 % garnered in the first round, but using the rankings, Joe (the third place finisher in the first round at 16.67 %, would have his votes go to John, who had 38.3% in the first round. Since neither Joe nor John would likely rank Lenny as second choice, and thus, John would emerge with a majority of 55% of the preferential and first round votes cast, which incidentally, more accurately represents the preference of the voters.
IN this type of scenario, having a third party candidate in the race can still accurately reflect the attitude and view of the majority of voters, rather than having a split of the majority result in a plurality winner, with less than a 50% majority of the votes cast. (Remember that Bill Clinton was elected with only 43% of the vote!)
Since the common practice now is to use electronic voting machines, this system would eliminate the need for a second or run-off election, by simply re-tabulating the votes cast by removing the last place finisher, and adding those votes according to the preferences stated on the original ballot. The machines could produce the result almost instantaneously. There would be a raw vote count, then the preferential vote count could be calculated if the raw vote failed to produce a more than 51% majority! In this instance, having a third party candidate would not necessarily result in a “spoiler” plurality winner, as opposed to an actual majority winner.
This system is currently in use, and is gaining popularity. While it still isn’t a perfect system, it might be a better choice to more accurately refiect the mood and intent of the majority of voters. Definitely merits discussion, at the very least!
AZ 2010 Primary results can be found at http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/AZ/19539/32604/en/summary.html
Election results.
@22 What are you basing those claims on?
Had Arizona used Top Two in 2010, there would have been only Republicans on the ballot for U.S. Senate, Corporate Commissioner, Attorney General, and House of Representatives 6th District. That’s not even counting the state legislative races.
There also would have been zero (0) independent or third party candidates on the ballot for Congressional or statewide elections. The numbers don’t lie.
“This is basically the system Louisiana has, and they have four independent legislators. Arizona has zero (0) independent legislators currently. The numbers don’t lie.”
Washington State has Top Two, and they have zero (0) independent legislators currently. In 2008 and 2010, they had zero (0) third party or independent candidates on the November ballot for Congress or statewide offices. The numbers don’t lie.
Vermont has nine third party and independent state legislators and an independent U.S. Senator. Connecticut has elected an independent Governor and Senator in recent years. Maine elected an independent Governor twice and nearly elected another last year. Rhode Island just elected an independent Governor. None of these states has Top Two.
I could be wrong, but IRV is not merely anti Top Two …………
DL
I was reading about Top Two at BAN long before I saw much about it anywhere else. Lots of articles.
I agree with you about starting early. I disagree with your contention that Winger didn’t.
Re 16 Yes. I finally got to the office. Thanks.
independent voter // Aug 18, 2011:
[Top Two is a] “great way to break the power of the RNC and DNC and encourage more independent politics”
[Lake: every thing is a learning tool. Be ‘ears open / eyes open’ on Independent Voting (formerly Oakland, now SF) and CUIP (NYC), also (so called) ‘Independent Green Party of Virginia’. Also any time Cody Quirk claims to speak for California AIP or Nevada IAP! *personal experience*]
Michael H. Wilson // Aug 17, 2011:
“top two is like a diet of beans and Brussels sprouts. Gassy!”
[Lake: Whoopie Goldberg and I have asked you repeatedly ……….. Get da book, in da male?]
paulie // Aug 17, 2011:
Mr. Lake, Mr. Winger has been on this for years.
p, Wringer (whom I adore and consider a secular saint) has been saying basically that the old system was bad, bad, bad and not really giving much more than IRV as an option.
p, When Top Two California came along neither Wringer or Christina Tobin (whom lots of my personal contacts in SF and Chicago, despise, despise, despise) replied to me or campaigned against Top Two.
p, only by getting the word from anti Tobin folks in First Amendment groups, and pro Top Two endorsements from suspect, pro establishment groups did my little band of mail in votes go 6 to zero for Prop Whatever.
p, over 60% of my county mails in ballots; the state is over 50%. I was the first anti Governor Gray Davis vote, SECONDS after the voting opened in September 2003.
p, any one doing business in cali needs to start early and often ——– like the voters in Cook County [Illinios] did in November 1960 ……… By the time Tobin and Company got around to campaigning I and my little posse had mailed our opinions in for weeks [earlier].
That is, virtually all the time.
Most voters do not pay attention to politics before the general election. Even for the few that do, this would place, say, one Libertarian in a race against, for example, ten Democrats and ten Republicans, and perhaps a “Libertarian” or two that has not been vetted by the LP and does not hold libertarian views, if in fact the party labels appear on the ballot. If they don’t, it would further not let most voters know who the Libertarian, Green etc candidates are.
A third round, top two runoff, would be OK in December. However, there needs to be at least one round where there is one Democrat, one Republican, one Libertarian, etc., plus however many independents qualify for the ballot. November is the traditional time for that round.
How independent are those Louisiana legislators? To what extent do their votes and bills differ from Democrats and Republicans?
It is easy for members of qualified alternative parties to get on the Arizona ballot. And, they get to participate in the election most people pay attention to, unlike under this proposal.
The purpose of this proposal is to have virtually no one except Democrats and Republicans on the November ballot, and to eliminate voter awareness of other viewpoints such as Green and Libertarian as much as possible while still seeming to have a “fair” election.
It doesn’t “break the power” of Democrats and Republicans when you eliminate all of their competition from the November ballot
That only happens if or when independents lose badly in the first round of voting. What is so special about November? Would it make you fell better if the first round of voting was in November and the runoff in December?
This is basically the system Louisiana has, and they have four independent legislators. Arizona has zero (0) independent legislators currently. The numbers don’t lie.
The Arizona proposal also makes it easier to get on the ballot and eliminates the roadblocks which favor only Republicans and Democrats on the ballot.
It doesn’t “break the power” of Democrats and Republicans when you eliminate all of their competition from the November ballot. Quite the opposite.
True. They should pay for their own primaries and/or conventions.
Awesome! This a great way to break the power of the RNC and DNC and encourage more independent politics in Arizona.
Republicans and Democrats have been stealing from independents to subsidize their party primaries for long enough!
@1 of coarse the Orwellian Double Speak has been here for years now. They feign solving a problem which they create. Make Political Partys NOT Taxpayers Pay for the nomination of “their” General Nov. Election Candidates! It may seem harsh to some but this can be beaten. Working with any and all groups across the state who oppose it, plaster the state with signs ((opposing“The Open Government Act”)) stating:
VOTE NO
on the
Open Commie Act
Amendment # Whatever
There are enough people and Retirees especially that can still remember that “Commie” is a BAD word and thing and should be defeated. Defeat it once and it will go away for a little while, but never fear the enemy is always at the gate ready to defeat freedom of speech. Using the above signs will bring a lot of verbal abuse , BUT it WILL take the Double Speak and turn it on them and WIN the day ! People will be discussing it instead of just mindlessly voting YES on a down ticket item their neighbor, friend or cousin ask them to support.
Initiative campaigns are always FUN because we actually will have ALLIES in the fight ! Allies we can heartily support on the one issue and we can enjoy the WIN together !
% – & * @ > % < &
I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other men's rights. – Abraham Lincoln
"The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably, he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, and intolerable." -H. L. Mencken
" In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I don't shrink from this responsibility – I welcome it." – President John F. Kennedy
RESIST, While you still can………
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Mr. Lake,
Mr. Winger has been on this for years.
True…
The top two is like a diet of beans and Brussels sprouts. Gassy!
There are republican legislators supporting this, it appears. Create primary opponents. Construct the most vicious attack ads you can legally manage. Or beyond that, given you are only sending the ads to them. Send them a copy with the suggestion that if you have to compete in the Republican Primary, this is how you will do it.
I think “choke point primaries”, as the guy in the article says, is the most fitting name for this method.
Something’s lacking in the nomenclature.
Well Andy, thx for not waiting for the very last minute to broad cast, like Richard Winger, Christine Tobin, and other ‘leaders’ did on the west coast ……..
“follow us guys, we’re right behind ya ………”
Top two needs to be stopped in Arizona and stamped out before it spreads to any other states.
You’ve got to love the name they chose (“The Open Government Act”) to trick people into supporting this scam…