Republicans and establishment Democrats hate California’s primary system. But it’s a win for California voters.
In 2010, California became one of three US states to adopt what’s known as a “non-partisan top-two primary”. Here’s how it works: all candidates, regardless of party, run in a single primary. Then the two candidates who get the most votes in the primary face each other in the general election.
It’s similar to systems that require a runoff if no candidate secures a majority of the vote, except that the “runoff” is the general election rather than happening in, say, December, as happened with Louisiana’s US Senate race in 2016. (Furthermore, unlike typical runoff systems, winning an outright majority in California’s primary can’t prevent a general-election face-off.)
This system is good for California because it gives California voters a better chance of getting a real choice in our elections. With rare exceptions such as former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (who benefited from a combination of celebrity, relative moderation, and a chaotic recall election), California is too liberal a state to elect Republicans to statewide offices.
In most cases, a truly competitive statewide race requires having two viable progressive candidates. The top-two primary system makes that possible. For example, last year, Democratic candidate Kamala Harris got 3 million votes in the primary, while another Democrat, Loretta Sanchez, got 1.4 million votes. Republican Duf Sundheim came in third with 580,000 votes. As a result, Harris and Sanchez faced off in the general election. Under a traditional partisan system, Harris would have faced Sundheim, which likely would have been a less competitive race than Harris vs. Sanchez.
Now, however, the top-two primary system is under attack. Former Republican US Senate candidate Thomas Palzer is fundraising for a ballot initiative to repeal the system. At first glance, Palzer’s effort is merely pathetic: for Republicans like Palzer, the initiative represents a chance not at political power, but a chance to lose elections to Democrats in a more ego-gratifying fashion.
Worryingly, though, Palzer’s effort has the backing of not just Republicans, but establishment Democrats as well. According to the Sacramento Bee:
In a statement, state Democratic Party Chairman Eric Bauman argued the top-two system “weakens the Democratic Party.”
“Progressives have been forced to spend nearly $200 million in contests featuring two Democrats,” Bauman said. “This is a system that silences the Democratic base and completely excludes third parties from even competing in the fall…the fact that this initiative was filed by Republicans underscores how flawed the top-two system really is.”
It’s difficult to understand how Bauman thinks the top-two system silences the Democratic “base”—unless by “base” he means not voters who consistently show up to vote for Democrats in election after election, but the party establishment. The top-two system certainly does lessen the importance of party organizations. But I’d argue the needs of California voters should take precedence over those of the Democratic party as an organization.
And the idea that the top-two system is bad for third parties is simply absurd. The top-two system creates the possibility that, say, a Green Party candidate might place second in the primary and thus be one of the only two candidates in the general election. Then voters would be able to vote Green in the general without fearing that doing so would unintentionally help a Republican win.
In contrast, the partisan first-past-the-post system may have allowed third parties to appear on the November ballot, but they had little chance of winning so long as voters were forced to live in fear of “throwing their vote away”. This is not to say a third system, such as instant runoff voting, wouldn’t be even better for third parties. However, the top-two primary system is clearly an improvement over the bad old days that Palzer and Bauman want to return to.
If you ask me, the biggest problem with California’s top-two primary system is that we aren’t taking full enough advantage of it. I live in the very liberal Bay Area, but last year I noticed many elections in my area featured Democratic incumbents pitted against conservative Republican challengers whose only goal appeared to be a predictable loss which, apparently, the egos of some California Republicans place great value on.
“Competitive elections” don’t just matter for the sake of some abstract ideal of democracy. They matter because they give Californians better odds of getting elected representatives who truly represent them. Too often, on issues ranging from healthcare to housing, important bills introduced into the state legislature are killed quietly, protecting incumbent Democrats from having to take a stand on them. Real competitive elections could force those politicians to tell their constituents where they stand on more issues.
This is one of the things that made me to decide to launch my campaign to represent California in the US Senate this year. I believe California deserves a real choice in 2018. If you agree, please donate to my campaign today. Together, I believe we can change California politics for the better.
