4 ms·

California doesn't have party primaries any longer. All candidates run in a single primary, and the two highest vote-getters go on the ballot for November. When

California doesn't have party primaries any longer. All candidates run in a single primary, and the two highest vote-getters go on the ballot for November. When she's up for re-election, her opponent on the November ballot will almost certainly be a Democrat.

protomyth 11y ago
I guess that's one way to make sure an incumbent is on the ticket and lock out any hope of a 3rd party messing with your election.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  The third party is free to run in the primary. (so for instance, if there are 4 candidates that get lots of votes in the primary, 2 Democrats, a Republican and an Independent, you can end up with 2 Democrats on the election ballot, I think the Republican would still see that as having their election messed with)
  - protomyth 11y ago
    Yeah, but it pretty much ensures they won't be on the final ballot.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      I wonder if someone has gathered the statistics from California elections. Comparing across different electorates isn't hugely meaningful but I would think there would be some evidence about how it impacted third party candidates.
      - protomyth 11y ago
        You also want to look at the votes that probably would have gone to 1st party candidates. I too would like to see that study.
- URSpider94 11y ago
  No, it was actually intended to shake up the two-party system. The Republican party is very weak in many parts of the state, so it's entirely possible (likely even) that that second candidate could be another Democrat, or even a third-party Green or Libertarian candidate. The point is that it encourages the non-majority party to field candidates that appeal to the overall populace, instead of to a narrow interest group (like conservative Republicans in Berkeley).
  - protomyth 10y ago
    Shaking up the two party system by likely replacing it with a one party system sounds really bad. It also hurts 3rd parties badly by requiring a shorter time frame and a lot more money to be any influence on the election. This sounds like a way to cement the power of the current ruling party.

protomyth 11y ago

I guess that's one way to make sure an incumbent is on the ticket and lock out any hope of a 3rd party messing with your election.

maxerickson 11y ago
The third party is free to run in the primary. (so for instance, if there are 4 candidates that get lots of votes in the primary, 2 Democrats, a Republican and an Independent, you can end up with 2 Democrats on the election ballot, I think the Republican would still see that as having their election messed with)
- protomyth 11y ago
  Yeah, but it pretty much ensures they won't be on the final ballot.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    I wonder if someone has gathered the statistics from California elections. Comparing across different electorates isn't hugely meaningful but I would think there would be some evidence about how it impacted third party candidates.
    - protomyth 11y ago
      You also want to look at the votes that probably would have gone to 1st party candidates. I too would like to see that study.
URSpider94 11y ago
No, it was actually intended to shake up the two-party system. The Republican party is very weak in many parts of the state, so it's entirely possible (likely even) that that second candidate could be another Democrat, or even a third-party Green or Libertarian candidate. The point is that it encourages the non-majority party to field candidates that appeal to the overall populace, instead of to a narrow interest group (like conservative Republicans in Berkeley).
- protomyth 10y ago
  Shaking up the two party system by likely replacing it with a one party system sounds really bad. It also hurts 3rd parties badly by requiring a shorter time frame and a lot more money to be any influence on the election. This sounds like a way to cement the power of the current ruling party.