3 ms·

You hold the politicians accountable in primary elections then. Maybe more states will move to top-two style elections like California does for senators. In pla

You hold the politicians accountable in primary elections then. Maybe more states will move to top-two style elections like California does for senators. In places with political party monocultures it gives alternative views within a party a shot at winning a general election.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Maybe more states will move to top-two style elections like California does for senators. California does that for most formerly-partisan offices (excluding Presidential electors), not just Senators. > In places with political party monocultures it gives alternative views within a party a shot at winning a general election. Specifically, in urban areas that tend to be supermajority Democrats (there's virtually nowhere with a Republican supermajority strong enough to make it likely that they'd get the top two spaces usually), it gives Republicans, particularly (which are usually the vast majority of non-Democrats) a say in which Democrat gets elected, skewing overall results further to the right.
Chathamization 9y ago
I don't think the California system is great. It ends up benefiting whatever faction fields the least number of candidates. IE, if 40% of voters support the Purple Party and there are only 2 candidates, and 60% of voters support the Yellow Party but there are 10 candidates, there's a decent chance that in the general you'll have two Purple Party candidates even though fewer people support them. Anyway, in my experience the biggest issue with primary votes is that the vast majority of the population doesn't care, doesn't pay attention, and most don't even bother voting. Check out the turnout for most primaries (and California's "jungle primary" doesn't seem to have helped with turnout[1]), or ask the people around you about the positions between the two candidates in some of the recent local primaries. [1] http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-meyerson-california-jungle-primary-20140622-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-meyerson-californ...

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Maybe more states will move to top-two style elections like California does for senators. California does that for most formerly-partisan offices (excluding Presidential electors), not just Senators. > In places with political party monocultures it gives alternative views within a party a shot at winning a general election. Specifically, in urban areas that tend to be supermajority Democrats (there's virtually nowhere with a Republican supermajority strong enough to make it likely that they'd get the top two spaces usually), it gives Republicans, particularly (which are usually the vast majority of non-Democrats) a say in which Democrat gets elected, skewing overall results further to the right.

Chathamization 9y ago

I don't think the California system is great. It ends up benefiting whatever faction fields the least number of candidates. IE, if 40% of voters support the Purple Party and there are only 2 candidates, and 60% of voters support the Yellow Party but there are 10 candidates, there's a decent chance that in the general you'll have two Purple Party candidates even though fewer people support them. Anyway, in my experience the biggest issue with primary votes is that the vast majority of the population doesn't care, doesn't pay attention, and most don't even bother voting. Check out the turnout for most primaries (and California's "jungle primary" doesn't seem to have helped with turnout[1]), or ask the people around you about the positions between the two candidates in some of the recent local primaries. [1] http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-meyerson-california-jungle-primary-20140622-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-meyerson-californ...