3 ms·
> This is why I'm so happy about the California top-two primaries - they've created competitive elections in a dominant-party state. Have they really? It seems
by chimeracoder 9y ago
> This is why I'm so happy about the California top-two primaries - they've created competitive elections in a dominant-party state.
Have they really? It seems more like they've pulled candidates towards the center slightly and relegated third parties to the sidelines even more.
When the initiative was passed, third parties opposed it because they said it would make it more difficult for them to run competitive or even influential (but unsuccessful) campaigns.
For statewide races, the jungle primary approach seems to come down to which two Democrats attract enough votes away from other parties (and other Democrats) in order to make it to the final two.
- nshelly 9y agoA 40-year incumbent in Fremont actually lost to a younger candidate who seemed less controversial. In a primary, the younger / newer candidate may not have won due to lower turnout. Of course, the incumbent was 5th in seniority in the 435-member House, so California is hurt in that way due to House rules, which perversely, favor long-rooted incumbency and states with strong gerrymandering. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/11/pete-stark-defeated.html http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/11/...
- azernik 9y agoWell yeah. In a FPTP system those third-party candidates hurt the major-party candidates closest to their viewpoints, whereas now their voters end up having a say once it becomes clear that their favored candidate is not viable. Same with Republicans in liberal districts; a choice between two Democrats is just what the voter profile of those districts leads to, and at least this way the minority party gets to influence the final winner.