4 ms·

There is one thing that is worse than FPTP: The Top-Two Primary. A bunch of candidates run, if no one gets 50% then the top two vote-getters face off in a secon

There is one thing that is worse than FPTP: The Top-Two Primary. A bunch of candidates run, if no one gets 50% then the top two vote-getters face off in a second round with no other options allowed. On the surface it sounds a bit like IRV, but it causes really bizarre outcomes. Basically, let's say party A is unpopular, and has 2 candidates. Party B is extremely popular and has 7. Party A's candidates each get 15% of the vote, Party B's candidates each get 10%. Even though most voters voted for Party B, they're now stuck in a runoff with two candidates from the opposite party. Some people argue that this forces parties to be disciplined and force out candidates they deem "unsensible" or "extreme". But in practice this often doesn't work, and even if it did I feel like the mark of a good voting system is that voters feel safe expressing their preferences without having to be strategic.

winstonewert 6y ago
Do you have a specific example where this scenario played out?
- area_man_2 6y ago
  This happened in the 2016 Washington State Treasurer election https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Treasurer_election,_2016 https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Treasurer_election,_2016 Duane Davidson (R) won against Michael Waite (R) after 3 democrats split the vote in the primary: Republican Duane Davidson 25.09% 322,374 Republican Michael Waite 23.33% 299,766 Democratic Marko Liias 20.36% 261,633 Democratic John Paul Comerford 17.97% 230,904 Democratic Alec Fisken 13.24% 170,117
  - hef19898 6y ago
    Well that raises the question why there were 3 Dems to begin with.
  - winstonewert 6y ago
    I'm not sure any of the alternative systems would have actually given a different result. Yes, the democrats have a majority of the vote, but transfer of support between members of a party is never perfect.
    - Frondo 6y ago
      I'm also not sure if this is enough of a problem to try to solve preemptively, if there's one example from four years ago from a state-level election. If outcomes in general are better, I'll take the risk that they're occasionally worse.
lukeschlather 6y ago
I think this is easily addressed by using approval voting in the open primary. (And this has the benefit of being extremely simple while likely getting all the benefits of IRV/Condorcet.) Any sort of RCV ends up so convoluted I think a lot of people will try to be strategic but completely misunderstand some edge cases.
tehjoker 6y ago
Voting systems that serve to "moderate" voter preferences are anti-democratic. Sometimes an extreme policy is necessary to meet a challenge (e.g. climate change). A voting system should simply do its best to express true voter preferences. That's it.
clairity 6y ago
that sounds like a problem with considering parties when voting, and trying to reduce the complexity of choice to a binary, rather than the merits of the candidates themselves.
zajio1am 6y ago
> There is one thing that is worse than FPTP: The Top-Two Primary. A bunch of candidates run, if no one gets 50% then the top two vote-getters face off in a second round with no other options allowed. Well, that is just plain two round system, it is pretty common and definitely better than FPTP. The bizzare outcome you describe may also happen with FPTP, you just need one candidate from party A and several candidates from party B. The solution is same as in FPTP system - each party endorses just one candidate.
- M2Ys4U 6y ago
  >Well, that is just plain two round system, it is pretty common and definitely better than FPTP. I would differentiate it from a two-round system in that voting takes place on a single ballot paper. In two-round elections there is the ability to use the information about who is in the top 1 to cast the second vote. In Supplemental Voting an elector has no information as to who's going to be in the top 2 when they cast the second preference.
mcv 6y ago
I don't see how this is worse than FPTP. In FPTP, the candidate with the most votes just wins, even if that is only 15%. A second round for the two most popular candidates is still better than that. The issue in your example is of course that both parties send all their candidates to the election, instead of just their most popular one, and that dilutes the vote, but the same would happen if they did that in FPTP. It's only in systems like approval voting or instant run-off that parties can afford to send all their candidates.
- wtallis 6y ago
  > In FPTP, the candidate with the most votes just wins, even if that is only 15%. A second round for the two most popular candidates is still better than that. In practice, most US elections are preceded by explicitly partisan primaries, and that's the status quo you should be comparing against.
  - mcv 6y ago
    But that's something that they can continue doing. There are many countries where they have a second round between the two candidates with the most votes, and in those countries, parties generally send only one candidate. And that's what they'll keep doing under this system, because they want their candidate to end up in the top-2. So unless you actively ban any kind of candidate selection by the parties, that is what would also happen in the US.
    - winstonewert 6y ago
      I believe the particular design of the top-two primary allows anyone to enter the primary and list any party as their "preferred party." So the party might endorse a particular candidate, they can't prevent other candidate from getting on the ballot under their party name.
ElFitz 6y ago
That's what we have here in France, which led to a right vs far-right second round in 2002, from which the traditional left never really recovered.
- hef19898 6y ago
  True. But it also prevented LePen. And before it produced Holland, regardless hoe bad a president he was, he was definitely from the left of the political spectrum.
hef19898 6y ago
Why would you have inner party run-offs in a public election anyway? Just have sort out their candidate far any given election internally beforehand. Then a Top-Two system is actually pretty nice, for direct mandates that is.

winstonewert 6y ago

Do you have a specific example where this scenario played out?

area_man_2 6y ago
This happened in the 2016 Washington State Treasurer election https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Treasurer_election,_2016 https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Treasurer_election,_2016 Duane Davidson (R) won against Michael Waite (R) after 3 democrats split the vote in the primary: Republican Duane Davidson 25.09% 322,374 Republican Michael Waite 23.33% 299,766 Democratic Marko Liias 20.36% 261,633 Democratic John Paul Comerford 17.97% 230,904 Democratic Alec Fisken 13.24% 170,117
- hef19898 6y ago
  Well that raises the question why there were 3 Dems to begin with.
- winstonewert 6y ago
  I'm not sure any of the alternative systems would have actually given a different result. Yes, the democrats have a majority of the vote, but transfer of support between members of a party is never perfect.
  - Frondo 6y ago
    I'm also not sure if this is enough of a problem to try to solve preemptively, if there's one example from four years ago from a state-level election. If outcomes in general are better, I'll take the risk that they're occasionally worse.

lukeschlather 6y ago

I think this is easily addressed by using approval voting in the open primary. (And this has the benefit of being extremely simple while likely getting all the benefits of IRV/Condorcet.) Any sort of RCV ends up so convoluted I think a lot of people will try to be strategic but completely misunderstand some edge cases.

tehjoker 6y ago

Voting systems that serve to "moderate" voter preferences are anti-democratic. Sometimes an extreme policy is necessary to meet a challenge (e.g. climate change). A voting system should simply do its best to express true voter preferences. That's it.

clairity 6y ago

that sounds like a problem with considering parties when voting, and trying to reduce the complexity of choice to a binary, rather than the merits of the candidates themselves.

zajio1am 6y ago

> There is one thing that is worse than FPTP: The Top-Two Primary. A bunch of candidates run, if no one gets 50% then the top two vote-getters face off in a second round with no other options allowed. Well, that is just plain two round system, it is pretty common and definitely better than FPTP. The bizzare outcome you describe may also happen with FPTP, you just need one candidate from party A and several candidates from party B. The solution is same as in FPTP system - each party endorses just one candidate.

M2Ys4U 6y ago
>Well, that is just plain two round system, it is pretty common and definitely better than FPTP. I would differentiate it from a two-round system in that voting takes place on a single ballot paper. In two-round elections there is the ability to use the information about who is in the top 1 to cast the second vote. In Supplemental Voting an elector has no information as to who's going to be in the top 2 when they cast the second preference.

mcv 6y ago

I don't see how this is worse than FPTP. In FPTP, the candidate with the most votes just wins, even if that is only 15%. A second round for the two most popular candidates is still better than that. The issue in your example is of course that both parties send all their candidates to the election, instead of just their most popular one, and that dilutes the vote, but the same would happen if they did that in FPTP. It's only in systems like approval voting or instant run-off that parties can afford to send all their candidates.

wtallis 6y ago
> In FPTP, the candidate with the most votes just wins, even if that is only 15%. A second round for the two most popular candidates is still better than that. In practice, most US elections are preceded by explicitly partisan primaries, and that's the status quo you should be comparing against.
- mcv 6y ago
  But that's something that they can continue doing. There are many countries where they have a second round between the two candidates with the most votes, and in those countries, parties generally send only one candidate. And that's what they'll keep doing under this system, because they want their candidate to end up in the top-2. So unless you actively ban any kind of candidate selection by the parties, that is what would also happen in the US.
  - winstonewert 6y ago
    I believe the particular design of the top-two primary allows anyone to enter the primary and list any party as their "preferred party." So the party might endorse a particular candidate, they can't prevent other candidate from getting on the ballot under their party name.

ElFitz 6y ago

That's what we have here in France, which led to a right vs far-right second round in 2002, from which the traditional left never really recovered.

hef19898 6y ago
True. But it also prevented LePen. And before it produced Holland, regardless hoe bad a president he was, he was definitely from the left of the political spectrum.

hef19898 6y ago

Why would you have inner party run-offs in a public election anyway? Just have sort out their candidate far any given election internally beforehand. Then a Top-Two system is actually pretty nice, for direct mandates that is.