Frustrating article that makes good points about the flaws in the nonpartisan top-two primary system, but doesn't mention reforms that would fix it. In passing it says "Alaska has its own variation" of a non-partisan primary, but that variation (#RankedChoiceVoting) fixes all the problems listed in this article!
@alan hi, Alan. If the Top 4 primary had been in effect in Ca this time, then it would simply have reconstituted the primary field — Schiff, Garvey, Porter, Lee. I’m not sure how that solves anything.
@FrancisWilkinson Well, a large part of your article is (rightly) concerned about Democrats like Schiff effectively funding Republicans who they think will be weaker candidates in the general election. There would be zero incentive to do that in a ranked choice general election among the top four.
@FrancisWilkinson Also, if the concern is that the “wrong” Democrat won (that is, assuming that Porter or Lee could have beaten Schiff in the general if they had made it through the primary) then RCV in the general would give that a chance to happen. I’m not saying top four on is own does anything at all. It’s the ranked choice top four that makes all the difference.
@FrancisWilkinson Of course this election isn’t a good example if your premise is that top two elections are meant to produce moderates and that they’re failing to do that. (As an aside I’m not sure if I agree that moderation is the main goal of top two, vs preventing third party spoilers)
@FrancisWilkinson Had Schiff not juiced Garvey’s result and instead Schiff was facing off against a progressive in the general, the progressive vote would consolidate but the Garvey voters could vote for Schiff and help him win if they were worried about that. The top two system still would have worked fine as designed. The more moderate candidate will win in any case in this example.
Add comment