[GPSCC-chat] Analysis of "Top Two" Primary

[Jim Stauffer]

A version of this article is being published in the "Voice for Democracy"
newsletter of Californians for Electoral Reform, due to be published any day now.

I'm posting it here not just as an FYI, but to entice people to use this as a
source for letters to the editor, or to the Chamber of Commerce. Silicon
Valley played a prominent role in getting this ill-conceived reform passed.
The Mercury News, the Leadership Group, and the SV Chamber of Commerce were
major player in promoting this thing around the state.

As I say in the opening paragraph, "the proponents of Top Two have some
explaining to do." So far the proponents have been totally silent on the poor
performance of their brain-child reform. Will GPSCC be the ones who call them
out on their failures?

Jim
====================================================================


TOP TWO FAILS PROMISES
by Jim Stauffer
October 2012


California implemented a "Top Two" non-partisan election method starting with
the June 2012 primary election. The outcome of this experiment is now
available in the election results... and the proponents of Top Two have some
explaining to do, since nothing they predicted appears to have materialized.

To be fair, California also implemented a new redistricting scheme so it can
be hard to tell which reform caused (or didn’t cause) the election results to
come out as they did.

The Secretary of State’s "Statement of Vote" was the main source for this
article. Below is election data parsed into meaningful categories. This
analysis used data from the Congressional (CD), Assembly (AD), and State
Senate districts (SD). There were 153 contests consisting of 53 CD, 80 AD, and
20 SD.

Within these districts there were (using the Secretary of State’s
abbreviations for the political parties, where NPP means "no party preference"):

* 41 districts with only one DEM and one REP candidate. No NPP or minor party
candidate made it into the top two finishes. Contrary to the expectations of
Top Two proponents, these districts offered less choice to voters.

* 22 districts with only one major party running candidates. Again, this does
not provide more voter choice. However, this means an NPP or minor party had a
better chance of making it into the top two finishers, which happened in eight
districts. Not entering candidates in more of these contests may be a missed
opportunity for NPP and minor party candidates. But, then, they would be
gaining ballot access only due to the good grace of one major party not
running a candidate, which sounds like democracy by unintended consequences.

* 34 districts where the dominant major party ran multiple candidates and the
lower major party ran only one. In most of these contests the lone, lower
party candidate was among the top two finishers. Given the number of districts
in which this occurred, it was obviously a planned strategy to ensure the
lower party's presence in the general election. No NPP or minor party
candidate made the cut in these districts.


For the NPP and minor party candidates, there were eight districts where they
were among the top two finishers: five were NPP candidates and three were P&F
write-ins. Four of the eight districts had only two candidates on the ballot:
one DEM and one NPP or minor party. Three of the districts had two candidates
from the same major party and the NPP candidate bested one of them. One
district (CD 33) had an NPP candidate among the top two finishers competing
against 4 DEM, 1 REP, 1 GRN, and 1 LIB.

The main claim of Top Two proponents is that the system will elect more
moderate candidates. This was to be accomplished by increased turnout due to
more voter choices via the non-partisan nature allowing voters to vote for any
candidate. And cross-over voting between the major party registrants was
suppose to result in some REPs voting for DEM candidates, and visa-versa.

None of this appears to have been realized. Over the past eight Presidential
primary elections (1980 - 2008) we averaged 51% turnout, ranging from 42% to
63%. The 2012 primary election drew only 31% turnout, the lowest in
California’s history. In regards to non-partisan voting, there is nothing in
the above statistics that implies there was less voting along party lines.
Indeed, FairVote.com reports that the major parties endorsed 212 candidates in
Top Two races and 200 of them won. Furthermore, every incumbent running in the
primary won.

There is no election data test to determine if more moderate candidates were
elected. The test is to see how those elected in November conduct themselves
when in office. But low turnout elections usually consist of the more
impassioned voters, not moderates.

Top Two proponents also claimed this would give more opportunity for minor
parties. But, out of the 153 contests examined, only 19 had a minor party
candidate. Only three of those candidates are advancing to the general
election, and those were three last minute write-ins in districts with only
one candidate on the ballot. The NPP candidates did a little better with
presence in 31 contests, advancing to the general election in five districts.
If anything, Top Two has brought us a more exclusively partisan election with
a dearth of NPP and minor party candidates in the general election.

There are real problems with the two-round partisan elections we used to have,
but Top Two doesn’t address them. Vote-splitting and turnout difference
between primary and general elections are two such major problems.

Limiting voters to one choice among a broader field of candidates only
amplifies the vote-splitting problem. For example, there were two
predominately DEM districts where the multiple DEM candidates split the votes
enough to allow a REP to win a slot in the contest. There are many more
districts that were just a few points away from that outcome, also. CD 31 is
the worst example. At 41% DEM / 35% REP, the four DEMs split the vote so badly
that the two REPs became the top two finishers.

Moderate voters come out for the general election, not so much for the
primary. History shows that the general election typically has twice the
turnout of the primary. Those motivated to vote in the primary election tend
to be more strident in their positions. Top Two does nothing to address this,
and it may make it worse by limiting the candidates that go to the general
election.

In summary, how did Top Two perform in its first use? It did horribly: low
turnout, vote-splitting everywhere, deliberate strategies to beat the system
are apparent, a large dearth of independent and minor party candidates, and a
surprising number of districts that had only one party fielding candidates.

Do you see the opportunity for Instant Runoff Voting? If you like the idea of
non-partisan elections, then let’s eliminate the primary entirely for partisan
races (saving more money) and move it all to the general election with its
larger turnout and more moderate voters. Using IRV in the general election
would eliminate the vote-splitting problem and provide real choice to voters,
and it has the best chance of attaining results that reflect the voters’ true
desires. §