A Democrat vs. a Republican in the general election for California governor might not seem out of the ordinary. But because of California’s open, all-candidate primary, there’s a key difference: Democrats, Republicans, and the state’s fastest-growing bloc of voters, Independents, had the freedom to vote for any candidate they wanted, regardless of party, in every race on their ballot. That is not the reality for voters in 47 other states.
The top two candidates – Xavier Becerra and Steve Hilton – didn’t just appeal to the most ardent of Democratic and Republican primary voters, as is the case in other states dominated by one party. They were incentivized to appeal to the entire electorate from the very start of the election. Looking ahead, the next governor will be more representative and more responsive to an actual majority of all of the state’s voters, not just the majority of Democrats, thanks to this unique system.
Under a closed party primary system, Independent voters – which make up a quarter of eligible California – would have been largely ignored. They also would have had no say in the primary elections that their tax dollars fund. If this same election were held in a closed system, the nominees would likely have been forced to the fringes. Hilton would have been forced to pander to the right and to fend off the far-right candidate and former Oath Keeper Chad Bianco. Similarly, Becerra would have been forced to follow the progressive favorite Tom Steyer to the far-left of his party.
This is, in part, why California’s system has served voters well since it was adopted by ballot initiative in 2010. Here, no matter how gerrymandered or otherwise lopsided a district is, every voter has a voice in who gets to represent them. Sometimes, two Democrats advance to the general election in a solidly blue district – like the race to replace Nancy Pelosi. In other cases, two Republicans in a red district advance, as is the case in California’s 40th district with Ken Calvert and Young Kim.
Without the top-two primary, an estimated 92% of California’s congressional races would have effectively been decided last Tuesday. With the top-two primary, California will see at more than triple the number of competitive House races in November.
California’s top-two primary injects competition into a general election that would not exist under the systems in place in states with traditional party primaries. In a competitive general election, candidates actually have to persuade voters who don’t already agree with them. And that changes not just how they campaign, but how they govern.
Opponents of reform often claim that top-two primaries result in elections going to the highest bidder. It would be an effective argument, but the problem is it’s totally false. If that were true, Tom Steyer would have easily advanced, and Matt Mahan would have gotten more than 3% of the vote. Research from the Unite America Institute also finds that open, all-candidate primaries dampen the influence of ideological spending.
Despite the success of the California system, Democratic party insiders have been quietly seeking to undermine the Gold Coast’s universal enfranchisement. After suspending their state’s independent redistricting commission last year, there is now an effort to repeal the state’s top-two, all-candidate primary. The highly unlikely prospect of two Republicans advancing to the general election in the solidly Democratic state in this year’s governor race was used as a convenient pre-text.
Never mind the fact that party insiders have always disliked the system and attempt to drum up support for repeal every two years. The recent primary results prove their concerns were always more about power than actually caring about voters’ interests. The fearmongering was rooted in a desire to choose their preferred electorate rather than standing up in front of all voters.
Similar all-candidate primary systems are used in Washington, Nebraska, Louisiana, and Alaska. Greater competition leads to more participation, stronger representation and, ultimately, better policy outcomes. New research from the Unite America Institute suggests that states with all-candidate primaries have better governing outcomes in the form of higher incomes with as much as $2,771 more per resident each year, longer life expectancy, stronger reading scores, and lower murder rates. And contrary to conventional wisdom, since California adopted top-two primaries, it has been one of the only states to depolarize. And newly-elected members are significantly less extreme.
The California Dream is perfectly encapsulated in the state’s unique model for ensuring every voter has the freedom to vote for any candidate, regardless of party, in every taxpayer funded election. It is a model for breaking down efforts to disenfranchise voters and ensure that every Californian has a seat at the table. Politicians up and down the Pacific Coast Highway should be looking for ways to continue that progress, not stymie it in pursuit of consolidated power.
Nick Troiano is the executive director of Unite America