California voters in 2010 approved, 54% to 46%, adoption of the top-two primary system. Supporters promised that the new system, which applied to statewide and congressional races, would transform California’s election system by reducing partisanship and encouraging the election of “more practical officeholders who are more open to compromise,” per supporters in the official voter guide.
Under the top-two system, candidates from all parties compete in a single primary election, with the top-two vote-getters from any party moving on to the general election. In many cases, candidates from the same party face off. The general election no longer includes write-in ballots. Election geeks have analyzed the results and have come to a variety of conclusions, but it’s clear that California elections have not become bastions of civility and moderation as a result of the reform.
In districts with a strong partisan lean, candidates from the same party will attack each other with a ferocity that belies the top-two’s central premise. But now one Democratic political consultant has filed an initiative for the 2028 ballot that would repeal this primary system. It follows the recent panic among his fellow Democrats about the fleeting possibility of a lockout of Democrats in the governor’s race.
“It suddenly became real for a lot of people,” Steve Maviglio told Politico. “People have woken up to the fact that it’s time to return to what most Americans do.”
It’s fine with us, but it’s hard to get too excited about it.
The major parties had opposed the top-two when it was put forward as Proposition 14 in 2010, as it was designed to reduce their power. The editorial board of the Orange County Register argued at the time it would do little to change the status quo while also curbing debate in the general election and filtering out voices that should be heard.
“Principled, ideological policy-makers are not the problem in Sacramento,” the editorial board noted. “The problem is the exact opposite: Sacramento doesn’t have enough principled voices willing to stand up against the real problem – special interests and their influence.”
Indeed, the reform just created a new set of rules for the parties to game. Going back to the old system might be an improvement in some sense by letting the respective parties fight things out among themselves and then field their candidates of choice. In both systems, there’s the opportunity for political spending to bolster “spoiler” candidates.
Other types of voting systems, especially ones that are designed to improve representation rather than create specific outcomes (more moderates!), hold more promise. One such idea, ranked-choice voting, creates an instant runoff whereby voters select candidates in their order of preference. That, too, has its own set of flaws such as its complexity. It hasn’t been apparent that jurisdictions with ranked-choice voting necessarily have better leaders because of that system.
We’re fine with some election experimentation, but it’s best for everyone to keep their expectations muted. We doubt that any new system — or a return to the old one — will break the partisan logjam as long as Americans are so divided in their viewpoints. But finding the right election system that allows Americans to channel their disagreements democratically and peacefully is a legitimate goal.