South Dakota voters rejected a nonpartisan top-two primary system in 2016. This year the SDGOP leadership quashed Rep. Drew Dennert’s HB 1305, which would have allowed independents to vote in the party primary of their choice. We thus are stuck with a quasi-closed-primary system that, in 14 out of 25 counties with candidates competing to become sheriff, excludes 47,573 South Dakotans from choosing their top cop.
Meanwhile, Californians participating in their fourth open, top-two primary—all candidates on one ballot, everyone can vote, and the top two vote getters advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation. Only a tenth of Californians are pining for a return to a closed primary:
In a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll, just 10% of registered voters gave a thumbs up to what we now call a “closed primary” — the vintage system where the members of a political party pick their own nominee to appear on the general election ballot. Outsiders, be they voters who belong to another party or unaffiliated “independents,” aren’t welcome [John Myers, “California’s Free-for-All Primaries Have Left Things Unsettled, But Voters Don’t Want to Go Back to the Old Ways,” Los Angeles Times, 2018.05.27].
The 90% who say nuts to closed primaries aren’t unified behind the open top-two primary. 50% of respondents support California’s current system, while 40% would prefer something like either Drew Dennert’s bill that would allow independents to vote in the primary while still guaranteeing each party a spot on the general election ballot.
I’ll stick with California’s 50%, as well as with the 45% who joined me in voting for Amendment V in South Dakota in 2016: party affiliation or lack thereof should exclude no voter from a public election.
California’s “jungle primary” is dumb and, counter-intuitively, anti-democratic. For example, suppose there are 8 Democrats and 2 Republicans running in the jungle primary. The state is overwhelmingly Democratic and is almost certain to elect a Democrat in the general election. However, in the jungle primary, all the Republicans vote for their two candidates, and the Democrats split their vote 8 ways. The two Republicans make it to the general election. No Democrats do. The overwhelmingly Democratic electorate now gets to choose between two Republicans for Senator. And it’s not because the “moderate” candidates won; it’s because 8 potentially decent candidates split the vote.
OK then, suppose the state removed all party affiliation from the ballot, making all candidates “non-partisan.” This arguably makes the situation even worse, since there could be dozens of candidates on the ballot with no way for the common voter, who barely pays attention to politics, to distinguish them except for name recognition. You’re now rewarding incumbent politicians, celebrities, and people with famous-sounding names. They’re the ones people will gravitate towards when they have no other information. (And if you want to say voters ought to be better educated, well sure, I agree, but that ain’t how the world works.) Plus, just think of the opportunities for dirty tricks as the opposition party floods the ballot with lots of Trojan Horse candidates to confuse ordinary voters.
And these pitfalls wouldn’t be limited to Democratic-leaning states. Imagine the same thing happening in reverse in Utah or Alabama or Oklahoma or South Dakota. They could end up with a Democrat-only ballot because of multiple Republican candidates splitting the jungle primary vote. (Though you’ll note that Republican states aren’t wilfully hamstringing themselves like this; just Democratic ones so far, in a genuine but misguided attempt at “reform.”)
Jungle primaries are a well-intentioned attempt to simplify the electoral process and (somehow—magically?) produce better candidates for the general election. However, their main effect is to produce unforeseen consequences, reward behind-the-scenes party discipline before the primary (strong-arming “extra” candidates out of the race), and favor candidates with name recognition.
2 GOP candidates prevailing over 8 Democratic candidates in a strongly Democratic jurisdiction—that hasn’t happened yet in California, has it?
Entertaining that hypothetical, what’s less democratic: the two candidates who get the most votes from all participating voters advancing to the general election, or 47K+ South Dakotans getting no vote in their local sheriff’s elections?
California went no-party primaries because the Democrats were dominating. It works well for them there; they are approaching one-party rule by the Dems.
Here we have one-party rule by the GOP. And the vast majority of those who call themselves “Independents” are just another kind of conservative.
We’s be insane to go to no party primaries here, at the state level at least. It would be the last time you’d see a Dem. on the ballot in November for Governor, US Senate, or US House pretty much forever. I dont see how that helps things.
Excellent point Cory.
The best option is Ranked Choice Voting. Those who use it strongly favor it. Primaries, and all the attendant expenses for candidates and governments, are chucked entirely. Candidates spend much less time attacking others and more time promoting themselves, their positions and explaining why they deserve votes.
Amen, Debbo!
It’s “too soon” for South Dakota. South Dakota needs another 3 decades of regressive folks to die off, first.
I agree that Debbo’s option of Ranked Choice Voting would be the best option.
I like ranked choice voting, too, but would ranked choice voting alleviate the concern Chris has about a more unified minority party’s two candidates securing both general election slots over a more fractured majority party’s eight candidates?
RCV and open primaries aren’t opposing proposals. They can be used together or separately. RCV by itself wouldn’t change the fact that I and several thousand of my neighbors don’t get to vote for sheriff this year.
I don’t advocate for open primaries with an eye toward helping any specific political party at any particular moment. I advocate for open primaries to enfranchise more voters. If one particular party is underrepresented in the political system, we can tackle other structural barriers to their success first, like gerrymandering.
But Brian, please explain how an open primary inherently favors one party over another and why the government has a compelling interest in propping up a party that cannot field winning candidates.
Cory, Yes it has happened!!! The truth is practically nobody is happy with the obviously unconstitutional Top-Two scheme.
Voter turnout in general elections have plummeted. The once great diversity of many different minor parties has been decimated and choices in general election always only two is often no choice at all for often the right but also the sometimes the left as well.
This dreadful scheme should not be wrongly referred to as an “open primary” system. It is not! It is Top Two. A traditional open primary system is simply whereby all registered voters can choose to vote in whichever party’s primary they wish to choose a ballot for when they go to vote in a state primary. The winners of each party still get to advance onto the general election ballot! That is an open primary system, top two is nothing of the sort and outrageously unconstitutional.
Lori, read the poll again. The truth is that half of Californians are happy with the top-two scheme, regardless of its constitutionality.
But explain to us how a top-two primary is unconstitutional. Before you begin, note that political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution. Also be prepared to address why it is not a graver violation of Constitutional voting rights to exclude a majority of the electorate from voting for sheriff solely due to the political affiliations of the candidates and the voters.
The system we have now is fine.
If Democrats want to vote in a primary, have two Democrat people run. Problem solved.
The vast majority of voters registered with a party are not activists able to single-handedly recruit candidates. To say that an individual’s right depends on something mostly beyond that person’s control avoids the point: why should the election system exclude individuals from the final decision on who holds elected office due strictly to party affiliation?
There are a number of Libertarians and Democrats and other minority party voters that have changed their voter registration to republican so that they can vote for Kristi or Marty and other republicans on the primary ticket.
Don’t know if this is a statewide trend or if it is just my political group.
Open primaries shouldn’t be that difficult, what would be wrong with putting all candidates names on one ballot with the voter making the decision on the top two candidates.
Cory, RCV eliminates the need for a primary and a runoff. Everyone can be on the ballot. One thing that Minneapolis discovered was that, with only a $25 fee and minimal petition signers, there were too many people on the ballot. They had 36 on the first RCV mayoral election. The city raised the fee to $200 and raised the number required on the petition to keep frivolous candidates off the ballot. (That first time I remember “Jack Sparrow” was a candidate.)
How many people would SD have on a governor’s candidate list? 6-7 this year? Voters can handle that easily. The state would need to do extensive education through all state offices, libraries, tv, radio. Implementation of Ranked Choice Voting would be a bit spendy, but after 2-3 elections voters would have it down pat and there would be no primary expenses. Its a winner.
Now you’ve got me thinking, Debbo. Part of my problem with ballot access is how the primary forces party candidates to submit petitions so early. Get rid of the primary, allow parties to nominate candidates however they see fit, and set the deadline for nominations and independent petitions at the current second Tuesday in August. You’re right—campaigns suddenly get much cheaper, and the public won’t be worn out by as long of a campaign season.
But I wonder: is RCV a good enough reflection of the electorate’s preferences to allow the election of a person who receives less than 30% of the direct popular vote? Is there any reason to couple RCV with some sort of threshold/runoff requirement?