Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-Wall Street) penned an op-ed in the New York Times in support of a Top Two Primary, like the dismal experiment in California. End Partisan Primaries, Save America.
The reason for this is that it would advance corporate interests, as explained below. Chuck knows who his campaign contributors are, and they reside on Wall Street.
Jaime Fuller writing for the Washington Post’s The Fix column asks Chuck Schumer wants the U.S. to adopt a top-two primary system. But is it working?
California’s primary last month left seven intra-party congressional races for November.
Seven out of 53 congressional seats isn’t a whole lot, but the supporters of the “top two” primary system — which has all candidates, regardless of party, face off in a super primary where the two poll leaders advance to the general election — never promised that the change would revolutionize politics in the state, especially in federal congressional races. Proposition 14, which legislated the election change in June 2012, was mostly focused on giving moderates a chance to get elected in state legislatures.
So is it working? Ethan Rarick, director of the Robert T. Matsui Center for Politics and Public Service Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley warns that the system has only been in place for one and a half election cycles, so we can’t make any grand judgments on the system’s success. If you look at last month’s results, however, there aren’t many congressional races you can point to where moderates made the final round — even in those seven races where two members of the same party made the runoff.
* * *
In most of the other congressional races, the same outcomes happened that would have occurred under the old primary system anyway. The ideologically pure Republican and the predictably lefty Democrats made the runoff, just as they would have if two separate primaries had been held. In 2012, Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren defeated Republican Robert Murray in the general election. In 2014, she is likely to defeat Democrat Robert Murray. There might be two Democrats running in the race this year, but the politics haven’t changed one whit.
In June 2010, soon after Proposition 14 was passed, the New York Times held a panel where they asked several academics and political consultants how they thought the top two primary would work. Barbara Sinclair, a political scientist at UCLA wrote,
Voters are likely to be the losers, at least initially. They may have more “choice” but are likely to have less information. Candidates will not even need to list their party affiliation on the ballot.
Certainly finding out a candidate’s party will not be difficult for those who pay any attention, but the cacophony of many candidates “selling their own wares” in a context of limited media coverage of most races is only likely to get worse.
Ironically, it is possible that the eventual result will be party-affiliated voters relying more on party endorsements and the truly unaffiliated voting in lower rather than higher numbers.
Rarick made a similar conclusion after this election. “The biggest reason this system is unlikely to work,” he said, “is that voters can’t identify moderates from the rest of the candidates. Voters go off party cues. They can’t differentiate one Democrat from another.”
* * *
A study released by the Public Policy Institute of California at the end of April showed that more independents voted in the top two primaries in 2012, but they seem to cast their vote by leaning toward either party, not by staying in the middle. Races have definitely gotten more expensive too — but that could be due to changing federal election law (Citizens United and co.) more than changing state election law.
* * *
Analysis by political scientists at the Monkey Cage blog last year reached the same conclusions. “While voters are generally quite moderate and were willing to cast crossover votes (roughly 12 percent of our participants who voted for a major party candidate did so), they largely failed to discern ideological differences between extreme and moderate candidates of the same party, particularly if they were challengers.” They found that voters weren’t voting for more moderates in state legislative elections either.
The top two primary has only been in play for 1.5 elections, sure, but it definitely doesn’t seem to have changed California politics much yet.
Paul Hogarth adds at The Daily Kos, Schumer blames primaries for gridlock … so he wants to duplicate California’s dysfunction:
[I]t was Schumer’s defense of California’s top-two primary that revealed how clueless he is about my home state, and how getting rid of party primaries will only make things worse.
California was racked by polarization until voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2010 that adopted a “top-two” primary system.
Oy vey. Yes, it’s true that California’s government was dysfunctional before 2010, but that did not change because we passed the “top-two primary.” It was ending the two-thirds rule for passing a budget in 2010 that finally brought some sanity, and an increasingly blue legislature in 2012 changed things for the better.
But the “top-two” primary also created a whole new host of problems that has led to abysmal voter turnout, Republican-vs-Republican general elections and the rise of corporate Democrats in the state legislature. Oh, and the Tea Party is still a relevant factor in the state.
So no thanks, Chuck. Please don’t export the Golden State’s dysfunction.
* * *
California is a deep-blue state, and Republicans have a permanent minority in the legislature. But because the state constitution until 2010 required a two-thirds super-majority for passing a budget, the GOP decided to hold up the budget each and every year. Because they could.
* * *
In November 2010, voters passed Proposition 25, which restored majority rule for passing the budget (although tax increases still require two-thirds.) And in November 2012, as California’s changing demographics kept getting bluer, Democrats achieved a two-thirds super-majority in the legislature. That is why, Sen. Schumer, you don’t see the same dysfunction anymore.
The move has had a moderating influence on both parties and a salutary effect on the political system and its ability to govern.
That’s what Chuck Schumer wants us to believe, but the facts in California say otherwise.
Top-two primary means more corporate Democrats
The top-two primary in California was supposed to rescue “moderate” Republicans like Abel Maldonado from the threat of a Tea Party challenge. But as state Democratic chairman John Burton predicted at the state party’s 2010 convention in Los Angeles, it was really more about helping big business elect more of their Democrats—with cross-over votes from Republicans.
Four years later, Burton’s prediction has proven right—as we have witnessed the rise of the corporate Democrat in deep-blue districts that should be electing progressive champions.
* * *
Top-two primary means Republican vs. Republican races in purple districts
Sometimes, the top-two primary allows for what could be winnable seats for Democrats into a November match-up between two Republicans. GOP Rep. Gary Miller of California’s 31st Congressional District (San Bernardino) dodged a bullet in 2012, when a crowded field of Democrats on the June ballot meant that he ended up facing another Republican.
Voters in that district, by the way, preferred Barack Obama over Mitt Romney—so coat-tails could have netted the blue team an extra House seat. But there was no Democrat on the November ballot, so it was a wasted opportunity.
* * *
No, Chuck, top-two primary does not mean higher voter turnout
While there are no guarantees, it seems likely that a top-two primary system would encourage more participation in primaries and undo tendencies toward default extremism.
Sen. Schumer alleges that a top-two primary would result in higher turnout. That’s exactly what Arnold Schwarzenegger and Abel Maldonado promised back in 2010 when California voters were asked to pass it.
But unlike Schumer, they didn’t have the hindsight to know its effects. Now we know the answer.
The 2014 California Primary Election will go down as the worst ever in terms of voter turnout.
Voter turnout in June was an abysmal 18 percent, which of course turns out the most committed and comfortable voters—who are disproportionately white, old and conservative.
Schumer’s plan smells of a DLC/Third Way/New Democrats corporate Democrats scheme.
UPDATE: Jonathan Bernstein dismantles Chuck Schumer’s arguments in favor of a “top two” nonpartisan primary system like California’s. Chuck Schumer Gets Primaries All Wrong. The Washington Post’s Harold Meyerson does the same. A flawed solution to gridlock.