Opinion of Nonpartisan Blanket Primaries (Jungle, Top-2 etc.)

[muon2]

I like the idea of it, especially in districts where it's so Democratic/Republican that general election doesn't matter.

This is generally its strongest selling point. It has the potential to make more November elections meaningful by putting the two strongest candidates forward. November is when the most voters turn out in a cycle, so it should be when the most meaningful election takes place. In principle a top-2 should improve turnout by making races more competitive, and in any case it shouldn't make them less competitive. Providing voters with the strongest contenders in a competitive race when the is generally seen as a good policy goal for a political system.

So, I'm curious to know why so many find it HP, since no one is responding to anything other than the poll. Is it due to specific races that turned out badly for one's favorite party, or is it the general idea of the top-2 primary and the lack of party control on the process?

[muon2]

Utterly terrible. Party members are the only people that should have a say in who their party runs for office.

But who is a party member? Any voter can sign up for a party and just as easily sign up for a different party (or none at all) after an election is over.

[muon2]

Unfair and undemocratic.

What part is undemocratic? In Chicago the mayor and city council are elected with a Louisiana-style blanket primary. If no one gets 50% in the primary they go to the regular election for a runoff. Technically the election is non-partisan, but party officials certainly make it clear which candidates they endorse.

[muon2]

Utterly terrible. Party members are the only people that should have a say in who their party runs for office.

But who is a party member? Any voter can sign up for a party and just as easily sign up for a different party (or none at all) after an election is over.

Then get rid of state-mandated registration and let parties control who they admit and their own requirements for membership. The Democrats and the Republicans alike should be able to manage their own membership, rather than allowing the state to do so for them. This is how European parties and American third parties already work.

Which is how the US did it before the public wanted primaries to have a say in the party selection process. In my observation of German elections, the general public had no primary to help form the list of candidates that went to the general election.

So, are you willing to abolish primaries as well as party registration?

[muon2]

In the right direction, but it doesn't work right here in the United States. HS.

But it works in a number of big city elections throughout the US, including cities that are bigger than some states. Why wouldn't it work for statewide elections?

I would also add that the entire Nebraska legislature is elected with a top-2 system (I believe since 1934). They have a technically non-partisan election, but the candidates do identify with parties, just not on the ballot.

[muon2]

Unfair and undemocratic.

What part is undemocratic? In Chicago the mayor and city council are elected with a Louisiana-style blanket primary. If no one gets 50% in the primary they go to the regular election for a runoff. Technically the election is non-partisan, but party officials certainly make it clear which candidates they endorse.

I could tolerate the Louisiana system, except that I think runoffs muck things up too much.  The fact that top two blanket primaries shut third parties out and often force voters to choose between two candidates from the same party makes it undemocratic.

The runoffs only muck things up for those who want to know the answer on election day (and yes there are a lot of those on the Atlas). I'm willing to be patient. The only date that really matters is when the official is to be sworn in.

The third party argument has some validity, but the current system certainly doesn't help them get into office when they have to fend off two established party organizations.

Is it more democratic in areas dominated by a single party to have only one candidate on the ballot in the general election, or two from the same party? A party has to be overwhelmingly dominant (or the majority party incompetent) to get two from the same party into a runoff.

[muon2]

Utterly terrible. Party members are the only people that should have a say in who their party runs for office.

But who is a party member? Any voter can sign up for a party and just as easily sign up for a different party (or none at all) after an election is over.

Then get rid of state-mandated registration and let parties control who they admit and their own requirements for membership. The Democrats and the Republicans alike should be able to manage their own membership, rather than allowing the state to do so for them. This is how European parties and American third parties already work.

Which is how the US did it before the public wanted primaries to have a say in the party selection process. In my observation of German elections, the general public had no primary to help form the list of candidates that went to the general election.

So, are you willing to abolish primaries as well as party registration?

Sure. I mean if the trade off is stronger parties, then yes, I would be all for it.

I suppose we would then go back to the 1800's for our political system.

[muon2]

Here's my main objection to it: if primaries happen during the summer, then you're moving the consequential election to a time when abysmally low turnout is the rule. So it wouldn't be increasing voters' ability to select candidates if very few of them actually turn out to vote.

What if the primary is in the spring such as when many presidential primaries are held? Presumably they would be coincident in presidential years.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Only sort of, since it depends on the details of the model. In a pure top-two, two candidates will move on to the general election even if a candidate got more than 50% in the primary, unless there was only one primary contestant. Then the general election is still a contest.

In Nebraska the primary was on May 13 and 324 K voted out of 1152 K registered (28%). If there was more than one candidate in the primary then the top 2 moved on to the Nov general election. In Nov there were 549 K votes cast statewide out of 1159 K registered (47%). I would think that democracy is better served by putting the higher turnout race for the finals than for the preliminaries. That distinguishes the NE model from the LA model with its true runoff.

[muon2]

I don't mind the model for places where the partisan outcome is more or less a foregone conclusion. It would make the general an actual contest between two more evenly matched contestants, at least in theory. But I've got a problem putting most of the context back to a time (whether in spring or in summer, primaries have lower turnout than general elections) when fewer people are engaged with the process.

Of course the vast majority of districts are a foregone conclusion in terms of the parties. We tend to focus on the handful of true swing seats, but they are not the norm.