Why do jungle primaries exist?

[Ronnie]

I find it strange and unideal that Democrats are effectively having a 2-way Democratic primary in the GE.  Republicans across the state will leave their senate ballots blank, or vote for the candidate they perceive is slightly less bad than the other.  The race would have obviously been Safe D anyhow, but preventing Republicans from having their say just doesn't seem constructive.

They are an interesting concept, but I don't see the upsides to having them over standard R and D primaries.

[Anna Komnene]

The idea is that it narrows the choices in the general election down to candidates closer to what the majority of people prefer in that state.  Especially in a state that votes for the same party pretty much every election, it can give a choice that's more representative for more people.

That said, I think it's an absolutely terrible system for political minorities and people who aren't favored by the establishment.

[136or142]

The idea is that it narrows the choices in the general election down to candidates closer to what the majority of people prefer in that state.  Especially in a state that votes for the same party pretty much every election, it can give a choice that's more representative for more people.

That said, I think it's an absolutely terrible system for political minorities and people who aren't favored by the establishment.

The worst part is is that if you have, say, seven serious candidates running for the Democrats and two serious candidates running for the Republicans that the two Republicans will make the run-off even if the seven Democrats combined for 60% of the vote.

[Miles]

In LA, it was from Edwin Edwards' 1971 campaign for Governor. LA had traditional primaries until then.

The D primary was very crowded, with Edwards and Bennett Johnston going to a runoff. The runoff was also very close with Edwards winning by 4K votes. Edwards went on to win the general against Treen by 14%, but no Republican had been that competitive up until then.

Basically, just to win his first term as Governor, Edwards went through three rounds of voting that were all competitive. To simply things in the future, he introduced the jungle primary when the state drafted a new constitution in 1973.

Most legislators supported it because the jungle primary was pro-incumbent; they had name recognition which was often adequate to clear 50% after just one round of voting.

It kept the Democratic voter registration artificially high; to vote for Republican candidates, conservative Democrats didn't have to bother actually registration as Republicans themselves. 

I actually like the system for LA. Its something else that makes it different. In the single-party matchups, I like that it often favors the more moderate candidate (Vance McAllister in 2013 for example).

[Kevinstat]

The idea is that it narrows the choices in the general election down to candidates closer to what the majority of people prefer in that state.  Especially in a state that votes for the same party pretty much every election, it can give a choice that's more representative for more people.

That said, I think it's an absolutely terrible system for political minorities and people who aren't favored by the establishment.

The worst part is is that if you have, say, seven serious candidates running for the Democrats and two serious candidates running for the Republicans that the two Republicans will make the run-off even if the seven Democrats combined for 60% of the vote.

When that happens, it's likely more due to low turnout than the Democratic vote being more split.  There was a statewide race (State Comptroller?) in 2014 that almost went R v. R, but the congressional race(s) that year and in 2012 that resulted in two Republicans in the General Election actually had a Republican majority in the primary, even though in one of those cases the seat would have likely gone Democratic in a higher-turnout general election.

[smoltchanov]

The idea is that it narrows the choices in the general election down to candidates closer to what the majority of people prefer in that state.  Especially in a state that votes for the same party pretty much every election, it can give a choice that's more representative for more people.

That said, I think it's an absolutely terrible system for political minorities and people who aren't favored by the establishment.

The worst part is is that if you have, say, seven serious candidates running for the Democrats and two serious candidates running for the Republicans that the two Republicans will make the run-off even if the seven Democrats combined for 60% of the vote.

Nobody forces these seven idiots to run in the same race..... If they can't come to this minimal agreement and coordination of actions then they are all worthy to lose and get big fat zero....

[136or142]

The idea is that it narrows the choices in the general election down to candidates closer to what the majority of people prefer in that state.  Especially in a state that votes for the same party pretty much every election, it can give a choice that's more representative for more people.

That said, I think it's an absolutely terrible system for political minorities and people who aren't favored by the establishment.

The worst part is is that if you have, say, seven serious candidates running for the Democrats and two serious candidates running for the Republicans that the two Republicans will make the run-off even if the seven Democrats combined for 60% of the vote.

Nobody forces these seven idiots to run in the same race..... If they can't come to this minimal agreement and coordination of actions then they are all worthy to lose and get big fat zero....

Why should anybody have to drop out due to the risk that none of them will make the run-off?  Your suggestion sounds pretty undemocratic to me.

[smoltchanov]

The idea is that it narrows the choices in the general election down to candidates closer to what the majority of people prefer in that state.  Especially in a state that votes for the same party pretty much every election, it can give a choice that's more representative for more people.

That said, I think it's an absolutely terrible system for political minorities and people who aren't favored by the establishment.

The worst part is is that if you have, say, seven serious candidates running for the Democrats and two serious candidates running for the Republicans that the two Republicans will make the run-off even if the seven Democrats combined for 60% of the vote.

Nobody forces these seven idiots to run in the same race..... If they can't come to this minimal agreement and coordination of actions then they are all worthy to lose and get big fat zero....

Why should anybody have to drop out due to the risk that none of them will make the run-off?  Your suggestion sounds pretty undemocratic to me.

Democracy is not anarchy. On the contrary any politician (after all - some wise persons dubbed politics "an art of compromise") must have a very clear understanding - when and what for to run if he/she wants to be successfull. And if you can't to calculate that (and your chances) then it's your fault and, as i said above, you deserve nothing, but to lose. I like to win, and if i would be a candidate in such situation - i would try to come to agreement with other posiible candidates from MY party - who runs for what, to minimize chances of opposite party and maximize ours. As i said - if we can't do even that we ALL deserve to lose...

P.S. Essentially that's what party leadership in many states does now: tries to find the best (having most chances to win) candidate for all important offices and tries to clear the path to election for him/her... In "top 2" states that means among other things to prevent situation with 2 republicans and 7 Democrats or vice versa...

[Miles]

^ Yeah, as it is, parties often get involved in the primaries. I mean just look at how actively the PA Dems worked against Sestak this year.

In LA I like that since the primary is the same time as the general in other states, you always get higher turnout than a traditional primary, so its more democratic in that sense. Since the voters there are used to the runoffs after, there's usually not a very severe turnout dropofff either.

[136or142]

The idea is that it narrows the choices in the general election down to candidates closer to what the majority of people prefer in that state.  Especially in a state that votes for the same party pretty much every election, it can give a choice that's more representative for more people.

That said, I think it's an absolutely terrible system for political minorities and people who aren't favored by the establishment.

The worst part is is that if you have, say, seven serious candidates running for the Democrats and two serious candidates running for the Republicans that the two Republicans will make the run-off even if the seven Democrats combined for 60% of the vote.

Nobody forces these seven idiots to run in the same race..... If they can't come to this minimal agreement and coordination of actions then they are all worthy to lose and get big fat zero....

Why should anybody have to drop out due to the risk that none of them will make the run-off?  Your suggestion sounds pretty undemocratic to me.

Democracy is not anarchy.

Seven candidates is anarchy?

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Pretty sure LA had a jungle-style primary at least inside of the Dem party since Reconstruction. Which of course was the only party that mattered.

[DrScholl]

The top two system in California was proposed by Abel Maldonado who wanted to run for higher office, but avoid being defeated in a Republican primary by a more conservative candidate. It ended up working against Republicans in this year's Senate race.

[smoltchanov]

The idea is that it narrows the choices in the general election down to candidates closer to what the majority of people prefer in that state.  Especially in a state that votes for the same party pretty much every election, it can give a choice that's more representative for more people.

That said, I think it's an absolutely terrible system for political minorities and people who aren't favored by the establishment.

The worst part is is that if you have, say, seven serious candidates running for the Democrats and two serious candidates running for the Republicans that the two Republicans will make the run-off even if the seven Democrats combined for 60% of the vote.

Nobody forces these seven idiots to run in the same race..... If they can't come to this minimal agreement and coordination of actions then they are all worthy to lose and get big fat zero....

Why should anybody have to drop out due to the risk that none of them will make the run-off?  Your suggestion sounds pretty undemocratic to me.

Democracy is not anarchy.

Seven candidates is anarchy?

Seven GOOD candidates in "top 2" primary shredding "their" vote into small pieces and handing a seat to opposite party - of course. Democrats  in California already  have some experience on that matter - remember CA-31 in 2012, when no one of 4 Democratic candidates wanted to drop considering himself "the best" and, as a result, 2 Republicans (Miller and Dutton), who, on the contrary, calculated well, went into run-off? Now they (usually) avoid such foolishness... No more candidates then needded to prevent such idiocy. Especially - if opposite side runs exactly 2 good candidates - this must be considered as a sort of a "red flag" - intention of opposite party to use situation to gain maximum benefits.

P.S. Everything must be planned. Preferrably - to the smallest details))))

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

The top two system in California was proposed by Abel Maldonado who wanted to run for higher office, but avoid being defeated in a Republican primary by a more conservative candidate. It ended up working against Republicans in this year's Senate race.

Wasn't it part of the deal he made to vote for the budget back in 2008-2009 or so?

[muon2]

The top-two primary is most useful in district races. Many districts are lopsided for one party or the other. In a conventional primary-general election there may be no choice (or sane choice) for a significant minority of voters. A top-two primary greatly increases the ability of voters not affiliated with the dominant party to have a meaningful choice in the general election. As more of the public desires to be unaffiliated with any party, this is a significant plus for voter engagement.

[BuckeyeNut]

Pretty sure LA had a jungle-style primary at least inside of the Dem party since Reconstruction. Which of course was the only party that mattered.

That's not a jungle primary, that just means they had a run off.

[smoltchanov]

The top-two primary is most useful in district races. Many districts are lopsided for one party or the other. In a conventional primary-general election there may be no choice (or sane choice) for a significant minority of voters. A top-two primary greatly increases the ability of voters not affiliated with the dominant party to have a meaningful choice in the general election. As more of the public desires to be unaffiliated with any party, this is a significant plus for voter engagement.

Agree 101%. That's exactly the reason i absolutely support "top 2" and would ike to see it in all 50 states. Otherwise - too frequently not only minority party has no leverage in too many districts, but, in present polarized word, when Democratic candidates coming from primaries (especially - closed one) are, too frequently, that same "left-wing loonies", and Republican - "right-wing crazies" (with gaping hole around the center), 35-40% of voters, who belong to "moderate camp", are, essentially, disenfranchized (no strong 3rd moderate party in sight). Guys, that's MUCH bigger percentage then percentage of Blacks in 1950 - 1960th, when segregation was rampant...... And if we all agree that segregation was a horrible thing - why disenfranchise 35-40% of population on basis of their political views?

Of course the process will be slow, even - very slow. But polarization already surpassed all thinkable and unthinkable levels in 240 years and something must be done about it. Good example is California: Republicans still mostly elect conservatives (though some more moderate "pragmatic conservatives" like Baker and Hadley got elected to Assembly recently), but there is noticeable increase in the number of pragmatic "business Democrats", including those from Bay Area, which is very liberal socially, but less so economically (and these "business Democrats", able to get pragmatic Republican vote in November,  reflect that district feelings very well). Under old system there would be less of them, and polarization would be even more rampant....

[136or142]

The top-two primary is most useful in district races. Many districts are lopsided for one party or the other. In a conventional primary-general election there may be no choice (or sane choice) for a significant minority of voters. A top-two primary greatly increases the ability of voters not affiliated with the dominant party to have a meaningful choice in the general election. As more of the public desires to be unaffiliated with any party, this is a significant plus for voter engagement.

Agree 101%. That's exactly the reason i absolutely support "top 2" and would ike to see it in all 50 states. Otherwise - too frequently not only minority party has no leverage in too many districts, but, in present polarized word, when Democratic candidates coming from primaries (especially - closed one) are, too frequently, that same "left-wing loonies", and Republican - "right-wing crazies" (with gaping hole around the center), 35-40% of voters, who belong to "moderate camp", are, essentially, disenfranchized (no strong 3rd moderate party in sight).

False equivalence. 

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I've never really heard any good reasoning for run-offs as opposed to ranked voting.

[Mr. Morden]

I've never really heard any good reasoning for run-offs as opposed to ranked voting.

Yeah.  For offices at the state and local level, I'd be cool with just using IRV and no party nominations.  That is, as many Democrats can run as are interested, as many Republicans can run as are interested, etc...rank the choices, and decide the election in one go with IRV, without having a separate state-funded primary.

[smoltchanov]

The top-two primary is most useful in district races. Many districts are lopsided for one party or the other. In a conventional primary-general election there may be no choice (or sane choice) for a significant minority of voters. A top-two primary greatly increases the ability of voters not affiliated with the dominant party to have a meaningful choice in the general election. As more of the public desires to be unaffiliated with any party, this is a significant plus for voter engagement.

Agree 101%. That's exactly the reason i absolutely support "top 2" and would ike to see it in all 50 states. Otherwise - too frequently not only minority party has no leverage in too many districts, but, in present polarized word, when Democratic candidates coming from primaries (especially - closed one) are, too frequently, that same "left-wing loonies", and Republican - "right-wing crazies" (with gaping hole around the center), 35-40% of voters, who belong to "moderate camp", are, essentially, disenfranchized (no strong 3rd moderate party in sight).

False equivalence. 

In your opinion. In my - quite natural. I have no slightest desire to hold my nose and breath and vote for "the lesser evil", which is exactly a situation i have in races between "bold progressive" and "rabid conservative". Essentially i am disenfranchised given such choice.. And now more then 90% of races belong to that category..

[Crumpets]

Look at the 2014 WA-4 congressional election. A Palin-backed tea partier won a plurality in the first round. Under a conventional system, he would have gone on to beat some no-name Democrat in the general. Instead, the general was between him and a more moderate Republican. That Republican managed to get the support of both moderates and Democrats and win out in the end. At least here, the top-two primary (which isn't exactly the same as a jungle primary, but similar) saved us from having another Bachmann/King/Goehmert in Congress.

[136or142]

Look at the 2014 WA-4 congressional election. A Palin-backed tea partier won a plurality in the first round. Under a conventional system, he would have gone on to beat some no-name Democrat in the general. Instead, the general was between him and a more moderate Republican. That Republican managed to get the support of both moderates and Democrats and win out in the end. At least here, the top-two primary (which isn't exactly the same as a jungle primary, but similar) saved us from having another Bachmann/King/Goehmert in Congress.

Dan Newhouse vs. Clint Didier (who is running again)

Yes, I never said the jungle primary didn't produce any good results.

[136or142]

The top-two primary is most useful in district races. Many districts are lopsided for one party or the other. In a conventional primary-general election there may be no choice (or sane choice) for a significant minority of voters. A top-two primary greatly increases the ability of voters not affiliated with the dominant party to have a meaningful choice in the general election. As more of the public desires to be unaffiliated with any party, this is a significant plus for voter engagement.

Agree 101%. That's exactly the reason i absolutely support "top 2" and would ike to see it in all 50 states. Otherwise - too frequently not only minority party has no leverage in too many districts, but, in present polarized word, when Democratic candidates coming from primaries (especially - closed one) are, too frequently, that same "left-wing loonies", and Republican - "right-wing crazies" (with gaping hole around the center), 35-40% of voters, who belong to "moderate camp", are, essentially, disenfranchized (no strong 3rd moderate party in sight).

False equivalence.  

In your opinion. In my - quite natural. I have no slightest desire to hold my nose and breath and vote for "the lesser evil", which is exactly a situation i have in races between "bold progressive" and "rabid conservative". Essentially i am disenfranchised given such choice.. And now more then 90% of races belong to that category..

Not just my opinion:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html

Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

By Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein April 27, 2012

Rep. Allen West, a Florida Republican, was recently captured on video asserting that there are “78 to 81” Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party. Of course, it’s not unusual for some renegade lawmaker from either side of the aisle to say something outrageous. What made West’s comment — right out of the McCarthyite playbook of the 1950s — so striking was the almost complete lack of condemnation from Republican congressional leaders or other major party figures, including the remaining presidential candidates.

It’s not that the GOP leadership agrees with West; it is that such extreme remarks and views are now taken for granted.

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The article continues...


And

http://www.gq.com/story/craziest-politicians

BY STEPHEN SHERRILL
ILLUSTRATIONS BY WARD SUTTON
November 30, 2014

† Look! A Democrat! Yes, this list is Republican-heavy, and while that may seem like standard liberal-media bias, the reality is that Democrats just aren’t keeping pace right now in the crazy department. But to even the score, here’s an incomplete list of crazy Dems from yesteryear: Rod Blagojevich, David Duke, at least one or two of the Kennedys, Anthony Weiner/Carlos Danger, and Jim McGreevey.

Finally: Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump.

Hillary Clinton is a very flawed candidate to be sure, but she's held elected and non-elected political office to be sure and was generally highly regarded for her performances in those positions.

Donald Trump is an extreme narcissist if not a psychopath who is acting increasingly erratic to the point of where he said today that if elected he may not even serve, has no governmental experience, isn't even aware of most of the political issues and whose standard answer on how he would address the issues he speaks about essentially boils down to "I'm so great everything I do will be wonderful."

To say that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are equivalent is completely false and to even say that the more extreme members in both parties are equivalent is also completely false.

So, fine, that is my opinion, but it is an informed opinion and it doesn't rely on lazy non-thinking like 'both sides do it.'

Note: the quote from the first article has been edited down for copyright reasons. Please keep quotes short and use links to the original article. --Mod

[smoltchanov]

^ A very long article that generally says the same thing i said in few words: there is almost nothing to choose from for moderate in BOTH big parties. Yes, Republicans moved to the right with greater speed that Democrats - left, nevertheless - the Democratic movement to the left is very tangible too, Ten years ago such persons as former representatives Matheson and McIntyre would be considered as only "somewhat right-of-center" (real conservaties were people like Bobby Bright, Parker Griffith, Walt Minnick and Dan Boren, and slightly earlier (when he was a Democrat) - Ralph Hall), now Matheson and McIntyre are considered to be something "very conservative". The situation in Republican party is a mirror image, only worse. How many new centrist (at least) Democratic candidates can we expect after this year  election? Zero. Even such people as Gallego will vote at least "somewhat left-of-center". Again, situation among Republicans is even worse. Blacks in 1950th South had no voting rights, i - theoretically do, but in such situation they are almost useless....