New Electoral System in CA Means More Competitive Races, Data Reveals
By Shawn M. Griffiths | 02/15/2013 | California, Electoral Reform, Headline, In-Depth, IVN, News Ticker, Open Primaries, States | 8 CommentsSupporters of California’s open primary system have long held that the recent change to the primary election process would result in more competitive races and thereby increase the strength of each person’s vote. Opponents have scoffed at this idea and said that not only would the system fail, but it would result in polar extremes of conservative and progressive ideologies winning elections.
The latest information on the effects top-two open primary had on the 2012 state and federal elections in California reveals that the new system does, in fact, result in more competition, increased cross-over voting, and leads to more moderates being elected to the State Legislature. Tweet the news: Tweet
Top-two open primary was implemented in California by Proposition 14, a 2010 ballot initiative approved by voters. Instead of political parties holding primary elections open exclusively to its members, all candidates running for state or federal offices are featured on a single ballot, which allows voters to pick candidates across party lines (cross-over voting) if they desire to do so. Share these findings: Tweet
Internal polling analysis from Democratic consultants, released to IVN, reveals that in 2012, forty-two percent of incumbents faced a same-party challenge in the primary elections. This is a significant increase from the nineteen percent of primaries that were same-party challenges from 2002 to 2010. Tweet stat: Tweet
Furthermore, almost two-thirds (62 percent) of party-endorsed candidates in competitive party-on-party races lost the general election to the more moderate candidate. This means that in a clear majority of these races, moderate Democrats beat their more liberal competitors and middle-of-the-road Republicans beat candidates who lean more to the right. Tweet stat: Tweet
While every incumbent and most party-favorites advanced to the general election, the 2012 election results indicate that incumbents and party-endorsed candidates are not necessarily guaranteed reelection as they might have been just two years prior. The fact that party-favorites are no longer safe bets illustrates a gradual trend that has been occurring for decades; political parties are losing ground in California. Tweet the news: Tweet
Voter registration for the two big mainstream parties has notably decreased over the last three decades while ‘Decline-to-State’ (DTS) registration has steadily risen. According to the data released to IVN, the decline in Democrats nearly matched the increase in DTS voters from 1978 to 2012.
From 1978 to 2012, DTS registration increased by fourteen percent while registration for the Democratic Party decreased by thirteen percent. Republican registration declined five percent from thirty-five percent of the electorate to thirty percent. There is no indication of a reversal of these trends in the foreseeable future.
The results of the 2012 elections in California are a good indicator that top-two open primary does result in more competitive races in a state where independent voters now make up twenty-one percent of the electorate. However, there are still plenty of voters who are not familiar with the new electoral system.
Internal data suggests that a vast majority of independent voters are not yet familiar with the new primary system, an indication that an increase in voter awareness could mean that the results of the 2012 elections are the start of a lasting trend.








Leave Your Comment →
8 Comments
Michael Higham
02.15.2013
@michaelhigham
This one’s for all the doubters of CA top-two open primary. These elections ARE more competitive now. Over-time, CA will have the most competitive elections and hopefully we’ll have more elected officials who are accountable to their constituents and not parties. These sounded like talking points before this information came out, but now there’s solid evidence.
Party politics is not attractive to the growing number of independent voters.
Simon Mayeski
02.15.2013
@simonmayeski
While I think Top Two did have a meaningful effect on CA races in 2012, don’t forget that CA redistricting, removed from the control of the majority party, pushed quite a few incumbents into races with other incumbents, and forced other candidates into moving themselves and therefore their campaigns into new districts for competitive reasons. It will be interesting to see how the next, perhaps next two CA races (2014, 2016) turn out; these may give us a better understanding of the influence of these two huge changes. Or not :)
Michael Higham
02.15.2013
@michaelhigham
Oh yeah, definitely. Coupled with independent redistricting, we’ll see elections change and bring us something new every cycle. It’s exciting to be in California politics right now!
Simon Mayeski
02.15.2013
@simonmayeski
Absolutely. Just think, if the rest of the country had placed just these two reforms in place as well, how much better we might all be? Add election day registration, online registration and reasonable lines at polling places, everywhere, and this might be a good place for democracy :) Instead, we often seem to be a democrazy :(
Ted Downing
02.16.2013
@downing
Michael and Simon,
Yes, it takes multiple level reforms to fix the system. Add campaign finance reform to redistricting and Top 2 and the people come closer to being properly represented.
Ted Downing
02.15.2013
@downing
This note should be required reading in every California civics class and by political science professors, many of who still don’t see the evolution of political participation.
Should the analysis also count the fear factor? How many incumbents decided not to run for reelection at all rather than face a Top 2 Primary?
Simon Mayeski
02.15.2013
@simonmayeski
According to the article, at least, “…every incumbent and most party-favorites advanced to the general election”. I looked briefly at the results – not a detailed study, mind you – and it looks like incumbents who did not win either termed-out, ran for another office (Senate vs. Assembly vs. Congress) or shifted districts in the same legislative body. In other words, it appears that NO incumbents “decided not to run for reelection at all rather than face a Top 2 Primary.” Feel free, Ted, to do an exhaustive study and find one or more to prove me wrong :)
manuel
04.25.2013
where did you get the data to compare the 2010 vs 2012?
thanks