The Games Parties Play – Arizona’s Proposition 121
By Gary Woodard on 10/24/2012 in open primaries, top two with 29 CommentsRead Time: 2 - 4 minutes
Opponents of Arizona’s Proposition 121 warn that the “top two” primary system might be gamed by the two major parties, leaving voters confused and/or with fewer choices. They warn that a party might work to keep all but one of its members from entering the open primary, thereby increasing his or her odds of garnering enough votes to move on to the general election.
games-man-ship [geymz-muhn-ship] noun
The use of methods that are dubious or seemingly improper but not strictly illegal.
Under our current system, party leaders often anoint a preferred candidate and discourage others from running, to spare their favorite from a bruising, expensive primary campaign. Whether a party’s incentive to discourage some potential candidates would be greater or less under the “top two” system is unclear, because their preferred candidate would still have to compete in the open primary. They would essentially be putting all their eggs in one basket.
Another assertion is that a party might field sham candidates posing as members of the other party in an attempt to fragment the opposition vote. This tactic can easily backfire, and only works if the electorate are uninformed. But again, such sham candidacies have occurred under the current system, in some cases leading to legal challenges.
Currently, in Arizona’s Congressional District 3, moderate Republican Blanca Guerra is running as a Libertarian, because under current law, Libertarians don’t have to gather as many nominating petitions as Democrats or Republicans. She has stated that she is running to prevent conservative Republican Gabriela Saucedo Mercer from defeating liberal Democrat Raul Grijalva. Under Prop. 121, a candidate could still attempt to play the spoiler role, but only in the primary, not the general election.
Another form of gamesmanship long practiced under the current system is candidates presenting themselves as ideologically extreme in order to win a partisan primary, and then quickly tacking to the center prior to the general election. This ploy, described by an aide to Governor Romney as “shaking the Etch-a-Sketch,” is common and voters have come to expect it.
Congressman and U.S. senate candidate Jeff Flake was forced to emphasize his conservative credentials in a hard-fought primary against a conservative opponent with deep pockets; he has been scrambling to the political center since. This strategy would be pointless, and even counter-productive under an open primary system, since candidates would have to appeal to the entire electorate in both the primary and general elections.
Congressman Flake’s opponent in the Senate race is Richard Carmona, former Surgeon General for a Republican administration and self-avowed life-long Independent. He is running against Flake as a Democrat while highlighting his differences with key Democratic positions. One of the goals of Prop. 121 backers was to “level the playing field” and make it possible for candidates to successfully campaign as Independents without party support.
On balance it appears that the incentives for parties to try to game the system are unlikely to increase if Arizona’s Proposition 121 passes. In fact, a strong argument can be made that the “top two” primary system might actually decrease political gamesmanship.




Leave Your Comment →
29 Comments
Terri Harel
10.24.2012
@tlharel
California seems to have benefited from the open primary system — we now have some very competitive elections that focus less on partisanship and more on the issues.
Frank Henry
10.24.2012
A YES vote
for 121
will give
all voters
equal
access to
get on the
ballot and
to vote on
the ballot.
Michael Snider
10.24.2012
It would be a great idea.
Angela Towry
10.24.2012
I agree
Noah Sachartoff
10.24.2012
So it would be the same as California’s open primary system?
Samantha Adams
10.24.2012
Considering there are NO parties in the constitution and WE all OWE our votes to our country and NOT to any corrupt party I think STANDING behind and PROTECTING MY country is what a TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOT does!! The GOP and the DNC can kiss off!! Here this is the solution to the whole party SHAM and once again a TRUE PATRIOT puts COUNTRY before party!!! Call me crazy thats ok as I love my country and the constitution and those who must HAVE a party HOLD their hand to vote are the Crazy FOOLS!! Country BEFORE Party!! Representation OVER Rule!!
https://www.facebook.com/pages/No-Party-Revolution-Lets-Put-The-People-Back-In-Politics/148221571911253?sk=info
Daniel Bartelme
10.24.2012
The candidate with the most money will still win. It will make it even harder to get a independent or small parties to win.
S Chad Peace
10.24.2012
Daniel Bartelme This is the first election since California has had non-partisan primaries and there are two independents that look like they might win state-wide office and there are five Peace and Freedom candidates in one-on-one races. Considering California has never had a single independent or third party win, I think this is progress with respect to your concern.
Knobby Kabushka
10.24.2012
IMO there should not even be primaries, just straight out general election with winner takes all and in president race winner is president and 2nd place is VP
Scardog Bones
10.24.2012
Noah Sachartoff probably no. open primaries allow for voters crossing over to vote in another parties primary. so what happens is no longer will conservatives in the few conservative districts be safe because the liberal democrats and liberal independents would be free to vote with liberal republicans for a liberal candidate. also if as this year allowed for, the democrats have no challenge in their primaries against the democrat president the democrats could vote for the most liberal republican along with the liberal republicans to help him or her win the primary, knowing many conservatives wouldnt vote for that person, thus insuring a dem win
Jimmy Burton
10.24.2012
Here is a blog about it:
https://3ifbydrone.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/az-proposition-121/
Stewart Snider
10.24.2012
This seems worth considering, especially if it reduces the power of the gridlocked major political parties.
Jimmy Burton
10.24.2012
Top two was a disaster in California:
http://flagliberty.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/top-two-proves-to-be-a-disaster-in-california/
Dean Klein
10.24.2012
Yes this could easily be gamed…
Jimmy Burton
10.24.2012
This will effectively eliminate any independent candidates
Chad Peace
11.05.2012
@Chad_Peace
Tell that to Bill Bloomfield and Chad Walsh, independent candidates that might actually win. California never has had an independent candidate win in its history.
Jimmy Burton
10.24.2012
In northern AZ we would have the option of Dem vs Dem. this is not good just look at what happened in California.
Sarge Froehle
10.24.2012
any election paid for with tax $ needs to be open to everyone
Independent Voter
10.24.2012
Jimmy Burton This is just one topic covered on IVN.us. We welcome you to come check out our website, http://ivn.us where the majority of our content is directed towards independent-minded voters.
Robert Davidson
10.24.2012
Just a few observations from the talk given Saturday October 13th. In TX by Ross Perot, it looks like Ross was in on the milliner’s conference call with Romney,
Two points I would like to underline; this administration (Pres. Obama) according to the OMB, CBO and the Haver Analytics Group the administration has had the Slowest spending increase since Reagan including the stimulus, bill see below.
Annualized growth of federal spending.
Regan 1982= 8.7, Regan 1986=4.9,
Bush (1) 1990=5.4,
Clinton 1994=3.2, Clinton 1998=3.9,
Bush (2) 2002=7.3, Bush (2) 2006=8.1,
Pres. Obama 1.4.
The second issue is Romney fixed Massachusetts finances, and created jobs.
In the real world during Romney administration Mass. It ranked 47 in job growth in the nation job growth was 0.9 percent lowest in the nation, national average was 5 percent. Only Louisiana was larger in decline and it had suffered Katrina. US Census Bureau estimated between July 02 and July 06 222,000, residents left the state, (looking for work), explaining lowering rate of unemployment (5.6 to 4.7). Estimating loss of 14% of Massachusetts manufacturing jobs. That loss of manufacturing and families leaving as a net, cause of $10.504 per capita bond debt, only one other State was close with $8,000.
The nonsense that he fixed Massachusetts is so much absurdity.
We all support whoever we want that’s America, however I came to Dallas to a reunion of USA and the Reform Party, not to anyone putting out party line on Romney a person I don’t support.
Romney needs to see if he can get his party to pass the jobs bill for all Americans and especially for returning war veterans! I for one was looking for truth, I did not find it in the talk!
Ed Brooks
10.25.2012
They need to abolish the electoral college, and get back to the popular vote.
Steve Stratton
10.25.2012
Will allow more choice besides Dumb And Dumber!!
Steve Stratton
10.25.2012
Pct means nothing. You have to look at dollars spent. Obama increased our debt 9 trillion dollars in 3 years. Census only shows number of residents in state and numbers in NE and Midwest states have been declining for decades. Obama and Dems have had 3 years to pass jobs bill and haven’t. But they have given billions to Obama donors who have gone bankrupt!
Mark A. Newton
10.25.2012
I voted against it. I’m not a fan of the current system by any means but this isn’t the way to reform it.
Joseph Mayo Wristen
10.25.2012
Also voted no though I agree the present voting system across the United States needs to be changed however this is not they way to do it. If 121 were to pass people would only be able to vote for 1 of 2 people basically the 2 who have the most money to spend. Third party candidates would be excluded from the voting process. Note: there are over 4444 different laws in the 50 states of the United States that determine who when and how someone can vote. How messed up is that?
Gnarly Carly
10.25.2012
Leave it alone. The redistricting was a ploy by the left to turn this state blue, and any other changes are coming from the same Libtards.
Gnarly Carly
10.25.2012
The election process of ballot counting is already setup for corruption. The right people are in place in every key position of the process. We are too stupid to see it, and they have already infiltrated this state. We should be drafting propositions to keep the government out of the election process altogether. It’s the only way we will ever get our country back. Stupid people to trust any politician on any level.
David Kikel
10.25.2012
What a coincidence–I’m sitting here filling out my Arizona ballot, and I’ve been trying to decide how to vote on Prop 121.
Pvblivs
10.29.2012
I see some comments that seem to be confused as to what the proposition would do. If passed, the primary becomes a de facto general election. You are not limited to only two choices in that. Even more, voting for your preferred candidate does not risk throwing the election to the worst possible option. (That fear is what keeps the two-party system locked in.) Then the official general election becomes nothing more than a runoff (in which you can vote against that worst choice.) I don’t think the proposed system is perfect. But I remember the saying that the perfect is the enemy of the good. This will help.