IVN Editorial Board
In a new Capitol Weekly poll of 1,549 likely June primary voters in California, Democratic Party pollster and data analyst Paul Mitchell set out to measure public opinion on the state's Top Two nonpartisan primary system.
His headline: "California voters souring on Top Two."
His analysis: "massive erosion in voter support for the Top Two Primary."
His conclusion: "Republicans and Democrats both want to get rid of the Top Two system."
We Asked The AI
Just for fun we fed Mitchell's poll and analysis to several leading AI models and asked them to evaluate whether the data supported his analysis.
Claude (Anthropic) said that Mitchell's poll contradicts his headline:
“The poll claims a "massive erosion in voter support for the Top Two Primary" and that voters are "souring on Top Two," but 70 percent of respondents chose to keep open primaries. The data doesn't show voters rejecting open primaries. It shows voters who love open primaries and want them fixed.”
Gemini (Google) said of Mitchell’s poll:
“He is trying to manufacture a narrative that the Top Two system is dying, but his own polling numbers show that Californians are still deeply attached to the freedom of an open primary. Voters aren't souring on the core mechanics of the open primary at all. They overwhelmingly support the freedom and access it gives them.”
The Numbers Tell the Opposite Story
Mitchell gave voters three options: keep the Top Two system as is, modify it to preserve open primaries but guarantee each party a nominee in November, or eliminate it entirely and return to traditional closed primaries.
The results: 49% chose "modify." 21% chose "keep." Just 29% chose "eliminate."
That means 70% of voters chose an option that preserves nonpartisan open primaries. That is not “massive erosion.” That is a supermajority.
Among Democrats, 74% chose to either modify or keep open primaries. Among Republicans, 58%. And among California independent voters who choose not to affiliate with Democrats or Republicans, 86% want to modify or keep the open nonpartisan primary.
In every single voter category, a majority wants to preserve the open primary system.
Despite these numbers, Mitchell writes that "Republicans and Democrats both want to get rid of the Top Two system."
What Voters Actually Love about Top Two
Mitchell's poll asked voters what they valued about the Top Two system and the answers voters gave him are unambiguous.
Sixty-six percent (66%) said the best feature of the Top Two system is that "nonpartisan voters can vote in the primary for candidates from any party."
Fifty-nine percent (59%) chose the ability of Democratic and Republican voters to "cross over and vote for candidates of the other parties, not just their own."
Among nonpartisan voters, support for open participation hit 78%!
These are the defining features of a nonpartisan primary, and they command overwhelming, cross-partisan support.
Other Polls Show 16 Years of Steadily Increasing Support for Top Two
Mitchell claims "massive erosion" in support for the Top Two system. But he provides no baseline, no prior survey to compare against. He is asserting a trend from a single data point.
The Public Policy Institute of California actually has that baseline, and it also tells the opposite story. PPIC shows a 12-year trend of steadily increasing support.
According to PPIC:
"After the 2012 election cycle, 59 percent of likely voters said that Proposition 14 turned out to be 'mostly a good thing' for California, with similar responses in 2017 (60 percent), 2022 (62 percent), and 2024 (68 percent). In our most recent polling, majorities across political groups and along the political spectrum agreed."
Why Would Voters Want to Give Control Back to The Parties?
The PPIC analysis also found that majorities of likely voters have unfavorable views of both major parties: 61% unfavorable toward the Democratic Party and 70% unfavorable toward the Republican Party.
Only a quarter of respondents said the two major parties do an adequate job representing the American people, while roughly 3 out of 4 voters said the parties do such a poor job that a third major party is needed.
So, if voters are this unhappy with both parties, why on earth would they want to hand primary elections back to those same parties?
The entire premise of eliminating nonpartisan primaries rests on the idea that somehow closed, party-controlled nominations serve voters better.
Is the proposed solution to give those parties more control over who appears on the ballot?
Shawn Griffiths
As IVN Editor Shawn Griffiths wrote:
"What voters want is representation that is beholden to them, not party leadership. They want candidates who prioritize the needs of the electorate, not the clamoring of shrinking party bases and monied interests aligned with the parties."
Mitchell's own poll confirms this. Two-thirds of his respondents said the best thing about the system is that it lets independents vote and lets voters cross party lines. Voters are not asking for less freedom. They are asking for more.
Opponents of Top Two Are Pushing a Reform They Fought in Court to Kill
Mitchell’s preferred reform, the "modify" option chosen by 49% of respondents, would create a system where all voters can vote for any candidate but the top finisher from each party advances to the general election.
Mitchell presents this as a common-sense fix. But this system already has a name and a history. It is called a blanket primary. And it has already been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court.
In California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000), the Supreme Court struck down California's blanket primary, established by Proposition 198 in 1996, on the grounds that it violated the political parties' First Amendment right of freedom of association. The ruling was 7-2.
The lead plaintiff in the case was the California Democratic Party, joined by the Republican Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Peace and Freedom Party. They argued, successfully, that allowing non-members to participate in selecting a party's nominee was an unconstitutional intrusion on their associational rights.
The Top Two nonpartisan primary, established by Proposition 14 in 2010, survived legal challenges precisely because it is not a blanket primary. It does not select party nominees. It advances the top two candidates regardless of party. That is the legal distinction that makes the system constitutional.
Mitchell's "modify" option would undo that. It would return California to a system where the primary determines each party's nominee for the general election, with all voters participating.
That is the very same system the California Democratic Party took all the way to the Supreme Court to successfully destroy. And now this poll conducted for Capitol Weekly is presenting it as the popular alternative to the nonpartisan system that replaced it.
The 6.9 million independent voters in California can currently vote in the nonpartisan primary for any candidate they choose. Mitchell's recommended reform would put their participation rights back in the hands of the same parties that fought to exclude them, under a system the Supreme Court has already said violates the Constitution.
This is What Partisan Operatives Are Paid to Do
Mitchell can technically defend the claim that "only 21% want to keep the system as is."
But the implication of the headline, the narrative Mitchell builds around it, the conclusion that voters are "souring" and that both parties "want to get rid of" the system: none of that is supported by the full picture his own data provides.
The 21% figure is cherry-picked. The narrative he built on top of it is misleading. And the headline is designed to create an impression that the data beneath it does not support.
This is how party insiders have always operated against nonpartisan reforms: commission a poll, find the most unfavorable framing, write the headline, and hope nobody reads the crosstabs.