The time has come to discard California’s top-two open primary
- Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
SACRAMENTO — It’s probably time for California to reform the outdated “reform” that could be leading us into an absurd November election with no Democratic candidate for governor allowed on the ballot.
The absurdity is that Democratic voters outnumber Republicans in California by nearly 2 to 1. But the voters’ choices for governor could be restricted to just two Republicans — both disciples of President Trump, who is despised in this state.
We’d be electing our first GOP governor in 20 years.
The odds against this scenario are high. But it’s an increasing possibility.
It’s conceivable because of a crowded Democratic field of candidates and a 2010 reform placed on the ballot after a late-night deal demanded by a Republican state senator — Abel Maldonado of Santa Maria — in exchange for his vote to pass a stalled budget and tax increase.
The compromise led to voter approval of California’s unique top-two open primary. The top two vote-getters advance to the November runoff, regardless of party. It’s called an open primary because voters can choose any candidate, no matter their party.
So two Democrats or two Republicans might be the only choices in November — in statewide, congressional and legislative races. That doesn’t happen often, but it has a few times.
It doesn’t reflect the current reality of American politics, with voters sharply polarized between Democrats and Republicans. They want to vote for someone from their own party and are not interested in choosing among two perceived evils.
We should consider returning to a primary system that produces party nominees — one Democrat and one Republican — to give voters a more varied selection in November. Maybe even allow a third or fourth candidate to emerge from minority parties.
It’s too late to change for this year, but we could for future elections. It would require voter approval.
For the present, we’re saddled with the unwieldy dilemma of there being eight major Democratic candidates and just two Republicans. If the combined Democratic vote is splintered among the eight Democrats in the June 2 primary, the two Republicans could end up finishing first and second.
Political data guru Paul Mitchell, who has been running primary election simulations, pegs the chances of a Democratic lockout at 20%.
“There’s only a one-in-five chance, but you don’t want to see a one-in-five chance with something this important,” says the statistician, who works mostly for Democrats.
“To be safe, the Democratic Party needs to have a candidate polling at 20% or more. And none of the Democratic candidates are halfway there. It’s scary.”
Mitchell bases his assessment on a poll released last week by state Democratic Party Chairman Rusty Hicks, part of an effort to pressure low-polling Democratic candidates to step out of the race.
The survey showed both Republicans leading the field — former Fox News host Steve Hilton with 16% and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco at 14%. At 10% each were three Democrats: Rep. Eric Swalwell of the San Francisco Bay Area, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter and wealthy climate activist Tom Steyer. No other Democrat registered above 3%. There were 24% undecided.
The straggling candidates need to ask themselves, Hicks says: “If you’re polling 1% to 2%, do you have a path to get to 20?
“All of these candidates are experienced. They know in their gut when they’re viable or not.”
Mitchell says, “A lot of folks are now looking at why we have a wacky system that causes [a party chair] to tell candidates they should drop out of a race.”
Yes, it does smack of being undemocratic even if it’s practical politics.
Mitchell says the top-two system should be scrapped.
Hicks agrees.
“Things that were promised [by top-two promoters] have not been delivered,” the state party chairman told me. “It’s time to consider going back to the kind of system voters like.”
Appealing to the middle
I called around and got different views from veteran Democratic strategists.
“It was sold as reform, but it’s not reform. It’s a distortion of the process,” one former political consultant told me, asking for anonymity because of his current employment. “Everybody thought it would yield more moderate, consensus candidates, but that’s not what’s happening.”
Consultant Steve Maviglio, who ran the 2010 campaign against the top-two system, says it’s undemocratic because it risks not giving voters “a chance to cast a ballot for a candidate they have some belief in. That’s what our system is built on.”
The grand theory, he notes, was that candidates would be forced to appeal to the middle.
“Just the opposite,” Maviglio argues. “Democrats want a strong Democrat and Republicans want a strong Republican. The only thing in the middle of the road is a dead armadillo.”
Moreover, he points out, the top-two system has been manipulated by Democrats — including Sen. Adam Schiff and Gov. Gavin Newsom — to boost a Republican in the primary to guarantee a noncompetitive, easy election in November.
That’s a bit sleazy.
“The top-two has actually been hugely good to Democrats,” says Democratic strategist Garry South. “They need to think this through. Since the top-two primary was implemented, there have only been three same-party runoffs for state office out of 26 races — all three of them Democrats.
“The current specter of two Republicans [in November] is not the fault of the top-two primary system. It’s due to every Democrat and their brother — or sister — taking a flier and filing for governor.”
“Never,” replies consultant David Townsend when asked whether the top-two primary should be junked. He ran the ballot campaign authorizing it. Townsend insists today’s Legislature contains more moderate Democrats because of the top-two and that they provide a check on the liberal majority.
That’s true to some degree.
OK, we could leave the top-two system for the Legislature and scuttle it for statewide offices.
The thought of being limited to a choice between two Republicans — or two Democrats — for governor is unacceptable and un-American.
What else you should be reading
The must-read: USC cancels gubernatorial debate amid uproar over candidates of color being excluded
The L.A. Times Special: It’s been decades since California had a governor’s race like this one. That was a shocker
Until next week,
George Skelton
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
California’s top-two primary system represents an outdated reform that threatens to produce an absurd November general election outcome, potentially limiting voters to a choice between two Republicans when Democratic voters outnumber Republicans by nearly 2 to 1 in the state.
The system’s fundamental flaw is that it fails to reflect current polarized American politics, where voters sharply divided between Democrats and Republicans desire nominees from their own party rather than being forced to choose between two candidates from the opposing party.
While promoters of the 2010 system promised it would encourage candidates to appeal to the political middle, the opposite has occurred, with Democrats wanting strong Democratic candidates and Republicans wanting strong Republican candidates, making moderation irrelevant to voter preferences.
The system has been manipulated by Democratic leaders, including Senator Adam Schiff and Governor Gavin Newsom, to strategically boost Republican candidates in primaries to guarantee non-competitive, easy November victories for Democrats, undermining the electoral process.
The risk of a Democratic lockout, where no Democratic candidate advances to November despite Democrats’ significant voter advantage, is unacceptable and fundamentally un-American, warranting either reform or abandonment of the system for statewide offices.
Different views on the topic
California’s top-two primary system has delivered measurable positive results for democratic governance, producing depolarization at both state legislative and congressional levels while western states’ legislatures polarized more than any other region during the same period[1].
The system has successfully increased electoral competition across the state, transforming General Assembly races from being over 80% uncontested under the previous system to fewer than 20% uncontested in every election cycle since implementation, and congressional races have seen winning margins 10 percentage points lower than in the decade prior to reform[1].
The top-two system has enhanced voter participation and democratic engagement, with California regularly leading the nation in primary turnout and enabling up to six percentage points of additional turnout through the reform alone, while allowing no-party preference and independent voters meaningful influence in elections[1].
The current risk of a Democratic lockout in the gubernatorial race stems not from the top-two system itself but from the crowded Democratic field, with one strategist noting that since implementation there have been only three same-party runoffs for state office out of 26 races, with two Republicans advancing being attributable to “every Democrat and their brother taking a flier and filing for governor”[1].
The system has enabled more moderate state legislators to emerge and serve as a check on the liberal majority, suggesting the system has value for legislative elections and could be retained for that purpose while potentially being modified only for statewide offices[1].
Rather than eliminating the top-two system, California voters should upgrade it by incorporating ranked choice voting in both the primary and general elections and advancing five candidates to the general election, creating a more sophisticated approach that maintains the system’s foundation[2].
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
It started as a ploy to scare Texas out of redrawing its congressional map and ended with California voters approving a new map of their own, one that could hat could help alter the balance of power in Washington.
William Mulholland was the water boss who made L.A. possible. His reputation gave him unchecked authority as a dam builder. In 1928, that led to one of America’s deadliest disasters--and the question of whether it was a crime.
