In February, 2009, then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (you remember him?) was looking for one more vote in the California State Senate to get a compromise budget approved. The only Republican Senator willing to talk was Abel Maldonado. His price was a ballot measure changing the way that general election candidates were chosen in the first round of an election cycle.
He got his way and we got the “top two” primary system that we are seeing in full for the first time this cycle.
The “top two system” places every candidate from all parties on a single primary ballot. The candidate can choose to have his or her party affiliation noted or not. On June 5, the top two vote getters, no matter which party they are from, will move on to the general election in November. Thus, two people from the same party may become the only choices.
This may take some getting used to. But, it may also be one of the only ways more moderate people are elected to office. In fact, that was the primary reason for Maldonado’s deal. It remains to be seen whether Maldonado’s vision comes to fruition, but we may have a real life example of how that system works in the South Bay. The election for two offices may show either the flaws or the brilliance of this scheme.
In the 66th Assembly District, there are only three candidates listed. Two identify as Republicans, one as a Democrat. Since the breakdown of registered voters in the district indicates an even split between the two parties, the conventional wisdom is that one of each will prevail to meet in November. However, this district has a higher than average propensity of independent voters. So it is possible that the two Republicans, if they position themselves attractively, might eke out the top two positions in a three way split.
One of the Republicans, Nathan Mintz, who positioned himself as a conservative Tea Party candidate when he ran for the office two years ago against Betsy Butler, is now repackaging himself as a moderate. The goal is to attract those “wild card” voters.
This is one of the downsides of the “top two” system. It is very much a “buyer beware” system, where the voters will have to read through the messages they are receiving and determine what, if any, of it they should believe.
A similar situation is occurring in the Congressional race. There, we have a multitude of candidates from a large number of parties and independents. The likeliest Democrat to make it through, Congressman Henry Waxman, will face somebody in November. (Even if a candidate gets more that 50% in this round, they still have to go the next round. I guess this is to make sure that the political consultants get their pounds of flesh.)
Positioning himself as a moderate independent is independently wealthy Bill Broomfield, who has not only contributed, but raised money for conservative Republican candidates in the very recent past. However, in this more progressive district, he felt that to have any chance, he needed to, as it is now called, “etch-a-sketch” himself.
It is going to take time for the wrinkles of “top two” to get ironed out. However, I think it is a partially good system. The primary improvement I would make is to give someone a win if they get 50% in the first round. ER
