This might be the biggest change we’ve seen so far this year as the result of the top two system. In a traditional primary system a distant second place finish is an outright loss. No wonder that the expectation of coming in second in a primary against an incumbent is usually deemed to be not worth the trouble. Many potential challengers fail to take on incumbents. But in the new system even a distant second place finisher gets his or her name on the ballot in November which gives them the opportunity to draw votes from an electorate with higher turnout. This means a primary run is more viable and in the general election the incumbent might be more vulnerable.
The Jungle
California has adopted what are sometimes called "jungle primaries": open to all comers of any party, and the top two face off against each other. Here's a result I wouldn't have expected. This Brookings article argues that incumbents are far more likely to face a challenge in a jungle primary:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
It's probably a great idea for what are effectively single-party states or districts. In Georgia, for example, the November general elections are almost a waste -- the real elections are the primaries, because the state has gerrymandered itself to such a degree that all congressional districts are single-party districts. The winner of the party primary will carry the district.
But very often there is a distinction worth a difference between the top 2 candidates in the primary, which the broader electorate might prefer. It would tend to lead to more moderate officials, as the more conservative Democrat (and more centrist Republican) would be the one who would benefit most from the broader electorate.
Which would be great for the Democrats, at least.
The entire election system is broken.
It would tend to lead to more moderate officials, as the more conservative Democrat (and more centrist Republican) would be the one who would benefit most from the broader electorate.
That's not what just happened in VA, though, is it? Of course as I'm fond of saying, that's a sample size of 1.
Tex, I didn't read this the other day because I was too busy but it doesn't surprise me at all (and no, that's not just hindsight talking) that such a system would make incumbents easier to challenge. To me it makes perfect sense, and will foster odd coalitions between the extreme wings of each party and their polar opposites (who want none of the same things).
They'll have different reasons for voting against the incumbent. We tend to want to view throwing the bastards out as a good thing, but I'm not convinced it is in general.
Especially in a country that is rapidly turning blue.
Moderation isn't the result in California either. An open primary isn't- it's a general election with two rounds.
Oh, and I think Cass is onto something there- it ends up working more like a backdoor parliamentary system.
Post a Comment