Thread: Why California’s ‘jungle primary’ is so hated — and so needed

Editorial
Why California’s ‘jungle primary’ is so hated — and so needed

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, left, and state Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-Santa Maria, walk through the state Capitol in Sacramento in April 2010. Schwarzenegger championed an election-reform ballot measure proposed by Maldonado that passed later that year. (AP)



The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board


Until 2011 — when a new law allowed the Legislature to approve the state budget on a simple majority vote — a staple of politics in the Golden State was watching desperate governors and Assembly and Senate leaders using pork-barrel bribes to round up enough votes to reach the two-thirds threshold for passing a budget. But in 2009, state Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-Santa Maria, got a different payoff for his budget vote: an agreement to place on the ballot a measure that would create an open primary system for state elections. It would allow the top two candidates to advance to the general election instead of letting each party pick a candidate, making it easier for moderates to reach the fall ballot instead of the hard-liners often anointed in partisan primaries.
Democratic and Republican officials hated the proposal. But boosted by maverick Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, good-government groups, business organizations and most of the state’s editorial boards, Proposition 14 was passed by California voters in 2010. Now, eight years later, what’s come to be known as the “jungle primary” is again facing ferocious criticism from partisans.
Democrats hate the fact that with so many Democratic candidates splitting the vote, it’s possible that two Republicans could advance to the fall runoff in some of the seven highly contested California House seats now held by the GOP. Republicans hate the fact that there’s a chance two Democrats could advance in the governor’s race, thus potentially depressing GOP turnout in November.
But The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board, which backed Proposition 14 in 2010, continues to support the “jungle primary.” Even critics who worry that the measure is having unintended effects acknowledge that it has produced a Legislature that is more open to compromise. The state has benefited from the emergence of an informal caucus of moderate, business-friendly Democrats.

In an era of heavy partisanship and polarization, the view that it is unhealthy to give too much gate-keeping power to the two major parties is more appealing than ever — especially given their declining support. Gallup has reported way more independents than either Democrats or Republicans since 2011, and the gap is widening. Last year, Gallup found independents at 42 percent, Democrats at 29 percent and Republicans at 27 percent. This offers hope that attempts to further polarize America driven by regular and social media amplification will fail. Overcoming this polarization is a key challenge of our times — at least among those who want the U.S. to try to solve its problems. Even if it produces occasional surprises, a political mechanism that helps check this polarization should be celebrated.
As for Maldonado, his political career has stalled after failed bids for Congress and statewide office. But his 2009 decision to use his unique, fleeting clout to seek reform instead of pork continues to resonate across California. Thanks, Abel — sincerely.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...601-story.html

Nonpartisan blanket primary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A nonpartisan blanket primary is a primary election in which all candidates for the same elected office, regardless of respective political party, run against each other at once, instead of being segregated by political party. It is also known as a jungle primary,^[1] qualifying primary, or top-two primary.

The so-called Louisiana primary is different because it is technically a general election with a possible runoff, but it has the same result if the percentage for a candidate is the same in both elections.

Under the top-two system, the candidates receiving the most and second-most votes in the primary election become the contestants in the general election, as in a runoff election, in a two-round system.

However, there is no separate party nomination process for candidates before the first round, and political parties are not allowed to whittle down the field using their own internal processes (such as party primaries or conventions).

It is entirely possible that two candidates of the same political party could advance to the general election.
That theoretically elects more moderate candidates, as winning could require appealing to voters of both parties.

The top-two system is used for all primaries except presidential primaries in Washington and California.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpar...lanket_primary


Elsewhere in the United States

The plan is also used in Texas and some other states in special elections but not primaries. A notable example involved former US Senator Phil Gramm, who in 1983 (while a member of the House of Representatives), after switching from the Democratic to the Republican Party, resigned his seat as a Democrat on January 5, ran as a Republican for his own vacancy in a special election held on February 12, and won rather handily.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpar...lanket_primary