California's Top-two Primary: A Successful Reform I Charles T. Munger, Jr. (Dated: February 22, 2019) This is the first of three concurrent papers on California's top-two primary, California's Top-two Primary: A Successful Reform I, II, and III; this abstract covers all three. A common summary of the conclusions of all three papers appears in III, section VI. The top-two primary yielded 80 same-party general elections in California, for the Assembly, state Senate, and U.S. House of Representatives combined, in the general elections of 2012, 2014, and 2016. Of these same-party district elections, 22 saw the re-election of incumbents running against a token opponent of their own party. The remaining 58 were highly competitive: a total of $205 million was spent in those contests; 10 incumbents were defeated. In contrast, over the not three but five election cycles from 2002 to 2010, when there were partisan primaries, an incumbent lost to a member of his own party in 1 race for the Assembly, 1 race for the state Senate, and 1 race for the U.S. House, for a decade total of 3. Of the 58 competitive same-party elections, the candidate who took second in the primary, and who would have been eliminated from the general election ballot in a system of partisan primaries, actually won 20 (34%). The number of voters who cast a ballot in these 80 same-party general elections was essentially double (1:9 times) the number who cast a ballot in the same election in the primary. Voters who cast a ballot sometimes skip voting for one race or one ballot measure or another; registered voters who cast a vote in the general election for U.S. President in 2014 and who were faced with a same-party general election a district office, despite there being no difference in party to guide or inform their choice, nonetheless cast a vote for the office 88% of the time; less than, but not markedly less than, the 95% of the time by voters faced with a top-two choice between a Democrat and a Republican. Voters skipped casting a vote in a race between a Republican and a Democrat for a district office this same 95% fraction of the time under the system of partisan primaries from 2002 to 2010. One race for statewide office had a same-party general election, the 2016 race between Harris and Sanchez, both Democrats, for U.S. Senate. Voters who were registered Democrat or leaned Democratic (and who voted for U.S. President) voted in this race essentially 100% of the time, favoring Harris with 76% of their votes; Republicans or voters who leaned Republican voted in the race 68% of the time, favoring Sanchez with 59% of their votes. The participation of Republicans or voters who leaned Republican was enough to swing the statewide vote total by 14%, lowering Harris' victory percentage to 62%. The turnout of voters under the top-two; whether a voter when turned out actually casts a ballot in a same-party general election; whether the top-two is biased for or against either major party; whether either major party has been eliminated from a same-party general election that it could otherwise have won; the effect of the top-two on the minor political parties; the flow of money in top-two races; and the changes the top-two has wrought in the number of votes, and from which electorate, required to win and retain office: these are all analyzed, with conclusions favorable to the top-two. The effects of three other changes to the California political system|redistricting reform, which ended legislative gerrymanders of the districts; and the decision by the legislature to ban citizen initiatives from the statewide primary ballot; and changes to term limits for the Assembly and state Senate|are taken into account. I. INTRODUCTION II, and III, which can be read independently except for occasional cross-reference. Assessing the changes wrought by the advent in 2012 In the present paper, Section II reviews the history of of the top-two primary is complicated by other, indepen- recent primary election reform in California. Section III dent changes to the election system that also took effect reviews some of the problems of California's election sys- in 2012, notably the use of new districts whose bound- tem before 2012 that the top-two is meant to address. aries were not drawn by the California legislature but by Section IV examines what changes were made to address a new Citizens Redistricting Commission [1]; the barring those problems by the passage of the top-two primary, of initiatives from the primary ballot other than those put including: expansion of voter choice in the primary; as- there by the legislature; and changes in the term limits suring that the two strongest candidates made it onto the for members of the state legislature, which changed the general election ballot, and no others (we explain why number of incumbent-free elections. blocking any third candidate, even as a write-in candi- The work is organized into three concurrent papers [2] date, is desirable); and eliminating barriers to partici- of the same title, distinguished by the roman numerals I, pation in the primary elections for office by voters with 2 no party preference. Section V examines whether the ception, and who also played a significant role in its pas- top-two is biased against one or other major party in sage [3]. The author is well aware that the common stan- California. Section VI examines the overall turnout of dard of analysis and discourse in political campaigns is to voters under the top-two: in the general election; in the put forward only the best arguments (such as they may primary election; and how the primary election turnout be) in support of one's position, and if one finds telling ar- was also affected by the passage of Senate Bill 202, which guments or evidence against one's position, to keep silent. banned citizen initiatives from the primary ballot. The author is also a physicist, however, who understands In paper II, Section I examines the condition of the mi- the contrary standard, that if there is a telling argument nor parties in California under the top-two: concerning against a position one holds, one must meet it; and if their voter registration; whether the minor parties shall one finds evidence against a position one holds, one must remain qualified for the ballot; whether there is a corre- present it. These three papers attempt to meet the latter lation between increases or decreases in a minor party's standard. A summary of conclusions of all three papers voter registration, and whether that party runs or does appears in III, section VI. not run candidates that appear on the general election ballot; and how much money is being spent by the mi- nor parties. Section II examines how the top-two has II. A HISTORY OF RECENT PRIMARY changed the electorates and majorities that candidates, ELECTION REFORM IN CALIFORNIA particularly incumbents, have to have in their support in order to win election, in three classes of elections: those For most state offices [4], California had before the elec- without incumbents; those where incumbents were un- tion of 1998 primary elections that were strictly partisan. challenged in the primary by another candidate of their Every qualified political party [5] was guaranteed [6] one party; and seats where they were thus challenged. Sec- spot, and could have no more than one spot, for each tion II concludes with a comparison of how incumbents office on the general election ballot; no candidate could fared in California under the top-two and under partisan run in more than one party's primary to take more than primaries. one spot [7]; and only voters registered with the party In paper III, Section I presents a table of all the can- of that candidate were allowed to vote in that party's didates elected in a same-party general election in Cali- primary election to determine who would become that fornia from 2012 through 2016, and shows how often the party's nominee and get that party's spot. In particular, general election winner was the candidate who had trailed voters registered but with no political party (no party in the primary. Section II examines whether voters who preference voters, or NPP voters) could not, by law [8], submit a ballot and face a general election contest, ei- vote in any party's primary. ther in a statewide race or in a district race, between two For the elections of 1998 and 2000, as a result of the candidates of a party not their own, vote in that race or passage [9] of Proposition 198, California had a \blan- skip it. Section III tallies the amount of money spent in ket" primary system. Each qualified party retained its same-party general elections, as a measure of their com- spot on the general election ballot; but any registered petitiveness and interest. Section IV examines whether voter, regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof, could the top-two primary, in creating some general elections cast his vote for any candidate of any qualified party for from which one or other major party is excluded, has any office; and whichever candidate of a qualified party denied a major party a real chance of winning those elec- received the most such votes became that party's nomi- tions. Section V compares the number of general elec- nee and received that party's spot on the general election tions in California, either resulting from the system of ballot [10].