OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE: AMERICAN PRIMARY ELECTIONS 1945–2012 Thesis by J. Andrew Sinclair In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California 2013 (Defended May 10, 2013) ii © 2013 J. Andrew Sinclair All Rights Reserved iii Acknowledgements I would like to thank the members of my committee for their aid and advice: Dr. D. Roderick Kiewiet, Dr. Christian Grose, Dr. Philip Hoffman, Dr. Jean-Laurent Rosenthal, and Dr. R. Michael Alvarez. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Alvarez for not growing weary of Sinclairs (of one kind or another) pestering him in his office over the last dozen years. Pieces of the analysis here could not have been accomplished without the aid of my classmates Thomas Ruchti and Peter Foley; fellow students Allyson Pellissier, Jackie Kimble, Federico Tadei, and Andi Bui Kanady made helpful suggestions and comments as well. Jeffery Wagner, Olivia Schlueter-Corey, and Madeleine Gysi helped collect and organize the data required for the multi-state analysis. Ryan Hutchison helped put me in contact with former State Senator and Lt. Governor Abel Maldonado. Dr. Morgan Kousser helpfully directed me to the Los Angeles Law Library. Dr. Jonathan Nagler and Dr. Alvarez provided helpful advice on the 2012 survey; the James Irvine Foundation provided generous funding for that research. Elissa Gysi provided very helpful advice for conducting the legal research; she also agreed to marry and tolerate the author as books piled up around the apartment. I would also like to thank my parents, Dr. J. Stephen Sinclair and Joan Sinclair, for… a list too long to enumerate. This work also owes a great deal to both of my sisters, Dr. Betsy Sinclair and Dr. Laura Sinclair, for lighting the way to Caltech. iv Abstract American non-presidential primary elections remain an understudied, but very important, part of our political process. In this study, I examine the state of the political science literature and provide two main contributions. First, I describe in detail all of the primary election laws used across the United States from 1945 to 2012 and analyze the consequences of using one kind of law over another. I find that, contrary to expectations, closed primary rules may result in more competitive primary elections than open primaries; furthermore, states with closed primary rules appear to get more moderate representation on average in the U.S. Senate. Due to changing legal standards, more states may be more likely to adopt in the future a “top-two” primary system which California used for the first time in 2012. I also analyze the first implementation of the “top-two.” Proponents of the new law suggested that it would help elect more pragmatic legislators. I find, though a unique survey of California voters, that they sometimes achieved their goal. v Table of Contents Acknowledgements - - - - - - - - iii Abstract - - - - - - - - - iv List of Tables and Figures - - - - - - - vi Introduction - - - - - - - - - 1 Chapter 1: Primaries in Political Science - - - - - 10 Chapter 2: State Laws, 1945–2012 - - - - - - 52 Chapter 3: Laws, Competitiveness, and Representation - - - 148 Chapter 4: A Peek Into the Future: 2012 California Survey - - - 178 Chapter 5: Voter Behavior in California’s 2012 Top-Two Primary - - 247 Concluding Remarks - - - - - - - - 307 References - - - - - - - - - 311 vi Tables and Figures Fig. 2-1 - - - - - - - - - 104 Massachusetts Party Enrollment Fig. 2-2 - - - - - - - - - 111 Nebraska Sample Ballot Fig. 3-1 - - - - - - - - - 152 Margins of Victory 1968–2012 Fig. 3-2 - - - - - - - - - 153 Distribution: Percent Margin of Victory Fig. 3-3 - - - - - - - - - 154 Types of Primary Laws Used 1946–2012 Tab. 3-1 - - - - - - - - - 158 Margin of Victory and Primary Type Tab. 3-2 - - - - - - - - - 160 Regression: Top of the Ticket, Margin of Victory, Narrow Categories Fig. 3-4 - - - - - - - - - 162 Margin of Victory and Per Capita Income Tab. 3-3 - - - - - - - - - 163 Regression: Top of the Ticket, Margin of Victory, Broad Categories Tab. 3-4 - - - - - - - - - 164 Regression: U.S. Senate Only, Margin of Victory Tab. 3-5 - - - - - - - - - 166 Regression: Top of the Ticket, Margin of Victory, Open Seats Only Tab. 3-6 - - - - - - - - - 167 Regression: Top of the Ticket, Margin of Victory, Logit Fig. 3-5 - - - - - - - - - 170 U.S. Senate, Average Ideological Distance Fig. 3-6 - - - - - - - - - 170 Distribution of State Mean Ideological Distances vii Tab. 3-7 - - - - - - - - - 172 Regression: Average Ideological Distances, Broad Open Category Tab. 3-8 - - - - - - - - - 173 Regression: Average Ideological Distances, Anti-Party Category Tab. 3-9 - - - - - - - - - 174 Regression: Average Ideological Distances, Narrow Categories Tab. A3-1 - - - - - - - - - 176 Number of States Changing Laws in Given Year Fig. 4-1 - - - - - - - - - 181 Respondents by Date Tab. 4-1 - - - - - - - - - 182 Number of Respondents, Percent by Cell Phone Tab. 4-2 - - - - - - - - - 183 Data Quality, Core Survey Questions Tab. 4-3 - - - - - - - - - 184 Voting Preferences Tab. 4-4 - - - - - - - - - 186 Opinions on the Top-Two Tab. 4-5 - - - - - - - - - 188 Basic Demographics Tab. 4-6 - - - - - - - - - 190 Religion and Church Attendance Tab. 4-7 - - - - - - - - - 192 Economy, Education, and Related Tab. 4-8 - - - - - - - - - 194 Total Party Registration Tab. 4-9 - - - - - - - - - 195 Registration by Party and District Tab. 4-10 - - - - - - - - - 196 Party Identification viii Tab. 4-11 - - - - - - - - - 197 Party Registration and Party Identification Tab. 4-12 - - - - - - - - - 198 Policy Preferences Tab. 4-13 - - - - - - - - - 201 Probit for Party ID Fig. 4-2 - - - - - - - - - 204 Party ID Fig. 4-3 - - - - - - - - - 204 Ideological Self-Placements Fig. 4-4 - - - - - - - - - 204 Issue Scale Fig. 4-5 - - - - - - - - - 206 Issue Scale by Party ID Fig. 4-6 - - - - - - - - - 207 Democratic Party Issue Scale Detail Tab. 4-14 - - - - - - - - - 209 Outlook and Opinion Tab. 4-15 - - - - - - - - - 211 Probit: California Economy Getting Worse Tab. 4-16 - - - - - - - - - 213 Identifying Politicians Tab. 4-17 - - - - - - - - - 214 Correct Identifications, Survey Language Tab. 4-18 - - - - - - - - - 215 Participation Beyond Voting Fig. 4-7 - - - - - - - - - 219 Number of Candidates in Districts Tab. 4-19 - - - - - - - - - 221 Preferences in AD5 ix Fig. 4-8 - - - - - - - - - 224 Bigelow and Oller Tab. 4-20 - - - - - - - - - 224 Rankings in AD5 Fig. 4-9 - - - - - - - - - 226 Placements in AD5 Tab. 4-21 - - - - - - - - - 228 Preferences in AD8 Tab. 4-22 - - - - - - - - - 229 Rankings in AD8 Fig. 4-10 - - - - - - - - - 229 Placements in AD8 Tab. 4-23 - - - - - - - - - 231 Preferences in AD41 Fig. 4-11 - - - - - - - - - 232 An Anti-Rusnak Advertisement Tab. 4-24 - - - - - - - - - 233 Preferences by Survey Day in AD41 Tab. 4-25 - - - - - - - - - 233 Rankings in AD41 Fig. 4-12 - - - - - - - - - 234 Placements in AD41 Fig. 4-13 - - - - - - - - - 236 Candidate Baca (AD41) Fig. 4-14 - - - - - - - - - 236 Candidate Brown (AD41) Fig. 4-15 - - - - - - - - - 237 Candidate Ensley (AD41) Fig. 4-16 - - - - - - - - - 237 Candidate Beach (AD41) x Tab 4-26 - - - - - - - - - 238 Preferences in AD47 Tab. 4-27 - - - - - - - - - 239 Rankings in AD47 Fig. 4-17 - - - - - - - - - 240 Placements in AD47 Fig. 4-18 - - - - - - - - - 241 Placements in AD47 for Brown and Baca by Survey Language Fig. 4-19 - - - - - - - - - 242 Democratic Self-Ideological Placements, All Five Districts Tab. 4-28 - - - - - - - - - 244 Preferences in AD50 Tab. 4-29 - - - - - - - - - 244 Rankings in AD50 Fig. 4-20 - - - - - - - - - 245 Placements in AD50 Tab. 5-1 - - - - - - - - - 249 The Intersection between Tactical and Crossover Voting Tab. 5-2 - - - - - - - - - 253 Voting by Ideological Proximity & Party of Candidate and Voter Tab. 5-3 - - - - - - - - - 255 Crossover Vote by Situation Tab. 5-4 - - - - - - - - - 257 Ideological Proximity: A Few Example Voters Tab. 5-5 - - - - - - - - - 260 Missing Ideological Placements by Party of Candidates and Voters Tab. 5-6 - - - - - - - - - 262 Detail of Choice Type by Registration and District Tab. 5-7 - - - - - - - - - 266 Bivariate Statistics for Crossover Voting xi Tab. 5-8 - - - - - - - - - 269 Situation Crossover Voting (Details) Tab. 5-9 - - - - - - - - - 272 Probit: Crossover Voting Fig. 5-1 - - - - - - - - - 274 Interpreting the Issue Scale from the Binary Probit Tab. 5-10 - - - - - - - - - 276 Crossover Votes: Candidates and Results Tab. 5-11 - - - - - - - - - 280 Probit: Alternative Crossover Voting Models Tab. 5-12 - - - - - - - - - 281 Predicted Probabilities from the Alternative Models Fig. 5-2 - - - - - - - - - 286 Imputed Butler Placements Fig. 5-3 - - - - - - - - - 286 Unmodified Butler Placements Fig. 5-4 - - - - - - - - - 287 Imputed Torgan Placements Fig. 5-5 - - - - - - - - - 287 Unmodified Torgan Placements Fig. 5-6 - - - - - - - - - 292 Scaled Placements, AD5 Fig. 5-7 - - - - - - - - - 293 Scaled Placements, AD8 Fig. 5-8 - - - - - - - - - 293 Scaled Placements, AD41 Fig. 5-9 - - - - - - - - - 295 Scaled Placements, AD47 Fig. 5-10 - - - - - - - - - 296 Scaled Placements, AD50 xii Tab. 5-13 - - - - - - - - - 301 Multinomial Probit: AD41 and AD50 Tab. 5-14 - - - - - - - - - 303 Probability of Candidate Support: AD41 and AD50 Tab. 5-15 - - - - - - - - - 305 Convergence Test: AD41 and AD50 “#PrimaryGraham” INTRODUCTION Just a few weeks ago, Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky rose on the floor of the United States Senate and did not sit down again until nearly thirteen