In a few weeks California will hold its primary election. Not much news will be made, because the two major parties' presidential candidates are already known. But this election will be different for Californians in a major way, because when the general election rolls around in November, there will likely be no third parties on the ballot for voters to choose from. Furthermore, in some races, there may be only one party represented on the general election ballot.
The reason is that California is in the midst of a political science experiment. The voters passed Proposition 14, which mandated a scheme known as "top-two" voting. Explaining it is pretty simple, but what it could mean is a lot more complicated. In the primary election, all parties are free to put up as many candidates as they like for any particular office, as usual. But only the top two vote-getters -- from all parties combined -- will advance to the general election. In essence, the primary becomes the general election, and the general election becomes a runoff vote between the top two candidates.
While the presidential race is exempt from this scheme (presidential candidates from all parties will be on the general election ballot, as usual), most other races -- U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, and all state races (legislative and executive) -- will use "top-two" voting. What this means, for example, is that Dianne Feinstein may be facing a fellow Democrat on the ballot this November, with no Republican (or Green, or Libertarian) on the ballot at all.
I have no idea as to the likelihood of this happening in Feinstein's race, I should mention; I just used hers as a convenient example. The probability of two people from the same party making it to November is most likely a lot higher for races with districts rather than statewide races, given that a single House district can be a lot more overwhelmingly Democratic (or Republican) than the state as a whole is.
Because this is a fairly radical change in the way Californians elect people, I really have no idea as to how it'll all play out. There may be unintended consequences, and the voters may wind up hating the new system. But since they instituted it in the first place, they'll be able to change it back with a future voter proposition, should they choose.
I have to say, the whole thing makes me a bit uncomfortable, though, because one thing that is virtually assured is that we'll see a general election ballot filled with Democrats and Republicans -- with no third-party representation at all. Since "top-two" voting will likely mean third parties will never (or almost never) qualify for the November ballot, it seems rather undemocratic in nature. If I were a member of the Green Party or the Libertarian Party (or any of the other third parties in California), I would likely be seriously annoyed at this turn of events. After all, fewer people vote in primaries, meaning your candidate won't even be seen by a large portion of the electorate in November.
It will be interesting, in a wonky sort of way, to see if any of the races wind up being between two Democrats or two Republicans. This might be a way to pry entrenched officeholders away from their jobs, by offering an overwhelmingly one-party district a way to replace him or her with an acceptable partisan. Some suggest that in such a contest, the candidates will have to pay attention to the minority-party voters in the district, since that'll be where they can pick up stray votes. This will lead to more centrist candidates, this line of thinking proposes.
I'm not so sure, myself. If I were faced with two unacceptable candidates from a different party, I think I'd probably leave that contest blank on my ballot (I'm just supposing, here; it's impossible to say without knowing who the actual candidates would be).
This could have the effect of driving primary election turnout up, but then again it could also have the effect of driving general election participation down. Political experiments almost always produce side effects that were not predicted by those advocating the change.
We'll just have to wait and see how it turns out. Most voters won't even notice the change until November rolls around and there are only two names on the ballot for almost all the contests. This may come as somewhat of a shock to those voters who haven't been paying much attention. While the option will still exist to vote for a Libertarian or Green presidential candidate in November, they'll likely be the only representatives from their respective parties on the entire ballot, which, as I said, doesn't really sit right with me, because it smacks of second-class status for anyone not a member of the Democratic Party or Republican Party.
Chris Weigant blogs at: 
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
* reference:
What is a Political Party?
http://i-voter.tripod.com/US_PoliticalParties.html
* reference:
What is a Political Party?
http://i-voter.tripod.com/US_PoliticalParties.html
poli-psy or poli-sigh?
Alternatively, third parties almost NEVER be able to get elected under the prevailing system at almost any level. My proof is that you find hen's teeth more often than 3rd party winners in US politics. Check out eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-02/uom-htn022206.php for more on hen's teeth.
Complicating this is the fact that in CA Republicans have closed primaries, while Democrats do not. So, only registered Republicans can vote in the Republican primary, but Democrats and Independents (decline to state) can vote in the Democratic primary.
This is another example of the main weakness of the initiative system here, there is no vetting. If you get enough signatures, you can pretty much put anything on the ballot. Putting a measure on that ballot that is unconstitutional or that just doesn't work mechanically only gets sorted out later by the courts if the measure passes and someone sues over it.
the land of fruit nut and flakes
Why would they have voted to limit their choices when voting.....
I know why the PARTIES wanted it. But the PEOPLE voted for it. (caps for emphasis not shouting)
And that people read thought it was good is mind boggling.
I would prefer all of California use the rank-choice voting system used in Ireland and Australia and in San Francisco and Oakland so that people could vote for their first choice without fear they are helping their last choice to get elected by splitting the vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbard-Satterthwaite_theorem
Provably there is no best scheme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_instant_runoff_voting_to_other_voting_systems
However, the technology has existed for quite some time to make instant voting and instant tallying a reality in America. That such technology has not been implemented tells you a lot.
My reply:
Evidently you prefer dim-witted spendthrifts like GW Bush. At least you're acknowledging that Obama isn't a "leftist." On that we agree.
TR, proud leftist.
On the other hand, in a heavily partisan district, a RINO or DINO would stand a better chance of getting to the general.