FairVote's Board of Directors recently voted to oppose Proposition 14 on the ballot this June in California. Here is our statement.
Many Californians are frustrated with their state's politics. Incumbents almost never lose, most general elections are lopsided, and most elections are effectively decided in low-turnout primaries. The status quo is hard to defend, but we still support it over Proposition 14 and the proposal to establish a "Top Two" system in California.
FairVote promotes ways to make elections more inclusive to individual voters and groups. An engaged citizenry benefits our communities and civic institutions. We believe in:
To achieve these goals in California, we support adoption of proportional representation for legislative elections and instant runoff voting for elections to single winner offices. Proportional voting means that like-minded voters can come together to win seats in proportion to their share of the vote: 50% of the vote wins five out of ten seats, and 10% wins one out of ten seats. Instant runoff voting allows voters to rank candidates in order of choice, and, by simulating a series of runoff elections, their rankings end the "spoiler" problem by giving voters a chance to vote for their favorite without splitting the majority vote.
We support these reforms over a Two-Two runoff, but would consider supporting Top-Two over the status quo. But Proposition 14's flaws are too severe. Consider, for example, its proposed timing and impact on political association.
The Two Rounds of Voting are Too Far Apart: Runoff elections are a way of conducting majority-voting elections, which we support when electing one person to an office. Instant runoff voting is a more efficient, voter-friendly means to elect a majority winner, but two-round runoff elections also are likely to achieve that goal. In France, for example, runoffs take place just two week after the first round, meaning that both rounds are part of a general election season where all candidates' voices can be heard.
Under Prop.14, however California would eliminate nearly all candidates in a preliminary election held in early June --thereby leaving only two candidates on the ballot for five months until the November election. In fact, Prop. 14 does not even allow write-in candidates in the November runoff. In June, major parties may fail to secure a runoff spot due to split votes, while small parties will almost never advance. Five months with only two choices severely narrows the dialogue necessary to engage voters in a positive way and widen public understanding of policy alternatives.
Political Association Rights Are Neither Encouraged Nor Protected: We recognize Prop. 14's intention of moving away from the antiquated process of partisan primaries that today are subject to plunging voter turnout and unrepresentative electorates, yet limit everyone else's choices in November. But its solution is draconian for small parties and problematic for all parties. First, candidates only will be able to run with a party label only after a large number of voters register with that party -- meaning that many candidates will not have the option to list their true party of choice. At the same time, a candidate can register with an established party and run with its label
even if that party wants nothing to do with that candidate.
We want to improve electoral politics and increase participation through innovative means of promoting more association, not less. Allowing candidates to indicate party preferences on the ballot without the party having any say will lead to voter confusion and dilution of parties' rights of political association. In the Washington State Grange case that opened the door to the Top Two system, the Supreme Court ignored the modern world's convergence of political association and inclusive technology -- a convergence with the potential to engage and inform voters and offer them new, expanded voter choice.
In Closing: Political structures in California, if not the nation, are in need of reform. The Public Policy Institute of California concluded that Prop. 14's "overall effect on California's political landscape would probably be modest." We agree. California, a usual innovator, needs to take a look at its 1859 era legislature from a 21st Century perspective and consider bolder proposals. FairVote could support a "top-two vote getter" system, but within criteria we stated above. We therefore oppose California's Proposition 14.
Follow Rob Richie on Twitter: www.twitter.com/FairVote
Proposition 14 does not change California's June-November election schedule, also used for many local elections. Top 2 is more amenable to a short runoff season or even IRV than the partisan primary system, which encourages candidates to zigzag from partisan positions in the primary, to a more centrist position in November.
Partisan primaries discourages participation by independent and minor-party voters in non-partisan contests and measures that are also held in June.
Parties will be able to endorse candidates, including independents or other parties, on the sample ballot that is included with the voters pamphlet.
Candidates will be limited to the party shown on their voting registration, and the SOS website will maintain a 10-year history of candidate's party registration.
Nothing in the text of the legislation supports a claim that a candidate who has registered with a small party will not be able to have that party affiliation shown on the ballot. Under current law, such a candidate would have to run as an independent after gathering a bazillion signatures, and would be barred from even voting in the partisan primaries.
Top Two is also much too easy to manipulate by over-enthusiastic partisans, and should be nixed for that alone.
Clearly, a better reform should be designed than this Prop 14.
No on 14!
If it is IRV in the primary, your ranking may be as easy as One, Period. And you won't be permitted to rank candidates of other parties or independents.
Proposition 14 will let all voters choose from among all candidates. The two candidates with the most support advance to the general election, where all voters get a second chance to evaluate the two most supported candidates before making their final decision.
Changing the date of the primary is an easy part that can be done later.
I think I read you comment to suggest that you'd be open to a short runoff season. If that could be handled logistically, that would make this proposal much more attractive -- although still problematic without other fixes.
When California used the blanket primary in 1998 and 2000, there appears to have been some improvement in turnout. Moreover, minor party candidates did somewhat better in the primary than they did in the general election. In the general election some voters felt their vote would be wasted. In the primary, they were free to express their true feelings.
What I don't get is how instant runoff voting is suppose to be any better than a top-two runoff. He mentions France, which uses a top-two runoff, and has seen some grumblings over the fairness and appropriateness of it's use (mostly following the election of Sarkozy), but instant runoff would have almost certainly produced an identical, and equally grumble-causing, result. The status-quo (party primaries and a plurality election), Prop 14 (top-two open primary), and instant runoff (the Australian lower house being the perfect example) all reinforce a two-party system; Prop 14 is probably the most heavy-handed of the three, if only because it's so blatant, but none of them will result in noticeably better results for third-party candidates.
This is provably false. It is somewhat *more* true than it is under the status-quo, but it is definitively *not* true. And that's why the Australian house, which has used IRV for decades, is still as two-party dominated at the US house.
Now, proportional representation, even using single transferable vote (which is the older brother of IRV), that's helpful for third parties, which the Australian *senate* demonstrates quite well. But IRV? Sorry, but it's no good for third parties.