California will be voting on
Proposition 62 (PDF) this November. This proposition will lead to an "Open Primary" system in 2006. The Open Primary works like this:
- In the June Primary, all candidates for a state or federal office are listed on a single ballot (without regard for party). All voters vote for one candidate for each office.
- For each office, the two people who received the most votes in the June Primary compete against each other in November. These are the only two candidates on the ballot in November.
Note that the presidential election is specifically exempted from this system; that election will still use the traditional primary.
This system is somewhat similar to the Louisiana system, except that in Louisiana, the "primary" is in November, and the "real" election is later.
Most of the political parties in California (including Democrats, Republicans, Greens, and Libertarians) oppose Prop 62. They argue that it will remove choice from voters in November and lead to extremist candidates.
A significant number of individuals (including John McCain) support Prop 62. They argue that it will increase voter choice and lead to moderate candidates.
The incumbents in the California Assembly and Senate were so scared about this, they rushed the alternative Proposition 60 (PDF) onto the ballot by attaching it to an unrelated proposition regarding a minor budgetary matter. (A judge later ordered the prop split into two.) Prop 60 would guarantee that the winner of a party primary would have a right to be on the November ballot. If both Prop 60 and Prop 62 pass, the one that passes with a larger margin goes into effect.
So, who is right? (Some initial analysis below...)
Ideally, it seems like this Open Primary system should work to elect more moderates--it is to a candidate's advantage not to be extreme so that they can garner votes from both sides of the political middle. In our most recent "real" gubenatorial election, for example, Richard Riordan could not win the Republican primary because he was "too liberal" for the party. The more extreme (for California) Bill Simon won the Republican primary, and was easily beat by Gray Davis even though many Democrats did not like him. If the Open Primary had been in effect, that race would likely have been Gray Davis vs. Richard Riordan, and Riordan would have had a good chance of winning. (And many of us wouldn't have this bad taste in our mouths from the recall.)
The opponents to Prop 62 point out that the opposite can happen, and that only extremists will end up on the ballot in November. In particular, they reference a Louisiana gubernatorial election in which the top two vote-getters in the primary were both crooks. This was the election in which David Duke ran. The idea here is that a mildly popular extremist can get enough of the vote to get into the runoff.
The opponents of Proposition 62 also indicate that it will limit choice, posing the "scary" scenario of an election in which two Democrats or two Republicans compete against each other in November. This argument is a bit disingenous--after all, the parties in power have politically gerrymandered the state to such an extent that for most districts the primary election is the final election, since one party dominates the district. Since the current system doesn't offer much real choice, it hardly seems like it will hurt to move to this system.
Perhaps a better idea will be to move to an Instant Runoff Open Election, or even an Approval Voting Open Election. If the opponents are really so concerned with voter choice, surely they will support these systems?
I'm not sure yet how I'm going to vote. The list of opponents is short but powerful, including most of the political parties. When the incumbents get this nervous about something, it's usually either something (a) really really bad for people or (b) really really good for people. My first impression was that this situation fell into the latter category. It also doesn't help that the website and official arguments of the Prop 62 opponents use SCREAMING TEXT LIKE THIS TO FRIGHTEN THE VOTER a bit excessively. Argument by intimidation turns me off.
However, the Center for Voting and Democracy and Common Cause both oppose Prop 62, and that gives me pause. Aside from John McCain (who isn't from California), there are no "big name" supporters of Prop 62 except for some business groups and Chambers of Commerce. That gives me more pause.