The top-two primary system is a plague, removing the ability of voters to choose their party's nominee, electing unrepresentative officials, reducing candidate choice, and crushing voter participation.The system is a huge boon for corporatist candidates, so maybe that's Schumer's motivation. But in any case, we now have data showing that his idea is even more wrong than previously thought. Here is Schumer:
California, which probably mirrors the diversity of America more than any other state, was racked by polarization until voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2010 that adopted a “top-two” primary system.Got that? California was polarized, now it's not! That is what Schumer thinks. So let's see what the data has to say about that:
America’s state legislatures are polarized–just like Congress–between liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans [...]So not only is California "incredibly polarized", it is—by far!—the most polarized state in the country. Even more polarized than the U.S. freakin' Congress! So why would Schumer claim otherwise? Probably because despite that polarization, California is finally getting shit done, and it is finally getting shit done because Democrats have the governor's office and a super-majority in the legislature. It's amazing what can get done when Republicans are erased from the picture.
The state that sticks out like a sore thumb is my current home state, California. It is incredibly polarized; Democrats are extremely liberal, and Republicans are extremely conservative. In fact, California’s polarization is considerably larger than that in Congress.
But that's not all. Guess what state clocks in as the third most polarized state in the country? Washington.And you know what Washington has in common with California? Yup, a top-2 jungle primary system.
So if it's polarization that Schumer fears, then he should run far, far away from the top-2 system he claims will solve all. In fact, he should be advocating for its repeal.