Althouse: "[I]n California... the state’s nonpartisan primaries present a unique hazard: State law requires all candidates to compete in the same preliminary election, with the top two finishers advancing to November."

April 22, 2018

"[I]n California... the state’s nonpartisan primaries present a unique hazard: State law requires all candidates to compete in the same preliminary election, with the top two finishers advancing to November."

"In a crowded field, if Democrats spread their votes across too many candidates, two Republicans could come out on top and advance together to the general election. There are at least four races in California where Democrats fear such a lockout, including the 39th Congressional District, where in addition to Mr. Cisneros and Ms. Tran there are two other Democrats running: Sam Jammal, a youthful former congressional aide, and Andy Thorburn, a wealthy health insurance executive who is backed by allies of Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont. The district is among the most coveted for Democrats nationwide — a seat left open by the retirement of Representative Ed Royce, a popular Republican, in an area Hillary Clinton won by about 8 percentage points."

From "Fearing Chaos, National Democrats Plunge Into Midterm Primary Fights" (NYT).

30 comments:

Michael K said...: Life's a bitch when you try to fix the outcome.

Ask Hillary.; 4/22/18, 6:04 PM
Ambrose said...: Once it starts helping Republicans rather than Democrats I am sure they will promptly change the rule.; 4/22/18, 6:06 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: Chaos!; 4/22/18, 6:08 PM
Birkel said...: Democrats: Fix the gerrymander!
Democrats: We are going to try to lock out Republicans with open primaries.

The only goal is power.; 4/22/18, 6:21 PM
cubanbob said...: Primaries are party elections and should be only for party registered voters. What California has is a bad joke of a system.; 4/22/18, 6:43 PM
DavidD said...: Petard.

Hoisted.

Some dissembly required.; 4/22/18, 6:45 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: A possible solution would be to blatantly encourage all illegal aliens to vote.

That might prevent any Republicans from winning one of the two top spots.; 4/22/18, 6:47 PM
Boxty said...: We know that the Democrat party rigged the last Presidential election to favor Clinton. The DNC also claimed they have no obligation to hold fair primaries in the lawsuit against them. Is there any reason an AG from a red state can't go after the party and maybe kick them off the state ballot for rigging elections?; 4/22/18, 6:50 PM
stevew said...: Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch.

-sw; 4/22/18, 7:02 PM
Hagar said...: In 1800 that is how the presidential elections were run, and Jefferson and Burr, who actually ran as a Pres./V.P. ticket, wound up facing each other for the presidency when they each got 73 electoral votes, and the election went to the House.
The 12th Amendment was adopted to make sure this would not happen again.; 4/22/18, 7:13 PM
Churchy LaFemme: said...: Regardless of whether it works out well for the GOP this time; it's a stupid system.

Why doesn't the GOP go to the caucus system in CA to get around this? (Other than being the stupid party..); 4/22/18, 7:22 PM
YoungHegelian said...: The California primary system -- what you get when you have a bunch of liberal Democrats get together to try & "fix things".; 4/22/18, 7:45 PM
MayBee said...: I don't believe the state or local governments should pay for any primary that you have to be a "member" of a party to vote in. We are Americans, and parties should be for the candidates to join, not the people.; 4/22/18, 7:46 PM
David Begley said...: One party state.; 4/22/18, 7:56 PM
the 4chan Guy who reads Althouse said...: This would, like, be a lot simpler if government would only allow only one candidate to run for each government position.; 4/22/18, 7:58 PM
Michael K said...: "Why doesn't the GOP go to the caucus system in CA to get around this? (Other than being the stupid party..)"

I don't know that it would fix this. GOP would become third party,; 4/22/18, 8:21 PM
wild chicken said...: Ha ha. Two decades the goody two shoes progs pushed for nonpartisan city elections here so they could sneak in their New Party zombies. But some voters accidentally mis-voted because they didn't know who the Democrats were.

Who says parties don't matter? People need guidance on local politics. Because boring.

New Party still took over but had to tolerate a few haterz asking questions.; 4/22/18, 8:33 PM
Narayanan said...: How long has this been the primary system?
Are we to believe Google hasn't built boots for resolving this?; 4/22/18, 8:34 PM
Gahrie said...: In 1800 that is how the presidential elections were run, and Jefferson and Burr, who actually ran as a Pres./V.P. ticket, wound up facing each other for the presidency when they each got 73 electoral votes, and the election went to the House.
The 12th Amendment was adopted to make sure this would not happen again.

Originally, the Constitution said that the person with the most votes for president became president and the second most became vice president. In 1796 this produced a situation in which Adams was president and his political enemy Jefferson was vice-president. The parties quickly figured out that they needed to run a president/vice-president ticket. this produced the problem with the 1800 election...both members of the ticket got the same number of votes.

So a similar situation, but not really the same.; 4/22/18, 9:36 PM
mccullough said...: Alta California is a mess. The GOP would be wise to abandon the state. Let it go under and be an example that Progressive Policies lead to misery and collapse. Detroit at the state level; 4/22/18, 10:04 PM
PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...: Blogger cubanbob said...

Primaries are party elections and should be only for party registered voters. What California has is a bad joke of a system.

And for party registered candidates.

Which is why I still can't get my head around how Bernie Sanders and I could be candidates for the Democrat nomination.

Completely bizarre.

John Henry; 4/22/18, 10:37 PM
PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...: Blogger Mike Sylwester said...

A possible solution would be to blatantly encourage all illegal aliens to vote.

In CA voter registration is opt out when getting a driver's license. Since illegal aliens can legally get a driver's license, they are also registered to vote in state elections. Unless they opt out.

Since state and federal voting takes place at the same time and place, there is no way to separate illegals and prevent them from voting in the federal elections. It is legal for them to vote in state elections but not in federal.

John Henry; 4/22/18, 10:42 PM
Bob Loblaw said...: This reminds me of those "majority minority" districts imposed by the courts. Democrats were all for it until they realized winning a district with 90% of the vote is gerrymandering for the other guys.; 4/23/18, 12:04 AM
Yancey Ward said...: The state is probably considering changing the law so that every general election has at least one Democrat running.; 4/23/18, 12:28 AM
Original Mike said...: Tough shit. Would serve them right.; 4/23/18, 1:17 AM
Leland said...: NYT to Sam Jammal and Andy Thorburn, "you didn't kiss the correct ring, step aside".; 4/23/18, 6:05 AM
Craig said...: John Henry / PuertoRicoSpaceport.com:

"In CA voter registration is opt out when getting a driver's license. Since illegal aliens can legally get a driver's license, they are also registered to vote in state elections. Unless they opt out.

---

I know I'm falling for a parody account, because no one is actually this dumb, right? The former sentence is true as a generic, false as a universal. The antecedent of the latter sentence is likewise. And, of course, that means that we are not surprised that the latter sentence is false.; 4/23/18, 6:19 AM
Anonymous said...: A Republican might get nominated? Impossible. The CA system was deigned specifically to avoid that catastrophe.; 4/23/18, 8:39 AM
Comanche Voter said...: As a California voter, I have, all too often in the last few years, been faced with a choice of Democrat A and Democrat B on my general election ballot. That's also known as Dumb and Dumber.

It's all been caused by our "jungle primaries". It would be sweet to see two candidates with an "R" after their name on this year's general election ballot. But I'll settle for that old time religion where you had a Republican candidate and a Democrat candidate facing off for an office on the general election ballot.; 4/23/18, 10:49 AM
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...: Bob Loblaw,

This reminds me of those "majority minority" districts imposed by the courts. Democrats were all for it until they realized winning a district with 90% of the vote is gerrymandering for the other guys.

Exactly right. Which is why suddenly gerrymandering is being redefined as "wasted votes," meaning that you want exactly one vote more than it takes to get a Democrat-of-color elected. So then you get these districts extending way out into the suburbs, daisy-wheel-like. "Compact and contiguous" it is not.; 4/23/18, 4:52 PM