How political extremism and primary reforms limit choices for Western voters

'Top-two' primary systems banish third parties from the ballot.

 

Last April, partisanship reached new extremes in the Montana Legislature. Democratic lawmakers, shouting and pounding their desks, drowned out the Republican majority's attempts to read Senate Bill 408. Gov. Steve Bullock, D, called the partisan warfare "worse than Washington, D.C."

The bill, which passed on a party-line vote, proposed a referendum for this November that will let Montanans choose to replace party-based primaries with a top-two system. Rather than advancing the Republican, Democratic and third-party primary winners to general elections, top-two systems require all candidates to face-off in a single primary. The two most popular advance, regardless of party.

Washington state implemented the system in 2008, and California in 2012. Advocates say the old system favors extremists and contributes to polarization. Political observers disagree on whether the reforms have helped. But one result is undeniable: Top-two has banished minor parties, like Libertarians and Greens, from general election ballots. "They're screwed," says Todd Donovan, a Western Washington University political scientist. That prospect seems to be exactly what's motivating Montana Republicans, who blame Libertarian spoilers for their recent narrow losses to Democrats.

Many politicos see traditional primaries, which generally allow only registered Democrats or Republicans to vote, as partly to blame for congressional dysfunction. Both parties have painstakingly redrawn legislative districts to make them safe bets. Primaries in some of these reliably red or blue districts have become more decisive than general elections, forcing candidates to court the voters that turn out for them – often the parties' most right- or left-wing members.

This puts centrists at a disadvantage. Many "establishment" House Republicans, for instance, took a back seat to their Tea Party colleagues in last year's government shutdown, fearing that any compromise with Democrats would provoke primary challenges from conservative ideologues. The resulting crises have prompted more calls for primary reform, and even rebellion among conservative allies dissatisfied with the gridlock. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for instance, is throwing its weight behind old-guard Republicans like Idaho Rep. Mike Simpson, who is facing a Tea Party primary opponent. A pro-business political group is doing the same in Montana.

California state legislators, unable to compromise over taxes and spending, also created regular budget crises. In response, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, R, helped lead a successful push for reforms, including a top-two primary system. It would promote moderation, proponents believed, because candidates would have to appeal not only to their ideological base, but to voters of all political leanings.

For the top-two system to work, however, centrists have to vote. Turnout for California's 2012 primaries slumped to its lowest ever, while Washington's dropped to its third lowest. That may be why California politicians are no more aligned with the average voter than they were before the change, according to two survey-based studies. And Washington's Legislature was already fairly moderate, says Donovan, who has seen little evidence of political change.

Advocates say top-two just needs more time. Still, they believe it's already helping: Last fall, former Republican strategist Dan Schnur told The New York Times, "You see Republicans voting for immigration reform, you see Democrats voting for streamlining environmental regulations."

In any case, the new system has undoubtedly further marginalized minority parties. Third-party congressional candidates appeared regularly on Washington's ballot before 2008; only one has done so since. In California, where just over 20 percent of voters are registered Independents, the only third-party candidate on the 2012 ballot was Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson.

While sidelining minority parties was never the goal in Washington and California, it appears to be driving the GOP's push for top-two in Montana. In 2006, incumbent U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns, R, lost to Jon Tester, D, by only 3,562 votes. A Libertarian took about 10,000 votes. In 2012, many think Libertarian candidate Dan Cox, with help from liberal dark money, siphoned votes from Republican Denny Rehberg, enabling Tester's second victory. Cox drew 31,892 votes – 13,820 more than Rehberg lost by.  A Libertarian took 4 percent of votes in the 2012 governor's race, which Democrat Steve Bullock won by just 2 points.

But top-two may not guarantee future GOP victories, says Richard Winger, a California-based ballot access analyst. For one, the theory that Libertarians spoiled these races assumes that the votes they draw would otherwise go to Republicans. That's not always true. When a Libertarian won 6.5 percent of the vote in Virginia's last governor's race, exit polls showed that those voters were largely pro-choice, and some favored the Democrat second. Either way, Montana Libertarians anticipate extinction if the state adopts top-two. "You have to wonder if (the Republicans) actually believe in the free market, because they are trying to use the forces of government to their ends," says Montana Libertarian Party chair Mike Fellows.

Not everyone is worried about the potential demise of third parties. Montana political scientist Jim Lopach thinks that top-two would be a net benefit for the state if it had a moderating influence. On the other hand, general elections are "where people discuss what they want in an office, and what they want in public policy," says Andrew Spencer, an attorney with FairVote, a voter advocacy group. A third-party presence can help shape the debate, and even policy. Independent Ross Perot, who campaigned for president in 1992 on fiscal prudence and took nearly 19 percent of the popular vote, is credited with influencing Bill Clinton's effort to balance the federal budget.

"If you opened up a good burger restaurant, more people are still going to eat at Burger King and McDonalds," says Montana Libertarian Dan Cox. "It takes time to get your share of the marketplace." In Montana, however, time may be running out.

Dan Schroeder
Dan Schroeder Subscriber
Feb 18, 2014 02:45 PM
Third parties that think they will eventually acquire power under the current system are delusional. I can easily imagine them doing better, in some locations, under a "top two" primary system than under the current system. In any case they have nothing to lose.
Wes Hopper
Wes Hopper
Feb 18, 2014 04:27 PM
That top two process was implemented in AZ deliberately to banish the libertarians from slicing votes from the GOP. Hardly an unintended consequence.
Daniel Watts
Daniel Watts Subscriber
Feb 26, 2014 02:29 PM
As a long-time supporter of third parties and independents, the idea that these less popular candidates steal votes from the donkeys and elephants is complete bunk. First of all, if the major parties did not run such awful campaigns more people would vote for them. Second, the majority of the voting population does not vote in elections, period, because the Dems and Repubs are the same thing in the slightly different set of clothes. Frankly, the excuse that a third-party candidate lost the election for the Dems or Repubs is a sorry excuse for the party or candidates own shortcoming. Perhaps if they could find a way to convince the other half of the population sitting at home to get in the voting booth, they would win the election. But I guarantee the parties like the fact that most of us do not vote, because they only get the misinformed extremists to vote the party line in most elections. Voting reform may never occur because they people that benefit from the current system have created the current system. Fairness was never a consideration.
Gillespie Kirkland
Gillespie Kirkland
Mar 06, 2014 07:54 PM
The best way to elect moderates is to end gerrymandering. The legislature
should have nothing to do with drawing districts.