Chris Powell, past Chairman of the Oklahoma Libertarian Party and a Candidate for Governor, wrote this recent Editorial as a Contributor to The Oklahoman, Top-Two Primaries are Bad for Democracy

Members of The Oklahoma Acadamy are suggesting that the State Switch to a "top-two" Primary, a system in which all candidates filing for a particular office compete against each other, regardless of party, with the two candidates receiving the most votes advancing to the general election. They cannot have looked closely at California and Washington, the states using top-two, or they would know that this system discourages voter participation, doesn't reduce partisanship and allows special interests greater leverage.

Professors Boris Schor and Nolan McCarty track polarization at americanlegislatures.com. Their latest rankings show California has the nation's most polarized legislature. Washington is fifth. Harry Enten of FiveThirtyEight has also written of the studies routinely showing that top two has no moderating effect.

In California, voter turnout has not returned to the level of 2008, the last election before the advent of top-two, and primaries that theoretically should draw more interest also have dismally low participation rates. Washington has seen similar declines.

Supporters of top-two assume that candidates will moderate their positions to appeal to more people, and the two best candidates will advance to the general election. However, candidates run on issues, not segments of the political spectrum. Candidates in a crowded field won't have to appeal to a majority, simply needing to win either the largest or second-largest plurality, a percentage that grows smaller with each additional candidate entering the race. The will of the majority can easily be thwarted such as in the 2016 race for state treasurer in Washington where three Democrat candidates collectively won 52 percent of the vote, but split evenly enough that both Republicans advanced instead.

More importantly, a top-two system means the real choices are made in the primary when turnout is much lower. This effectively disenfranchises the hundreds of thousands of Oklahomans who typically only vote in the general election, including most of the ever-growing ranks of independents accustomed to not being able to participate in our state's primaries.

In states such as Oklahoma and California where one party or another has a clear advantage, it means that a minority party will frequently have no acceptable choices in major races, driving down voter turnout. Hillary Clinton's huge margin of victory in California in 2016 was partially due to Republicans having little reason to go to the polls as the U.S. Senate campaign, their major statewide race, produced a choice of two very similar Democrats in the general election. For 2018, it's probable there will be no Republican on the November ballot for either U.S. Senate or Governor.

Top-two muffles dissenting voices, reduces voter turnout, often advances candidates the majority finds undesirable, and actually increases the leverage of special interests who are better able to influence outcomes by swaying the much smaller percentage of the electorate that participates in primaries. It has been demonstrably bad for democracy in the two states using the system.

Real reform, such as ranked-choice voting or approval voting, would be inclusive of alternative voices, increase choice for voters and produce elected officials who really would be more acceptable to more of the public.

I like the idea of Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) but would make it a Top-Three Primary.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker