Howard Berman was in the fight of his political life. The 15 term Congressman was locked in an increasingly tough battle with his Democratic opponent, Brad Sherman. The fight for California’s 28th district seat was turning into one of the hardest fought, and costliest, congressional contests of 2012.
He thought endorsements from some powerful political allies might do the trick. He sought out support from senior Republican Senators like John McCain and Lindsay Graham, both of whom gave Berman ringing endorsements. John McCain’s statement read, in part, “Howard Berman is a man of determination and honor. He works to keep America safe, and our country is stronger with him in Congress."
Sadly for Howard Berman, though, these endorsements turned out not to be enough. He ultimately lost the race and his seat in Congress. What was curious, though, was not that the endorsements were not enough, but that Berman sought them out in the first place. That it was believed that endorsements from two senior stalwart Republican Senators like McCain and Graham would be a positive for Berman’s campaign. It was curious because Howard Berman is also a Democrat.
California recently turned to what is called a “top-two” primary system (sometimes also referred to as a “blanket” primary). In it, candidates running for office, regardless of party affiliation, compete in an open primary (so-called because it is open to voters of all parties). The top two vote getters, again regardless of party affiliation, move on to the general election. It is not uncommon to have general elections where both candidates represent the same party under the system. What results is a situation where candidates have to prove they can do what is best for all of the people in their district, regardless of party affiliation.
Gerrymandering, by contrast, is a process by which congressional districts are redrawn to give one party an advantage over another. Democrats, for example, might redraw a congressional district’s map to include more Democratic precincts, or exclude Republican ones. It’s estimated that in 2014 only 5-20 seats in the House of Representatives will be true toss-ups. The rest, heavily gerrymandered districts, are considered “safe” for either one party or the other.
The intended consequence of gerrymandering is to create districts that reliably vote for one party or another. Its unintended consequence, though, has been to create districts not where the main worry of a candidate is being seen as too partisan, but being seen as not partisan enough. In a district where there is no real worry of losing to a member of the opposite party, you are much more concerned with a challenge from a more extreme member of your own party during a primary than with a challenge from a member of the opposite party during a general election.
Top-two primaries, it seems, change that calculus a little bit. The primary is open, making it possible for constituents of any party to vote for any candidate. Because it’s likely that you and another candidate from the same party will split, to some degree, your own party’s votes, candidates who seek an advantage have to go outside their party’s constituents and establish an appeal to all voters in a district. Instead of staking out policy positions that appeal to the most extreme voters of one party, candidates seeking an advantage have to stake out positions that appeal to as many voters as possible.
What a top two primary system really seems to do is incentivize moderation. It incentivizes positions that do the most good for the most people and working in a manner that all constituents can endorse. In short, it incentivizes centrism over partisan extremism. And a system that incentivizes centrism may be exactly what is needed to help America get away from gridlock and get back on track.
