[EM] Pseudo-election reform in California

[Alex Small]

I believe that Nebraska and Louisiana use this method, although Nebraska
explicitly eliminates party labels.  Neither state is a hot-bed of 3rd
party activity, suggesting that the method does little if anything to open
the system to more competing options.

(Yes, yes, I know, some on this list will point out that the existence of
third parties is not the only or even best way to judge the performance of
a method.  It's still an interesting metric, however.)

I heard that one reason why David Duke (former KKK Grand Wizard or
whatever D&D-esque title they use) made a splash in Louisiana 12 years ago
or so is this method.  (Undoubtedly there were other factors as well, of
course.)  There was (supposedly) no way that Duke would have won a 2-way
GOP primary against the other Republican, but the GOP was divided. 
Meanwhile, a former governor who had gotten in trouble for corruption also
got into the second round.  The state of Louisiana was treated to a race
between a known racist and a known crook.  The crook won.

So let's hear it for Louisiana:  Their politicians might rob you, but only
for color-blind reasons :)

Dr.Ernie Prabhakar said:
> Hi all,
>
> One of my favorite columnists, Dan Walters, is talking about a new
> approach to California's politicized, gerrymandered primaries:
>
> http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/columns/walters/story/9490344p
> -10414306c.html
>
>>  The new plan would have all candidates for office run on one ballot.
>>
>> If none got an outright majority in the primary, the top two
>> vote-getters, regardless of party, would vie in a general election
>> runoff. The system is very similar to the way California fills
>> nonpartisan local offices and vacant legislative and congressional
>> seats in special elections.
>
> Has anyone heard of this?  It basically sounds like it eliminates
> parties, but is still based on plurality.  Any thoughts on whether it
> is likely to work, and/or encourage 'median' candidates?  The
> justification for multiple rounds, I suspect, is that primary campaigns
>  will still tend to be lower-profile, and more sectarian, compared to
> the fall general election.
>
> At any rate, it is far from ideal, but still sounds like a huge step
> forward.
>
> If they *were* willing to consider rank-order voting of some kind, what
>  would be the optimal method to use for selecting the top-two for a
> runoff?
>
> -- Ernie P.
> -----------
> Ernest N. Prabhakar, Ph.D. <DrErnie at RadicalCentrism.org>
> RadicalCentrism.org is an anti-partisan think tank near Sacramento,
> California, dedicated to developing and promoting the ideals of
> Reality, Character, Community and Humility as expressed in our Radical
> Centrist Manifesto: Ground Rules of Civil Society
> <http://RadicalCentrism.org/manifesto.html>