Read the following article. What is a top two primary system? How is it different from the old system? What was the intention of changing the system? Predict how it will change campaigns and who gets elected? Why? What does the current evidence suggest?
16 Comments
10/9/2012 09:34:50 am
In 2010, California passed a new voting system called a top-two primary system. In this system, the top two of the candidates voted for in the primaries square off in November. This is different than the old system in that all possible candidates are put on the ballot instead of the party picking their candidate. After this initial voting phase, the top two selections are put on a ballot to be voted on in November. The intention is to get more moderate people into offices because now candidates must appeal to both the left and the right. For example, if two Republicans are the top two of the ballot, Democrats are going to be the one who make the key votes that decide between the two. This leads to the two Republicans trying to appeal to democrats by shifting their views from the right to more moderate to get the votes. This changes who gets elected; the people who get elected will be more compromising and moderate. Also people of different parties will work together more often. Evidence of this is in a San Bernardino County congressional race in which “two republicans, state Sen. Bob Dutton and U.S. Rep. Gary Miller, butting heads in a district where Democrats outnumber the GOP. Dutton was quick to promote his teaming with Sacramento Democrat Darrell Steinberg.” This large change in the voting system will cause more moderate and fair policies to be put in place and result in more party cooperation.
Reply
Wendy Maxson
10/9/2012 10:09:52 am
A top two primary system is when all legislative and congressional candidates are part of each ballot in the primary. Whether or not the final contenders are from the same party does not play part in their ability to move on to the November elections. Before the top two primary system was put into place, third party candidates were able to participate in the general election and effect the outcome of the November elections. I believe the top two primary system will cause moderate republican/democrat candidates to emerge. For example, if two republicans receive the highest votes they will gear towards a more democratic view to ensure they will receive democratic votes. I believe this is problematic to our election system because many of these candidates will be giving up their primary views in order to gain more votes and win the election. This creates a democracy that is more or less ineffective. The candidate that will get elected is the most moderate of the two; he is neutral with the republicans and democrats. One that is not founded on his goals and just wants to be put into office. Some may say it will ensure contentment among both parties, but is a candidate who is in effect bribing to gain power really what we need in our government?
Reply
Tim Krausz
10/9/2012 02:57:53 pm
A top two primary system takes the two candidates who receive the most votes overall and places them on the final ballot. This differs from the old system in that it no longer takes the top vote receivers from each of two parties. Consequently, the majority of races this year are those between candidates of the same party. The system was changed with the intentions of acquiring candidates who prefer to seek the middle ground rather than subscribe to radical views, for they would have to appeal to both the left and right electorate. However, this law might not achieve these effects at all. It will force most candidates to avoid taking stances too far to either side, but should this get them elected? Many times throughout American history, candidates for office have experienced losses because they failed to take a firm stance on one side and, as a result, lost the support of both extremes. The middle ground is not always what we want to see in candidates. It is better to see the candidates as who they are and what they stand for versus candidates conforming to the desires of society. Willingness to compromise is another issue, and it is a quality to look for in a candidate, but this law has the potential to force furtiveness concerning their true stances and predilections in order to win the election.
Reply
Nicole LeMieux
10/9/2012 03:12:32 pm
The top two voting system is a system in which all candidates are listed in the primary ballot, and the top two of these square off in November, essentially determining the victor. The top two system differs from the old system because the old system listed only the designated party candidates on the ballot, and the victor was decided as a result of the vote from this ballot. The top two system was put into use in order to promote moderate candidates to office, and to limit third-party participation. This will change elections and campaigning because it will force candidates to appeal to both sides of the voter spectrum; from conservative to liberal to everything in between. If this system was nationally used, Republican candidate Mitt Romney would not be able to appeal strictly to conservative Republicans, and rather than speaking out about his conservative views on abortion, women's rights, etc., he would have to focus on the larger picture and how to help improve America as a whole. The top two system doesn't allow candidates to campaign specifically to the interests of voters that agree with them, or to the party with which they are running for office. This means that candidates on either side of the spectrum of political views, such as Romney and Ryan, would not be elected, because their views are too narrow and appeal to a slim amount of voters. Though this system would force more moderate candidates into office, it would do nothing to stop the partisan gridlock, and would significantly limit the amount of third party involvement. Finally, the top two voting system would promote dishonestly among candidates, because candidates would hide their personal beliefs in order to appeal to a wider range of voters, and once in office, their true motives would be revealed, potentially to the detriment of American citizens.
Reply
Richard Hoppe
10/10/2012 07:24:42 am
Approved by voters in 2010 the top two system is where the names of all legislative and congressional candidates appear on each ballot in the primary. The top two finishers square off in November, regardless of party. In the old system, for example if i was a rebublican i could only vote for my favorite republican canidiate in the primary, unlike now every registered voter can vote for their favorite canidiate whether their party. The intention of changing the system has to do with getting more moderate people into offices because now candidates must appeal to both the left and the right. For example if two democrats are at the top of the ballot, the republican voters will be the ones who have a key say in the voting. This makes canidates change their view to please those democratic voters. This is causing democrats to work with republicans and viceversa. I believe that this will not be good for our voting system. View will be shifted more than they already are, and people will have no faith in who to vote for because all parties will get together. The current evidence suggest that in San Bernardino County where two republican canidates are not agreeing on terms and the democratic out numbers the GOP.
Reply
Emily O'Kelly
10/11/2012 12:43:06 pm
A top two primary system appoints two of the reigning candidates from the primary ballot, regardless of their political party, and sets them to square off against one another in November. The new primary system is different from the old one because it allows two candidates from the same party to compete in the final ballot, whereas the old system ensured that the two candidates competing during the final round were from separate parties. This new system was appointed in hopes of fueling competition in California, and reformers wanted to give moderates an opportunity to be part of the election. Ultimately, this system makes political candidates less dogmatic in their views. If two Republicans are running against one another in a heavily Democratic community, they will attempt to soften their conservative views in order to appeal to the masses. Current evidence suggests that candidates are in fact watering down their opinions in order to address both parties. Republican candidate Brian Dahle can be seen as a prime example of this. In the June primaries, Dahle emphasized the need of limited government and boasted “Ronald Reagan conservative principles.” However once he made it into the final ballot, Dahle stopped preaching to the Republicans and instead began to make more liberal appeals, all because of the Democratic region he was in. I believe that this system will create candidates who are willing to stretch their views in order to appeal to a different party, which in the end could possibly hurt our government. If we have leaders with questionable goals and motives, we could lose sight of our intention and end up in a gray area of Democrublican.
Reply
Jose A. Hernandez
10/11/2012 02:40:53 pm
A top two primary system is when the legislatures and congressional candidates names are placed in a plebiscite;while excluding their party families, the main two "winners" then face off in November. The only differences between the old and new systems are that the new system allows two candidates of the same party to face off, while the old, which two of the finalist are not from the same party, faced off and created more competition for the seat. By changing the systems, candidates in same-party races will work with other political parties views, example if both republicans win the finals then they will try to get democrat votes by including some democrat idealism in their strategy. And according to Oller, a former legislature, "If you'll give up what you believe in to win an election, you're exactly the wrong kind of person to have in politics,", and I agree with Oller about this kind of politics, for if a party of opposite views of your party and they're the one to decide who wins. By this change, candidates cannot stick into their party's ideas strongly and must be elected by the opposite party. People wont be able to agree to each of the party, for the views would be the same.But the intention of changing the system is to get more "moderate" people into office. All in all the evidence is candidates just want to receive the highest vote to win the seat.
Reply
Lola Behrens
10/11/2012 03:11:47 pm
In 2010, voters approved a top-two party system, meaning that the top two finishes from the primary run against each other in November, regardless of which party they are associated with. Originally, the the top two candidates were taken, one from each party. The system was changed to a top-two party system in an effort to elect candidates who would avoid extremist views, and encourage views and ideals that would lead to a more "moderate legislature or congressional delegation" (Sanders, The Sacramento Bee). However, the new system has instead encountered a major issue: political candidates who morph their values in order to appease voters from the opposite party. For example, if two Republicans were to be elected, but the demographic of their voters was largely Democratic, then the more moderate Republican would surely be chosen over the more extreme one. This logic will surely lead to a change in strategic approach to elections and appeal to voters. In his article, "California's top-two voting system changes campaigns, but will it alter governance?" Jim Sanders discusses the issues with the new system. He provides examples of its faults, including the fact that a dozen GOP candidates have suddenly declared that they are against signing the no-new-taxes pledge that had formerly been the "holy grail" of the party, but could "taint appeals to Democrats" (Sanders). Occurrences like this one demonstrate how tactics will surely change when it comes down to appealing to voters with one's real beliefs, and appealing to them with the beliefs that will secure the vote.
Reply
Austin Hechler
10/11/2012 03:29:47 pm
A two party system is new to California and improves the democratic system already in place. A two party system allows the top two vote getters, regardless of their parties, to compete on the final ballot for the elected position. the old system listed only the designated party candidates on the ballot, and the victor was decided as a result of the vote from this ballot. The old system was put in place in order to promote moderate candidates to office, and to limit third-party participation. This enhances the democratic system already in place by putting more power in the hands of the people, to choose who they would like to see effectively run the proposed position and forces nominees to appeal to all rays of the spectrum. The primary intention of the change was to allow candidates who aren't radically liberal or conservative but seek the middle ground. If adopted nationally this system would help improve the speed of politics by decreasing the amount of bickering and argument in congress and help congress members unite to solve importent problems. If the system was adopted nationally during this election i dont believe Romney or Ryan would have been nominated due to their straight minded conservative views. Their ideas do not appeal to many in the middle class, women's rights and free health centers nationwide. Although the middle ground is not what society wants to see its importent the people elect someone who will do what they preach and believe is right instead of conforming to the ways of society. Evidence of this is in a San Bernardino County congressional race, “two republicans, state Sen. Bob Dutton and U.S. Rep. Gary Miller, butting heads in a district where Democrats outnumber the GOP. Dutton was quick to promote his teaming with Sacramento Democrat Darrell Steinberg.” This new system is putting more power in the hands of the people and promoting a new way of voting such that politicians must work together and not quarrel over political party differences
Reply
Knute Meyer
10/11/2012 03:30:25 pm
The top-two system allows the names of all legislative and congressional candidates to appear on each ballot in the primary. The top two finishers square off in November, regardless of party. This new system is different from the old system because all the candidates are put on the ballot, instead of the parties picking their candidate. The system was changed because now that candidates have to appeal to both sides of the electorate, they want to find more moderate people to put into office who will look both left and right rather than having straight forward radical views. I think that more modest people will be elected into office that have both republican and democratic views. I think this is a bad thing because then people won't know who they are voting for and what they stand for. They’re won't be any straightforward republicans or democrats, instead there will just be hybrids of the two and that will confuse people and make the election process that much more difficult. The evidence is shown in Placer County, where Pugno and Gaines are fighting over the conservative base, not over Democrats. Pugno, the more conservative of the two, has appealed to the right to fund his campaign as a way to prevent Gaines from winning election.
Reply
Hugo Hernandez
10/11/2012 03:31:36 pm
The top-two primary system, approved by voters in 2010, functions by putting the names of all the legislative and congressional candidates on each ballot in the primary. The top two are then set to face eachother in November, regardless of party. This newly integrated system is different from the old one in that every possible candidate is listed, rather than each party choosing their own candidate. This was set in order to allow two candidates from the same party to be able to square off in the final ballot, unlike before where one from each party would be selected. However, this could and most likely will lead to candidates having to compromise their real thoughts or ideas and blend them in with the other political partys' in order to be able to gain more votes. This would mess things up, as ideas would start to become very vague in order to not comprimise losing any votes from the other party. The real motive would then become to please both parties in order to receive the highest vote, not to get ones true ideas and plans out to the public how it should be.
Reply
Sarah Gamble
10/11/2012 03:31:52 pm
The top-two party system, which was approved in 2010 by voters, lists all of the names of the legislative and congressional candidates on the ballot in the primary. Based on these results, the top two are then placed on the ballot in November to determine the winner. This differs from the previous system, in that the top two winners are listed on the ballot, not the top winners from each party. Now that there can be races between candidates of the same party, it is no longer always party against party. The two-top system was instated in hopes of candidates reaching across "party lines" and working as one. Dan Schnur hopes that this will become a habit "that carries over once they get to Washington." This system has already begun to change the campaign process, as candidates are sometimes forced to seek the votes of voters outside their party. Now, it is more likely that a moderate will be elected rather than a true conservative or liberal, because candidates have to appeal to a broader spectrum of view points. For example, if a a Democrat is running against a Democrat, the two candidates have to appeal to the Republicans as well if they want to win the election. Current evidence suggests that not only are candidates trying to appeal to all voters, they are also trying to help elect their opponents. In order to win the election in the top-two system, candidates are bending to the pressures of society and trying to put up a guise that is appealing to a wide spectrum of voters. However, by doing this, it becomes difficult to discern the true values of candidates.
Reply
Jesus A. Hernandez
10/11/2012 03:41:52 pm
A top two primary system is when both parties are allowed to have two of the same party win the race. Before the two party system was adapted, the two parties were not allowed to have two of the same candidates win. which meant that their would be one republican candidate and one democratic candidate on the ballot.The two way system will change campaigns by giving a better chance of being elected for both parties. Their would be more marketing for each campaign to persuade the voters and if the system will be put into action, the campaign would appear to be growing for more candidates. Although Dave Gilliard says "he suspects the key impact of same-party contests will be to discourage Democrats from voting in all-GOP races – and vice versa", i think it would be more interesting having both candidates of the same party go against each other, wouldn't you?
Reply
Daniel Gonzalez
10/11/2012 04:42:56 pm
A two primary system was set up in 2010, which listed all the legislative and congressional candidates on the ballot. Soon at the end of the results they top 2 candidates will then be chosen by November will be chosen to be the winner. What makes this different form the old primary system is that before they would just have the top winners from every party, but now it's just the top two winners out of all the parties. Since now that both candidates from the same party could run against each other in the beginning means that the same party wont be going head to head in the final elections, there will always be two different types of parties now. The main purpose on changing this system to the new one was to get sort of each party organize for who's going to be their person and how they can all work together to make them sure that they'll be the winner, kind of like what Sarah Gamble was saying about them working together. It talks about how how in San Diego the Democratic district spent over $50,000 dollars to help boost the Crimmins in the primary so that they'll get a part on the votes. Just like Jose said that there will be more marketing going on top help the voter choose whop to pick for the election.I think that this change really does make an impact on how candidates are getting elected these days. Today's candidates will have to be more open to their ideas in order ro be with other opposing parties so they'll be able to be chosen and it will sort of hurt the government, like Emily said because they really wont be able to really say their ideas, they'll have to be more broad on the topics to make sure the voters really get their point. The current evidence shows that candidates today are getting votes both from their followers, and trying to open their ideas to others. In the other hand as well they are "helping" their fellow competitor to get elected as well just so they can win the two primary system votes, this will definitely effect the voters on getting the real truth on what the other candidate is actually saying and what they want to do for the country.
Reply
Nancy Hernandez
10/11/2012 04:43:04 pm
The top two primary system, which was approved by voters in 2010, is a system in which the names of all legislative and congressional candidates appear on each ballot in the primary. The top two finishers then run against eachother in November, regardless of party. This new system is different compared to the old one in that now only the top two winners are listed, rather than the winners for every individual party. Before, they wanted only one person from each party but now it is allowed to have two candidates running against each other yet still belonging to the same party. The ideal reasoning for changing the way the system worked was so that we could promote moderate candidates to office and avoid having people change their beliefs and actions just to acquire more votes. Ultimately, the winner will become the candidate who is able to better communicate what the voters want to hear. This could present a problem because then we'd have to evaluate the legitimacy of the candidates ideas and make up our mind on who to vote for. In the end, we want to vote for who ever represents us the best and strives for the same moral and ethical values as we do.
Reply
Martha lopez
10/11/2012 05:02:49 pm
A top two primary system appoints two of the reigning candidates from the primary ballot, regardless of their political party, and sets them to square off against one another in November. The new primary system is different from the old one because it allows two candidates from the same party to compete in the final ballot, whereas the old system ensured that the two candidates competing during the final round were from separate parties.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Mr. LPart teacher/part entertainer/ part coach/ part task master Archives
November 2014
Categories |