Some Impacts of Top-Two Primary on 2022 Midterm Election

by Jon Phillips

I guess that unlike Dan Newhouse, Jaime Herrera Beutler's constituency had moved sufficiently to, or past, the center such that a Democrat could win under our Top-Two System. It’s a system that statistically favors stability in the center (as a game theory problem) of any particular District or the State as a whole since the two main Parties cannot effectively control access to the ballot box in the primary. Statistically, Top Two should put the outcome of the general election closer to the average of the “public mind” over a series of election seasons.

 

Our 4th District’s constituency hasn’t drifted far enough left to replace Dan, but it is not far enough to the right for a Trumpian election denier to win either. Dan took advantage of that fact. If we still had a partisan primary system, the Trumper might have won and Dan (who also voted to remove Trump) would likely have been sent home

 

Although Doug White made it into the general election, having the 2nd largest tally in the primary, Dan bested him by a landslide margin in the general. That was an expected outcome.

 

I wish more States would go to Top Two or Ranked Choice (Alaska has demonstrated that the right wing may not be able to win there for federal positions, and neither can the left wing). Since AK has only one Congressional District (it’s a tiny population), gerrymandering is impossible, and also greatly simplifies the process under Ranked Choice.

 

I have my doubts about Ranked choice, except possibly for small population States (e.g., the 5 single District States). I think it’s too easy to attack with disinformation since there’s a culture in the US that expects rapid simple answers on election outcomes and people confuse the need for additional time or complexity with potential for fraud. Ranked Choice, is a multi-step counting algorithm to come to a conclusion.

 

Getting people to accept a single step counting process is difficult enough. At least that’s my opinion. Since I can understand how Ranked Choice works, in principle, it has some advantages over Top Two in terms of favoring the statistical center (it probably reduces variance over Top Two from election to election in a sequence).

 

But I think the extra time and complexity gives too much room to the election denier mob to whip up trouble — especially in larger more complex States. We’ll see whether it lasts in Alaska, etc. It’s already under attack. If not, I hope they don’t back up all the way to a partisan primary system like they had before their 2020 Initiative cycle. Palin might come back in that case and that could move State’s politics noticeably rightward. AK has a serious independent and libertarian streak. That can be used to counter that a partisan primary limits individual’s freedom to choose.

 

It was delicious to watch Palin lose and the moderates sweep AK in 2022. That election was the first Ranked Choice implementation year and probably the only thing that saved the center right Murkowski (though she would likely win Top Two as well — she won on a write-in previous to this election cycle, that’s the definition of small d “democratic popularity”). Also the Democrats got the single House seat. It will also be interesting to see if the recent shift to Ranked Choice moves Sullivan’s (Sen. R -AK) rhetoric more toward the center before his term ends in 2026. I wonder what he might say in 2024 as early positioning.

 

In 2016, Sullivan took a clear position against Trump, but dropped it in 2020 when he had to run under a partisan primary system and Trump’s nutty cult following was maximal. Sullivan’s resume is fairly impressive. Based on his education and experience, I would expect him to be a center right pragmatist, not a Trumper. Former A/S of State in DOS, worked for the Bush WH, full Col (reserves) Marine Corps, former AG of AK, DJ from Harvard Law. Definitely well to the right of me, but doesn’t smell like some flaky Freedom Caucus Trump lover.

 

People should think harder about the value of election reforms that could tremendously help on federal office at the State level. I think that US public opinion writ large is to the left of the US House. Gerrymandering is a significant part of that. But partisan primary systems also play a role. To fix either of those is tough since both Parties engage in those abusive behaviors. They also limit small d “democracy” too much in my opinion

 

I also think that if we had more ideological stability in election outcomes every two years at State and National level, it could help calm populism and work in the interest of more reforms. Perhaps broader interest in reforms blunting gerrymandering and campaign finance might occur in a more pragmatic environment? We really need to dial down the Nation’s political temperature. It’s dangerously high.

 

It would be nice to be able to put an election bumper sticker on my car without worrying about vandalism. I always had one until the last 2 elections. I had an Obama sign in my yard and no one bothered it and I didn’t give a thought to the prospect that someone might — even though I lived in a GOP majority neighborhood. We should try to dial back to that level of comity in political discourse.