top-x elections

What is a “multi-party primary”?

There is some controversy over what to call the various “top-X”/“jungle primary” electoral systems now in vogue. The National Conference of State Legislatures now offers the term “multi-party primary” with the following definition:

A small but growing number of states hold a single primary in which all candidates, regardless of party, are listed on a single ballot. States vary in the number of candidates who advance out of this primary to the general election…

Elections for Nebraska’s unicameral, nonpartisan legislature closely mirror this process except ballots do not identify the candidates’ party.

I prefer the term “nonpartisan two-round system” (NPTRS) for two reasons. First, I take my definition of “partisan election” from literature in which some formal process governs a candidate’s use of the party label on a ballot, i.e., there is an actual endorsement. Second, some of that literature is in comparative politics, and since the goal is to import a “comparative” electoral system, it may help to bring with it the terminology used to analyze the working of such systems.

Another way to make the second point is to note that these reforms at least pretend to favor multi-party politics (see the name given above to the first-round election). But there are no parties, formally speaking, and that may matter for their long-term operation.

If we need a term for only the first round, I prefer winnowing or preliminary election. This is the term used in some cities to describe an election whose purpose is to reduce the number of candidates proceeding to the next round (typically but not necessarily a general election).

Controversy about using the word “nonpartisan” boils down to the fact that party labels do appear on some states’ ballots (as described above). However, on closer inspection, these labels are just indications of party affiliation, and we all get to choose the one we want when we register to vote. It’s not a party endorsement arrived at either collectively, or via some collectively legitimated process written down in either public law or party bylaws.

Portion of an Alaskan sample ballot from a first-round election, held 20 August 2024.

I might be okay with “jungle primary” simply because many instantly know what it means. “Top X” or “top C” also works and may carry less baggage, although it is not widely used.

Early thoughts on the new book “The Primary Solution”

Nick Troiano’s new book is an engaging read. Here are a few thoughts with the caveat that I am still working through it.

1. With Gehl and Porter (2020) it argues for the jungle primary as a way to “fix to our political dysfunction […] without the unlikely passage of new federal laws or constitutional amendments.” So, we are asked to accept the premises that federal-level electoral-system change is a no-go… or at least a long time off… requiring state/local demonstration cases.

2. Readers are assumed to agree that “our political system is broken.” It’s clearly not working well right now, but that could change. I have pressed this point a few times with ‘primary reform’ backers — realignment itself is a path ‘out.’ That would be a case of our so-called Madisonian system doing what it was expected to do.

3. Do benefits of the proposed reforms therefore outweigh the costs? I am not a fan of utilitarian moral reasoning, but I do appreciate that leaders sometimes have to engage in it. So, my last two points cover costs.

4. The book claims an absence of “any credible research” that RCV has disparate impact, in whatever terms, on communities of color. This is overly dismissive (at best). I encourage readers to come to their own conclusions after an hour or two with Google Scholar.

5. The book attributes to me (p. 137) the same conventional wisdom I sought to challenge with respect to STV’s repeal. So, two years’ getting and punching archival data into Excel seems to have left that debate where it was before the work began in 2014. Addendum: here is what I actually argued.

6. There are a few invocations of the one-dimensional spatial perspective. That is to be expected in a work of advocacy. It might even be expected when political scientists get called on to redesign institutions. Analytic work on electoral reform, however, has been moving away from this perspective.

As I said, I am still reading, and the book is engaging.

Missouri, Nevada, and the fate of the Republic

Three things strike me now about American national politics. One is the importance of the Senate for blocking policy change. Another is the Senate’s narrow partisan division. Then there are Missouri and Nevada, where the ranked-choice movement now heads.

This post suggests that one way to save the Republic — by which I mean create a Senate that can block policy change, should the next few elections not go very well — is to get Democratic voters to help elect anti-populist Republicans in key states.

In turn, that could require state Democratic parties to stand down in the respective elections — basically what we have seen in Alaska.

I am not saying that this strategy is good or bad. Nor am I commenting on long-term implications for democratic practice. It may be that there is no other choice.