California Propositions 14 and 20: Lessons for the Future of American

Elections
In 2010, voters in California approved two propositions that fundamentally
changed the nature of elections in the state. The first proposition, Proposition 14,
created a top-two primary system for most statewide and federal offices. Under the
new system, all voters (regardless of party registration) would vote on the same
ballot. The top two winners, regardless of party, would move on to the general
election, leading to the possibility of a general election ballot with only two
Democrats or two Republicans. The second proposition, Proposition 20, gave
responsibility for congressional redistricting to an independent commission. For the
first time in Californias history, ordinary citizens, rather than politicians, would
redraw legislative and congressional boundaries. Since 2010, similar ballot
proposals have appeared in states across the country to varying degrees of success,
such as New Yorks Proposal 1 and Oregons Measure 90.
Two complete election cycles have passed under the new electoral system
created by the two propositions, and the results are clear: independent redistricting
commissions are a great idea, but top-two primaries are an awful one.
The concept of a top-two primary sounds good in theory voters who do not
identify with any particular party can still participate in primary elections, minor
parties cannot play a spoiler role in general election, and, since all voters receive the
same ballot, extremist fringe candidates on both sides of the political spectrum are
less likely to win. In fact, Senator Chuck Schumer (D New York) cites these reasons
in his op-ed to the New York Times advocating for top-two primaries on a
nationwide basis. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/22/opinion/charlesschumer-adopt-the-open-primary.html?_r=0) But in practice, top-two primaries fail
to produce these outcomes and can even have the potential to subvert democracy.
During the 2012 primary elections, Californias 31st congressional district, whose
voters solidly backed President Obama in both 2008 and 2012, selected two
Republicans to advance to the general election. What happened? Four Democratic
candidates split Democratic votes, allowing the two Republican candidates to slip
into first and second place. A similar result almost occurred in this years 2014
primary for State Controller. The first returns showed three Democratic candidates
and a Green Party candidate splitting the liberal vote to allow two Republicans to
advance to the general election. Although Democrat Betty Yee eventually gained
enough absentee and provisional votes to claim second place, a mere 0.69% of the
vote prevented a general election in which two Republicans would compete to
become State Controller of solidly blue California. The top-two primary not only fails
to reward candidates with more moderate stances, as Harry Enten of
FiveThirtyEight notes, (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/chuck-schumer-iswrong-about-the-top-two-primary/) the system has the potential of electing
legislators whose views differ considerably from the views of their constituents.

Independent redistricting commissions, on the other hand, are a good idea in

both theory and practice. When politicians have the power to redraw political
boundaries, maps become prone to gerrymandering and resemble Rorschach tests
more than actual legislative districts.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/05/15/americasmost-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/) Gerrymandering not only leads to
increased polarization in Congress and an unprecedented rise in the number of
uncontested seats in elections, but may also be responsible for guaranteeing the
Republicans House majority for the remainder of the decade
(http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/11/07/how_ridiculous_gerrymanders_
saved_the_house_republican_majority.html). An independent redistricting
commission, such as Californias, takes partisan motives out of consideration by
redrawing districts based on communities of interest. Before Proposition 20,
legislative leaders agreed on a bipartisan gerrymander that guaranteed safe seats
for both Democrats and Republicans. This gerrymander was extremely effective in
the 265 individual House elections between 2002 and 2010, only one House seat
changed hands, and representatives were almost always elected with over 60% of
the vote. But after the lines were redrawn by the California Citizens Redistricting
Commissions, the 2012 election alone saw five seats change hands and a substantial
increase in the number of competitive elections. Politicians could no longer choose
their voters; with the passage of Proposition 20, voters can now choose their
politicians. A nationwide effort to transfer redistricting power from politicians to
independent commissions would bolster democracy by mitigating the wasted vote
effect and increasing the number of competitive seats in elections. In addition,
independent redistricting commission would prevent a scenario in which one party
wins the popular vote for House elections but fails to capture the majority of House
seats, as had happened in 2012.
States are often called the laboratories of democracy, where new ideas can
be tested and refined before they are implemented on a nationwide scale. Americas
electoral systems can learn two valuable lessons from Californias experiments with
the top-two primary and independent redistricting commission. While proponents
of the top-two primary such as Sen. Schumer might have the best intentions for
democracy, the top-two primary on balance hurts American democracy more than it
benefits it. Furthermore, independent redistricting commissions are a crucial
building block to establishing more representative legislatures and democracies
here in America.