[EL] California top-two effect on number of Republicans running for US House

[Douglas Johnson]

An alternative theory is possible, which, if correct, leads to the exact
opposite conclusion about the top-two & redistricting reform:

 

In 2010, Virtually every California Congressional campaign's result was
known well in advance thanks to the 2001 bipartisan incumbent-protection
gerrymander. There was little for either party to do except focus on the
symbolic "win" of running a candidate in every district.

 

In 2012, there are a number of inter-party competitive districts, and a
number of intra-party competitive districts. Thanks to redistricting reform
and the top two primary system, there are a number of Congressional
districts essentially up for grabs. So the parties and activists are focused
on winning those districts. They appear to have decided that is more
important than seeing which party can field more sacrificial candidates who
lose 80-20 on election day.

 

I'm not saying this is the true case (the real question about party
resources, power, and enthusiasm is much more complicated than can be
debated by email -- for example, the CA Republican Party came so close to
bankruptcy it had to close its Sacramento office), but I offer an entirely
different scenario and conclusion is possible.

 

- Doug

 

Douglas Johnson

Fellow

Rose Institute of State and Local Government

m 310-200-2058

o 909-621-8159

douglas.johnson at cmc.edu

 

 

 

 

 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Richard
Winger
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 8:46 AM
To: Jack Santucci
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] California top-two effect on number of Republicans running
for US House

 


California's new congressional districts, drawn by the state's first
non-partisan districting commission, are considered to have produced more
competitive districts than the redistricting in place 2001-2010.  The 2000
decade redistricting was famous for making as many districts as possible
"safe" for one or the other major party.

So, if Republicans ran in every single district in California in 2010 under
the old, uncompetitive districts, the new districts surely wouldn't have
deterred any Republican from running.

I can't imagine any other strategic considerations that would cause
Republicans to want to run in fewer districts.  A major party loses prestige
when it doesn't field anyone for a congressional race.  The absence of a
congressional candidate is bad for the morale of the local party in that
area.

Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

--- On Thu, 9/27/12, Jack Santucci <jms346 at georgetown.edu> wrote:


From: Jack Santucci <jms346 at georgetown.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] California top-two effect on number of Republicans running
for US House
To: "richardwinger at yahoo.com" <richardwinger at yahoo.com>
Cc: "law-election at uci.edu" <law-election at uci.edu>
Date: Thursday, September 27, 2012, 10:37 PM

How do we know it's top-two? Might it have to do with redistricting? Other
year-specific strategic considerations? Idiosyncratic factors?

 

Best,

Jack

On Thursday, September 27, 2012, Richard Winger wrote:


The Republican Party has candidates on the ballot in 415 U.S. House
districts this year (out of 435 districts in the nation).  Of the twenty
districts in which there is no Republican, nine of them are in California.
By contrast, in 2010, every California district had a Republican on the
ballot.  

In 2010, the Republicans nationally had candidates on the ballot in 428
districts, so two-thirds of the national reduction for the party is due to
California's top-two system.

Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120928/bb7abfad/attachment.html>