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

[Richard Winger]

Louisiana used top-two for Congress 1978 thru 2006, so there is plenty to study.  From 1978 through 1996 the first round was in September or October, and only if no one got 50% was any election held in November.  From 1998 thru 2006 the first round was in November, and a run-off in December if no one got 50%.  So, in both periods, it wasn't exactly like the Washington/California system, because the first round really was an election (because someone could get elected at that event).  But it is still worth studying.

Generally, proponents of top-two will not ever let the word "Louisiana" pass their lips.  If they are forced to mention it, they act like it's another country.

Richard Winger

415-922-9779

PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

--- On Fri, 9/28/12, 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: "Douglas Johnson" <djohnson at ndcresearch.com>
Cc: "richardwinger at yahoo.com" <richardwinger at yahoo.com>, "Jack Santucci" <jms346 at georgetown.edu>, "law-election at uci.edu" <law-election at uci.edu>
Date: Friday, September 28, 2012, 2:37 PM

I guess one just has to look at the districts over two or a few cycles. Top-two may well matter in some way. Or not. I'm intrigued by the redistricting-plus-top-two argument below. What kind of intraparty competition? Just incumbent-on-incumbent or some new(ly intense) form of intraparty competition?

Is anyone looking at the districts? It would make an interesting blog post. Maybe even a short article in a BePress journal.

Jack
On Friday, September 28, 2012, Douglas Johnson  wrote:

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
FellowRose Institute of State and Local Government
m 310-200-2058
o 909-621-8159douglas.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 PMHow 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/b26ab772/attachment.html>