[EL] California Top Two research
Michael P McDonald
mmcdon at gmu.edu
Wed Oct 16 09:45:01 PDT 2013
The California redistricting commission does not have a competitive districts criterion, as some other states do. Proponents of the commission made an argument that it would create such districts. If you want a political outcome, it is best to incorporate it into the criteria rather than hoping it happens by chance. We might want a few more elections worth of data before rendering judgment since the first election since it may take a while for the system to reach a new equilibrium. Stratmann (APSR 2000) finds it takes a few elections for new representatives to move to their districts' median.
As for Virginia, the conventional wisdom in the state is that Republicans have used the option of holding a convention over a open primary to nominate ideologically extreme candidates for the general election over moderates who might have won in an open primary. The current gubernatorial candidate and cultural warrior Ken Cuccinelli (who posted to this list long ago) was nominated through convention whereas in a primary many believe that current Lt. Gov Bill Bolling would have won. E.W. Jackson, the Lt. Gov. nominee and even more ideologically extreme than Cuccinelli, is perhaps a better example: he received single-digit support in a recent Republican Senate primary, but was nominated in the convention. In another example, former RNCC chair and moderate Tom Davis opted to not seek a Senate nomination when a convention was held over a primary.
I'll have a paper soon -- submitted for MPSA -- to add to the open/closed primary debate that explores the issue from a voting behavior perspective, and finds a moderating effect for open primaries. I don't want to give the ending away until the paper is ready, but the voting behavior perspective reveals a counter-intuitive finding that is not controlled for in studies of open/closed primaries....
============
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Associate Professor
George Mason University
4400 University Drive - 3F4
Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
phone: 703-993-4191 (office)
e-mail: mmcdon at gmu.edu
web: http://elections.gmu.edu
twitter: @ElectProject
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Gronke
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 12:11 PM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] California Top Two research
Thad
Super interesting result, and I'll try to give the paper a closer read. List readers already know, but reformers ought to realize that there are seldom institutional "silver bullets" to resolve governance problems in some states (not to mention that institution in D.C.).
We have another ballot measure percolating in Oregon now--an approval voting system--that is being pitched the same way the top two was a few years ago. It will suddenly resolve all the partisan differences that exist in our system, even though it leaves untouched all the other mechanisms in the political system that push candidates to extreme positions.
Your last paragraph holds out a ray of hope. Any thoughts on how long it may take for the system to adapt, or do you think additional changes (campaign finance for instance) are necessar nke Ph: 503-517-7393
Fax: 734-661-0801
Professor, Reed College
Director, Early Voting Information Center 3203 SE Woodstock Blvd.
Portland OR 97202
On Oct 16, 2013, at 8:58 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>From Thad:
To fill in a bit of detail on one of the studies that Richard cited this morning, I coauthored (along with fellow political scientists Justin Phillips (Columbia) and Boris Shor (Chicago)) "Reform and Representation: Assessing California's Top-Two Primary and Redistricting Commission," availabl s.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2260083">athttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2260083. We compare the 2010 and 2012 legislative elections in California, using a "joint-scaling" approach that puts both candidates and registered voters on the same ideological scale based on the positions that they took on a common set of policy questions. We find:
1. California has, unsurprisingly, a representational problem. In 2010, Democratic and Republican lawmakers were located far to the extremes of the average voters in their districts and even the average voters registered with their party. The two parties are out-of-step with voters by roughly equal margins.
2. At least in 2012, the reforms of the top-two primary and the Citizens Redistricting Commission failed to fix this problem. &n elections (and losing candidates as well) were just as ideologically extreme and out-of-step with voters as in 2010, and the winners were a bit more extreme because a few moderate Republicans were replaced by liberal Democrats.
3. Why? We show that when the top-two primary set up a general election contest between two candidates from the same party -- the type of race that many expected to deliver victories for moderates -- the candidate who was more extreme was just as likely to win as the candidate who was more centrist and closer to the average voter. We also find that legislators in the new competitive districts delivered by the Commission were not significantly closer to the ideological locations of their average voters. We speculate that this is because it is so hard for voters to learn about the policy differences between two candidates of the same party in down-ballot races, and rest groups (who do know their policy positions!) still play a major role in pushing candidates to the extremes.
This is only evidence from one set of elections in one state, and it may be that moderate candidates will learn how to use the new rules or that they will have a different effect on statewide, top-of-the-ticket races in 2014. And it is important to note that both reforms have had many other effects that their proponents can rightly cheer. We find no evidence, though, that either provided an immediate cure for hyper-partisanship.
Best,
Thad
Thad Kousser, Associate Professor
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla, CA 92093-0521
tkousser at ucsd.edu http://polisci.ucsd.edu/faculty/kousser.html
858-534-3239 californiachoices.org<http://californiachoices.org>
--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
< 1 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
<a href="http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listi department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
View list directory