Should Texas adopt California's "top two" primary system?

[ifrtbttrflys]

No Democrat has held state-wide political office in Texas since 1994. No Republican has held state-wide political office in California in a decade.

To elect its two U.S. Senators, Texas' primary system still takes the top vote getter from each Party and pits them all against each other in the November election.

Whereas California's primary system for U.S. Senators simply takes the top two vote getters, regardless of Party, and those are the two people who contest the November election. Tuesday was the 3rd Senatorial election under this fairly new primary system, and for the first time since California has elected Senators (1914), a Republican wasn't an option at all because the top two primary vote getters were Democrats, so they were the only options for California voters to choose from.

If Texas incorporated the same top two primary system, eventually only Republicans would be running against each other (most likely).

Should Texas and other states follow California's top two primary example?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I'm not from Texas.



I'm not about to "horn" in...

 

[Hypoxia]

Should Texas and other states follow California's top two primary example?

I'm conflicted. The Top-Two system was enacted by popular vote in 2008. (And no, I don't recall how I voted on it.) In my rural districts I've often had only GOPs as options for assembly, state senate, and House offices in the general election. Likewise, some urban districts have seen zero GOP candidates down-ticket. Folks tend to be GOP if they don't have close neighbors.

Top-Two has been hard on third parties and independents. Top-Two seems to encourage straight-ticket voting, but also seems to reduce vicious vitriolic campaign attacks. I've read of non-trivial discontent and pushes for a modifying proposition. I'll have to see what's proposed.

 

[Liar]

No Democrat has held state-wide political office in Texas since 1994. No Republican has held state-wide political office in California in a decade.

2011 was a decade ago?

 

[Hypoxia]

2011 was a decade ago?

In grizzly bear years, yes.

 

[Wrong Element]

No Democrat has held state-wide political office in Texas since 1994. No Republican has held state-wide political office in California in a decade.

To elect its two U.S. Senators, Texas' primary system still takes the top vote getter from each Party and pits them all against each other in the November election.

Whereas California's primary system for U.S. Senators simply takes the top two vote getters, regardless of Party, and those are the two people who contest the November election. Tuesday was the 3rd Senatorial election under this fairly new primary system, and for the first time since California has elected Senators (1914), a Republican wasn't an option at all because the top two primary vote getters were Democrats, so they were the only options for California voters to choose from.

If Texas incorporated the same top two primary system, eventually only Republicans would be running against each other (most likely).

Should Texas and other states follow California's top two primary example?

I doubt conservatives in Texas would have an interest in doing this. Look at it this way: if the Cruz/Dewhurst Senate primary in 2012, which eliminated the "moderate" Dewhurst (in reality, he's a moderate only in comparison to Alberta Ted), had been a November race instead, Cruz might very well have lost. The same would apply to various House seats that are now routinely won by the most conservative possible candidate.

Why would Texas Republicans ever want Democrats weighing in on a race between two Republicans? (This, BTW, is why I would have been a Republican had I ever gotten around to registering to vote in Texas: in order to have some say when it mattered, especially on local races.)