To the editor: A well-known glitch in California’s top-two primaries is no reason to revert to the bad old days of partisan primaries that favor extremism and stoke polarization (“‘Extremely scary’: Specter of an all-GOP governor’s race spurs push to remake open primary,” May 10). The glitch is real, though. It deserves mending. Fortunately, there’s an elegant fix, and my home city of Seattle has already enacted it.
The problem, which loomed large in the governor race until recently, is that many candidates in the majority Democratic Party can split the primary vote, sending two Republicans to the general.
Washington state is California’s only true companion in using the top-two system. In fact, we invented it here, and we’ve had time to tune it. Starting next year, Seattle’s primary ballots will let voters rank their choices. When tallying, officials will start eliminating lower vote-getters at the bottom of the pack, transferring ballots to voters’ next-favorite candidate, repeating the process until only two remain. That way, progressive and conservative voters can both consolidate around their consensus standard-bearers.
California could do the same. This isn’t full-fledged ranked-choice voting, like San Francisco uses and Los Angeles is considering. It’s a minimalist form only for the primary.
In Seattle, we call it “ranked top two,” and because it’s only needed in races with giant fields, it’s surprisingly easy to implement. California’s Legislature could adopt it this year, and election officials could launch it in 2028 — a better plan than devolving to the partisan spite matches that prevail in the rest of the country.
Alan Durning, Seattle
..
To the editor: It surprises me that the report about efforts to change the current primary system does not have any reference to the ranked voting system. Admittedly, it is not very prevalent, but it is a good system that would address the problem that political consultant Steve Maviglio seeks to remedy.
Under that system, a person votes for a number of candidates, but “ranks” their preference. So, for example, if a voter thought Xavier Becerra was the best and that Tom Steyer was the second-best, they would cast their votes accordingly. In fact, ranked voting could effectively eliminate the need for the primary, still allowing for the person with the most widespread support to win.
Granted, there are some complaints against it — primarily that it is complicated and it takes too long to determine the results. As to the former, I think that is a figment of critics’ imagination and underestimates the intelligence of voters. Yes, it might require a voter to learn more about each candidate but, frankly, that is one of the few obligations of citizenship. A lack of effort is not the equivalent of a complication.
As for the time it takes to tally results, that is a problem of current society’s need for rapid responses, not a problem with the system.
I agree with Maviglio that the top-two system did not turn out as expected. But given the fact that it was proposed and enacted due to dissatisfaction with the former system, it is incumbent on the Legislature to take a careful and thoughtful look at another alternative. I think that, overall, this would be the best one for California.
Joel Drum, Van Nuys