Unified primary

A unified primary (or approval+runoff) is an electoral system for narrowing the field of candidates for a single-winner general election, similar to a nonpartisan blanket primary, but using approval voting for the first round.[1][2][3][4][5]

Part of the Politics series
Electoral Systems
Plurality/majoritarian
  • Multi-round voting
Proportional representation
Mixed systems
Other systems and related theory
 Politics portal

Comparison to other primary systems

In the US, most primary elections are party-specific: voters select a political party, either as part of the voter registration process or at the ballot box, and may vote only for candidates sharing that same party affiliation. These primary systems use plurality voting, where each voter may express a preference for one candidate per office. The candidate in each party receiving the most votes advances to the general election. Voters not affiliated with a major political party may or may not be able to participate in these primary elections, depending on jurisdictional rules, and candidates not affiliated with a major political party may be nominated to the general election by other processes such as minor party conventions or petition.

The non-partisan blanket primary (aka "jungle primary" or top-two primary) is a single primary election in which all voters may participate, and all candidates appear on the same ballot, regardless of party affiliation or lack of party affiliation. The top two most-voted candidates (even if members of the same party) will appear in the general election. This is intended to allow non-partisan voters and candidates to participate, and to allow more moderate nominees in the general election (since voters from both sides of the spectrum can vote for them). However, the non-partisan blanket primary still only allows voters a single choice per office, and is therefore prone to the spoiler effect,[6] where candidates espousing similar ideologies split votes, helping candidates with opposing ideologies (but fewer candidates) to win.

Like a blanket primary, the unified primary has only one primary election, in which all voters participate, and all candidates appear on a single ballot regardless of political party affiliation. Unlike a blanket primary, the unified primary uses approval voting in the first round, in which voters may express support for any number of favored candidates, which is intended to eliminate vote splitting and spoilers (since voters can support a partisan favorite and a moderate).[7] The top two most-approved candidates will appear in the general election.

Analysis

Proponents posit[8] that the Unified Primary system will increase voter choice by allowing all voters to participate equally in all stages of the election process, by allowing voters to express support for more than a single candidate, and by allowing all candidates to compete in a uniform election process, regardless of political party affiliation or lack of affiliation.[9][10][11][12]

In contrast, FairVote, a national election reform non-profit that advocates instant-runoff voting, theorized[13] that it is likely that general election races would have two finalists from the same major party in districts where a majority of voters affiliate with that party, and thereby reduce voter choice in the election that has statistically higher turnout than current primary elections.

Election method simulation[14] of various voting systems indicate that an election system comprising approval voting in the first stage and a vote between the top two approved in the second stage is the highest-performing simple (unranked, unit weighted) two-stage voting system on the criteria of Bayesian regret and propensity to elect the Condorcet winner. These simulations confirmed early election science research[15] that found that the most efficient simple two-stage voting system allows two or more votes in the first stage and a single vote between two candidates in the second stage.

The unified primary method fails independence of clones, unlike Approval voting, because any time the second-most approved candidate wins the runoff, if a clone of the most-approved candidate is introduced, then the runoff will be only between the most-approved candidate and their clone, preventing the second-most approved candidate and any of their clones from winning.

Reform campaigns

Oregon

The use of approval voting on an open field of all candidates for partisan office as a replacement for current party-nominated primary systems was first publicly proposed in November 2011[16] by brothers Mark and Jon Frohnmayer in the form of a draft ballot initiative. The text of the failed Oregon Ballot Measure 65 (2008), which would have instituted a top-two primary system, served as the foundation for the draft, which was then modified to allow voters to select as many candidates as favored for each office.[17]

The Frohnmayer brothers are sons of former Oregon public official Dave Frohnmayer, whose plurality loss to Governor Barbara Roberts in Oregon's 1990 gubernatorial election was blamed in part on an independent candidate in the race who siphoned off conservative votes.[18]

A formal petition drive to institute the Unified Primary system in Oregon began in October 2013.[19] Petitioners completed the sponsorship phase of the initiative process by collecting more than 1,000 verified signatures from registered voters to advance the measure toward the November, 2014 ballot.[20] The term "unified primary" was adopted by petitioners for what they say is etymological accuracy[21] and to distinguish it from other primary system reform initiatives, notably open primary.[22][23] The pairing "unified primary" was also advanced by Oregon's Attorney General in the draft ballot title for this initiative: "Changes Election Nomination Processes; Replaces Current Primary System With Unified Primary For All Candidates."[24] Several variations of this measure have been filed to date: 2014 Initiative Petitions 38 and 51.[25]

The campaign did not collect the 87,213 signatures required to get Petition 54 onto the ballot.[26][27] (The "Open Primary" proposal that used plurality voting did collect enough signatures, but was defeated.[28])

Frohnmayer later joined the campaign for STAR voting, an alternate voting method which would replace blanket/unified primaries with a single election that uses a score ballot and automatic runoff,[29] though still promoting the unified primary under the name "Equal Top Two".[30]

Usage

St. Louis

The STL Approves campaign sought to adopt the same system (though they refer to it simply as "approval voting") in St. Louis city elections (Mayor, Comptroller, President of the Board of Aldermen, and Alderman).[31][32][33][34] Originally called St. Louisans for Ranked Choice Voting,[35] the campaign switched to advocating for approval+runoff, primarily due to learning that St. Louis and St. Louis County voting machines are incompatible with IRV.[36][37][38][39][40] In April 2020 they gathered enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, Proposition D.[41][42] Polling showed more than 70% support for the measure, with majority support among all demographic groups and parties.[43][44] On election day, the initiative was successfully passed with 68% of the vote, thus becoming the first United States city and jurisdiction to adopt it.[45][46] (Fargo, North Dakota had previously adopted Approval voting without nonpartisan runoff.)

References
  1. Griffiths, Shawn M. (2014-01-03). "The Unified Primary: A New Way to Conduct Nonpartisan Elections". Independent Voter Network. Retrieved 2018-06-23.
  2. Sharnak, Debbie. "Different Types of Primary Elections". Independent Voter Project. Retrieved 2018-06-23.
  3. Hamlin, Aaron (2014-08-21). "The Primary: What Is It Good For?". The Center for Election Science. A Primary If You Insist. Retrieved 2018-06-23.
  4. Frohnmayer, Mark. "Unified Primary Initiative Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)".
  5. "Electoral System Glossary". The Center for Election Science. 2015-05-21. Retrieved 2018-07-17.
  6. Atkins, David (2014-01-05). "Calitics:: Law of unintended consequences: CA's top-two primary helps cement intra-party control". Archived from the original on 2015-03-17. Retrieved 2018-07-17.
  7. "Compare". Unified Primary. Archived from the original on 2014-06-22. Retrieved 2018-07-17.
  8. "The Equal Vote Campaign". Archived from the original on 2014-08-25. Retrieved 2018-07-17.
  9. Equal Vote Coalition (2014-06-11), Dude, where's my vote? Part 1/2, retrieved 2018-07-17
  10. Equal Vote Coalition (2014-05-10), Help us repair democracy!, retrieved 2018-07-17
  11. Equal Vote Coalition (2014-04-18), Six kittens from Catsburg, retrieved 2018-07-17
  12. "Could approval voting make jungle primaries less objectionable?". D Gary Grady. 2016-06-03. Retrieved 2018-07-17.
  13. "Top Two (With a Twist) for Oregon?". FairVote.org. 2013-10-18. Retrieved 2018-07-17.
  14. "Range voting with mixtures of honest and strategic voters". RangeVoting.org. Retrieved 2018-07-17.
  15. Fishburn, Peter C.; Gehrlein, William V. (1976). "An analysis of simple two-stage voting systems". Behavioral Science. 21 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1002/bs.3830210102. ISSN 0005-7940.
  16. Fair and Unified Elections Initiative Page Info, Facebook
  17. "Text of the measure". Unified Primary Elections Initiative. Archived from the original on 2014-02-19. Retrieved 2018-07-17.
  18. Duara, Nigel (2010-06-05). "Independents get their shot in Oregon's governor race". The Seattle Times. Retrieved 2018-07-17.
  19. Mapes, Jeff (2013-10-10). "Dave Frohnmayer's son proposes radical change in Oregon primary system". OregonLive.com. Retrieved 2018-07-17.
  20. Mortensen, Camilla (2013-12-12). "Effort To Change The Primary Voting System". Eugene Weekly. Retrieved 2018-07-17.
  21. "Etymology". Unified Primary Election System. Archived from the original on 2014-02-19. Retrieved 2018-07-17.
  22. Halper, Evan (2013-10-18). "For post-shutdown reform ideas, many look to California". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Retrieved 2018-07-17.
  23. Jaquiss, Nigel (2013-10-10). "Mark Frohnmayer Proposes Open Primary Initative [sic]". Willamette Week. Retrieved 2018-07-17.
  24. Oregon IP38 Draft Ballot Initiative Title, Oregon Secretary of State
  25. Oregon Secretary of State Initiative, Referendum, and Recall Petition Log Database, Oregon Secretary of State
  26. "Oregon Unified Primary Elections Initiative (2014)". Ballotpedia. Retrieved 2018-07-17.
  27. Frohnmayer, Mark (2014-07-03). "Unified Primary: The End of the Beginning". Equal Vote Coalition. Retrieved 2018-07-17.
  28. "Oregon Open Primary Initiative, Measure 90 (2014) - Ballotpedia". Retrieved 2018-07-17.
  29. "About The Equal Vote Coalition". Equal Vote Coalition. Retrieved 2018-07-17.
  30. "Compare Top Two - Equal Vote Coalition". Equal Vote Coalition. Retrieved 2018-07-17.
  31. "STL Approves". Retrieved 2019-10-02.
  32. Theobald, Bill (2019-06-17). "It's not just ranked-choice. Approval voting is also in the offing". The Fulcrum. Retrieved 2019-10-02.
  33. Hamlin, Aaron (2019-05-28). "Joining St. Louis Approves to Advance Approval Voting Campaign". Democracy Chronicles. Retrieved 2019-10-02.
  34. Barker, Jacob. "Nonprofit donates $75,000 to group trying to change St. Louis voting method". stltoday.com. Retrieved 2019-10-02.
  35. "St Louisans for Ranked Choice Voting". Retrieved 2019-10-02.
  36. "St Louisans for Ranked Choice Voting". Facebook. March 24, 2019. Retrieved 2019-10-02. We are excited to announce a shift in strategy as we join forces with Show Me Integrity: Reforming Missouri Politics in bringing Approval Voting to St Louis!
  37. Ty (2019-05-14). "Not quite correct on either front! The STL4RCV campaign is now working with http://stlapproves.org. @8aleXD will be speaking:)". @tschlic. Retrieved 2019-10-02.
  38. Woytus, Amanda (2019-03-29). "St. Louisans for Ranked Choice Voting is pivoting to approval voting...but what is that?". www.stlmag.com. Retrieved 2019-10-02. Schlichenmeyer ... is part of a movement to implement approval voting ... Originally, Schlichenmeyer and a group called St. Louisans for Ranked Choice Voting were pursuing ranked choice, or instant runoff, voting
  39. Barker, Jacob. "With the St. Louis mayor and board president chosen by fewer than 40 percent of voters, activists try to change voting rules". stltoday.com. Retrieved 2019-10-02. can the voting machines actually do it? ... In the case of St. Louis and St. Louis County, the answer is no."
  40. "FAQ". STL Approves. Retrieved 2019-10-02. approval voting with a top two runoff is compatible with our current voting machines, while instant-runoff is not.
  41. "Great news: After turning in more than 20,000 signatures, we have QUALIFIED for the ballot in 2020!". @STLApproves. 2020-04-01. Retrieved 2020-04-08.
  42. "New voting method could find breakthrough in St. Louis". The Fulcrum. 2020-04-01. Retrieved 2020-04-08.
  43. "Poll: Strong Support for Approval Voting in St. Louis". The Center for Election Science. 2019-11-07. Retrieved 2020-04-08.
  44. Greenfield, Ben (October 21, 2019). "St. Louis Approval Voting Summary". Google Docs. Change Research. Retrieved 2020-04-08.
  45. "St. Louis, Missouri, Proposition D, Approval Voting Initiative (November 2020)". Ballotpedia. November 4, 2020. Retrieved November 4, 2020.
  46. Sclinkmann, Mark (November 4, 2020). "Overhaul of St. Louis election system passes, residency rule repeal fails". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Retrieved November 4, 2020.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.