This was something foisted on us by Arnold Schwarzenegger as part of his agenda to water down the power of the party primary to select the more progressive Democrat and create a more centrist, corporate-friendly legislature. In Blue districts that are bound to elect a Democrat no matter what, a corporate-centrist Democrat could make the run-off in addition to the progressive who would, previously, win the party primary. That candidate would attract not only centrist Democratic votes but also Republicans who are the minority in the district and have a path to victory.

In that this is the system we have, I relish the thought of 2 Democrats each heading to November in the US Senate and Governor's races, because this might dampen Republican enthusiasm for even bothering to come out, thus making it easier for the Dems to take back Congress this year. But that presupposes their being a Democrat in each run-off.

The best fix for this would be Ranked-Choice voting. Each voter would be able to rank up to three choices. Those who voted for the candidate getting the least number of votes would have their second choice added to that candidates' tally until two candidates remain. Progressives could vote for Doug Applegate first, and if he didn't have the votes to continue, choose Levin next so as to make sure that at least one Democrat would advance to November's run-off.

Or we could vote to get rid of the top-two primary altogether.

And yet, when it comes to One Demand, I am, according to popular opinion here, too much of an optimist.

Optimist?! *LOL*

My, such a cynic.

Gerrymandering increases the likelihood of a better turn around by packing opposite voters into a few districts, but results in a more even spread of your own voters, thus in a normal year you get an unfair number of first-past-the-post wins.

As the Republicans may find out in November, there is a but in the system in that it creates fat tails - if there is a "wave" election it can overcome the leveled bias and cause a sweep of all districts to the opposition.

That might be a nice way to end the decade of absurd gerrymandering the Democrats have had to put up with.

Duh. You'd think that in a state that boasts more game designers than any other that someone would mention the first rule of game design: there's always some flaw that will be exploited by gamers. Always. Even when you try very hard to design it otherwise.

This is why I snicker every time Michale says that there's no way the Russians managed to influence the outcome of the 2016 election or physically change any votes.

My answer: there's no way that you could know that for sure, any more than you can be sure that the Korean kid you're playing against online hasn't figured a way to exploit the game to beat you.

It happens.

The best game designers have developed strategies for leveling the playing field, even when exploits are rampant. I'm sure the leaders of California could find a few of those guys....probably sitting next to them at their next fundraiser.

...nuts.

Any facts to support that claim??

No??

Of course not..

It seems to me, the CA Democratic Party should be able sort this Jungle Threat out internally...thru party conventions, or corporate board meetings. In any given race, the Democratic Party Inc. declares which candidate can use the Democratic name and Democratic machinery. Any other "Democrat" can go it alone, as new independent party, or more likely, as a write in. The voters can easily sort out the spoilers, which are lurking in most contests where there is no jungle.

The Jungle Primaries have changed the rules of the game, but it seems to me the Jungle Game is recognizably the same old ball game. The team manager just has to react to new rules....as do potential Democratic candidates. Discipline. That's why parties came into being.

Am I missing something here? It wouldn't be the first time...and if I have, I'm sure somebody will let me know about it :).

This scenario depends heavily on Democratic candidates splitting the Democratic vote almost equally. The same with Republicans and the Republican vote. Not impossible, BUT

A more likely outcome might be

Democratic candidate Jones wins 12 percent of the vote
Democratic candidate Perez wins 36 percent
Democratic candidate Nguyen wins 9 percent
Republican candidate Smith wins 11 percent
Republican candidate Griswold wins 29 percent
Minor candidates win 3 percent

i guess that's the law of the jungle

http://www.killthehydra.com/wp-content/uploads/star-trek-see-what-you-did-there1.jpg

:D

There is only one thing more enjoyable than seeing Republicans hoisted by their own Picard..

It's seeing Democrats hoisted by THEIR own Picard.. :D

-Bungle In The Jungle, Jethro Tull

"I tell you one thing that really drives me nuts, is people who think that Jethro Tull is just a person in a band."
"Who's Jethro Tull?"
-ARMAGEDDON

:D

Walking through forests of palm tree apartments
Scoff at the monkeys who live in their dark tents
Down by the waterhole
Drunk every Friday
Eating their nuts
Saving their raisins for Sunday.
Lions and tigers
Who wait in the shadows
They're fast but they're lazy, and sleep in green meadows
-Bungle In The Jungle, Jethro Tull

:-)

-CW

That's interesting about the 34th. I'd love to see a Green on the general election ballot!

As for the rest of what I think, I invite you to read my previous articles. Both the link in this one above, as well as one I really should have worked in as well, from slightly earlier:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/06/09/bungle-in-the-jungle/

I would favor discrete primaries for each party, but also open primaries -- you show up to vote, they ask you what party's ballot you want, and you choose right there on the spot. Works for me.

But I also want every registered party on the general election ballot -- I don't care how many of them there are, personally.

I think everyone should have the right to vote for a candidate from their own party in the general election. The only way a jungle primary would work for me is if the "primary" was in Nov, on election day. Then if nobody got 50+1 vote, then there'd be a runoff (Louisiana system, essentially). But that's the only way I could support it. The way it's set up now sucks.

-CW