This is the second part of an earlier diary that proposed an "instant top two primary" election rule for statewide elections***. An "instant top two primary" would have kept Sarah Palin from ever becoming governor. It does this by having two stages to the election and making it difficult for any candidate with a narrow, yet enthusiastic, base to make it onto the second stage. It is a tweaked version of the "top two primary" used in Washington State and recently adopted by California. However, since primary voter turnout is not reliable, it collapses the two-stages into one election with an "instant runoff".
Let me explain it first with the two stages separated...
In the first stage, five candidates* would be considered. Every voter would have to give their approval to their "top two" of the five candidates. Then, the two candidates who get the most "approval" votes would go on to the second stage for a standard two-way election.
Now, the requirement that voters pick their top two candidates is crucial to ensure that two centrist candidates get selected. For a Palin-supporter would have to give their approval for another candidate, which most likely would be a more moderate Republican. However it would not be certain that moderate Republicans would reciprocate. Instead of giving their approval to Palin, they might give their second approval vote to an independent or a moderate Democrat, which would effectively keep Palin from making the "top two".
But since we cannot trust a primary to reflect the preferences of the general population, we can collapse the two stages so they would both be done in a five-way general election. This could be done without any changes in the voting machinery if we had voters pick their favorite ranked pair of the five candidates from a ballot that listed all twenty possible ranked pairs in alphabetical order. If the five candidates were A, B, C, D and E then the ballot would look something like this (* below represents the oval on a ballot.).
Please vote below for the ranked pair of candidates that you like best!
* 1. A, 2. B * 1. B, 2. A * 1. C, 2. A * 1. D, 2. A * 1. E, 2. A
* 1. A, 2. C * 1. B, 2. C * 1. C, 2. B * 1. D, 2. B * 1. E, 2. B
* 1. A, 2. D * 1. B, 2. D * 1. C, 2. D * 1. D, 2. C * 1. E, 2. C
* 1. A, 2. E * 1. B, 2. E * 1. C, 2. E * 1. D, 2. E * 1. E, 2. D
After the number of votes for the 20 categories are tabulated for an entire state(starting with the precinct-level totals), the two stages could be done with a simple excel spread-sheet. In the first-stage, the rankings would be ignored. The total number of approval votes for candidate A would consist of any votes in the first column above or any of the entries in the first row. Each candidate would get an approval vote from eight of the twenty possible choices. The total votes from the appropriate eight categories would be summed up to get the total number of approval votes for a candidate. The top two candidates in terms of approval votes would go to the second stage. In the second stage, the votes would be recounted to choose between the finalists, with (at most) one vote per voter****. If a voter selected both finalists then their vote would be for their first choice. If a voter selected one of the finalist as their second choice and their first choice was not a finalist then their vote in the second round would be for their second choice of the five original candidates.
I illustrate how this would work with a simple example based on the MN gubernatorial election.
An example: So let's say Tom Emmer(radically conservative Republican), Mark Dayton(liberal Democrat) and Tom Horner (A "closeted" moderate Republican) were on the ballot, along with one lesser known radical Democrat candidates who only gets votes from strong Democrat voters' and an independent candidate who only gets independent votes. There are 100 voters: 30 strong Democrats, 25 strong Republicans, 15 weak Republicans and 15 weak Democrats and 15 Independents. The strong Democrats vote for Dayton and then the other Democrat. The weak Democrats read the Minneapolis Star Tribune's endorsement of Horner and decide to vote for Horn and then Dayton. The strong Republicans vote for Emmer and then Horner. The weak Republicans vote for Horner and then Emmer. The Independents vote for Horner and then the other Independent candidate. The tallies for the first round of the election would be: 40/200 Approval Votes for Emmer, 70/200 for Horner, 45/200 for Dayton and 30/200 for the Democrat and 15/200 for the Independent. Thus, the two finalists would be Horner and Dayton. Horner would be the favorite of 25+15+15+15=70 voters. Dayton would be the favorite of 30 voters. Thus, there would be a landslide in favor of Horner, who the typically liberal Minneapolis Star Tribune believed to be the best candidate for governor.
If on the other hand voters only could vote once and Emmer, Dayton, Horner and the other independent were on the ballot. Strong Republicans would vote for Emmer. Strong Democrats would vote for Dayton. Moderate Republicans and Democrats might like Horner, but they wouldn't necessarily vote for him out of fear of wasting their ballot. Let's say only 1/3rd of the Moderates vote for Horner, with the other 2/3rds voting for their preferred party's candidate. Two thirds of Independents vote for Horner and the other 1/3rd vote for the other independent candidate. Then, the vote tallies would be 35 votes for Emmer, 40 for Dayton, 20 for Horner and 5 for the Independent. Thus, we would get the same outcome as what just happened in Minnesota after the recount.
So which is better? Well, it obviously depends on your political preference**. However, if this safeguarded a state from ever getting a radically conservative governor then it would be worth it from a pragmatic progressive standpoint. Why? It would take the edge off of both campaigns and recounts, since the differences between the two finalists would likely not be that dramatic. And if the radical right is no longer able to elect a Palinesque candidate by turning out to vote in large numbers, it should take the wind out of their sails and force a left-ward realignment within the Republican party. And if the Republican party must realign itself to the left to be competitive in winner-take-all elections then its' conjoined fraternal twin the Democratic party would also move to the left and that is why Kos-folks should push for an Instant Runoff Top Two Primary!
dlw
ps, this is Strategic Election Reform(SER) too, because the initial stages are winner-doesn't-take-all (multi-seated) elections, while the final stage is a winner-take-all (singles-seated) election. It combines both basic types of elections, which is a key part of SER.
*
Why only five candidates? How do you pick the five candidates in the first stage? The number of candidates in the first stage was limited to reduce the number of possible ranked pairs that would need to be listed on the ballot. The number five was chosen so that third parties or independent candidates might have a chance to be among the final five candidates, most of whom would be from the two major parties. The five candidates could be chosen based on incumbency and the ability to gather distinct valid signatures from potential voters. This would make it a three-staged election rule that is collapsed into two stages. Some public funding could also be provided to level the playing-field some among candidate-wannabes trying to gather potential voter signatures.
**But wouldn't this also make it harder to elect a Progressive Governor? Yes, but progressives do not need to elect a "progressive" candidate to top offices to ensure that we make progress. If we follow Gandhi and MLKjr and engage in civil issue advocacy through a wide variety of selfless acts then we will move the center. As such,any "centrist" candidate worth their salt would have to champion what once were considered "progressive" causes.
*** Why only statewide offices? This election rule would make it difficult for a progressive liberal to get elected. This is fine for a state-wide gubernatorial or senatorial election but a wider range of representatives is needed for more local elections to make a democracy healthy.
****Not everyone's vote would count in the second round in an instant runoff top two primary. If I voted for two candidates and neither of them were among the top two candidates then my vote would not be registered in the second round. But I would know this and likely have a good idea of which candidates are more likely to make the second round before I voted. And, more importantly, it matters more for every general election voter to participate in the first stage than the second stage. This is the opposite of how the standard "top two primary" works in Washington State. There, non-primary voters do not get to help pick the two finalists, who are, as a result, less likely to truly represent the "center".