I think that it’s impossible to declare that the California jungle primary hasn’t hurt us. The fact that such abominable system is used may be enough to dissuade a good Republican candidate (particularly a conservative) from running, since the system benefits RINOs and eliminates the possibility of the Greens taking votes from the RATs and allowing a Republican to win with a plurality. And even if we assume that the people who ended up running were the only ones who would have run, and that those that made the runoff would have been the nominees, I still think that the system has hurt us, either by allowing a RINO to make the runoff instead of a more solid Republican who would have won a partisan primary, or by excluding all of those leftist minor parties (whonunder the old system often combined to get 5%+) from the general-election ballot. There’s no way that Kamala Harris would have been elected AG if there were Green, Socialist, etc. candidates on the general-election ballot, and in congressional races Bilbray and Lungren probably would have survived (Bono would have had a chance as well) and maybe Vann, Gill and Strickland would have won in pluralities (with Strickland having the best shot at it).
Regarding how we should not “choose a lesser evil,” you are correct. But it still is legitimate to make a choice that reduces or limits an evil, since by doing so we are choosing a good. Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life explained this perfectly in the context of abortion and voting:
8. Distinguish “choosing evil” from “limiting evil.”
What happens if two opposing candidates both support abortion?
First of all, refrain from putting any labels or endorsements on anyone. Don’t call them anything. Or, if you prefer, call them both pro-abortion. Then just ask a simple question: Which of the two candidates will do less harm to unborn children if elected?
For example, is either of the candidates willing at least to ban late-term abortion? Is either of them willing to put up some roadblocks to free and easy abortion? Will either support parental notification, or parental consent, or waiting periods? Has either of them expressed a desire to support pregnancy assistance centers? How about stricter regulation of abortion facilities? Has either candidate expressed support for that idea? Nobody is saying that’s the final goal. But ask these questions just to see whether you can see any benefit of one of the candidates above the other.
One of the two of them will be elected; there is no question about that. So you are not free right now, in this race, to really choose the candidate you want. Forces beyond your control have already limited your choices. Whichever way the election goes, the one elected will not have the position we want elected officials to have on abortion.
In this case, it is morally acceptable to vote for the candidate who will do less harm. This is not “choosing the lesser of two evils.” We may never choose evil. But in the case described above, you would not be choosing evil. Why? Because in choosing to limit an evil, you are choosing a good.
You oppose the evil of abortion, in every circumstance, no matter what. You know that no law can legitimize even a single abortion, ever. If the candidate thinks some abortion is OK, you don’t agree.
But by your vote, you can keep the worse person out. And trying to do that is not only legitimate, but good. Some may think it’s not the best strategy. But if your question is whether it is morally permissible to vote for the better of two bad candidates, the answer — in the case described above — is yes.
Cardinal John O’Connor, in a special booklet on abortion, once wrote about this problem, “Suppose all candidates support ‘abortion rights’? … One could try to determine whether the position of one candidate is less supportive of abortion than that of another. Other things being equal, one might then morally vote for a less supportive position. If all candidates support “abortion rights” equally, one might vote for the candidate who seems best in regard to other issues” (1990, “Abortion: Questions and Answers”).
In this context, the question also arises as to whether one is required to vote for a third candidate who does not have a strong base of support but does have the right position. The answer is, no, you are not required to vote for this candidate. The reason is that your vote is not a canonization of a candidate. It is a transfer of power. You have to look concretely at where the power is really going to be transferred, and use your vote not to make a statement but to help bring about the most acceptable results under the circumstances.
Of course, our conscience may be telling us, “Don’t say it’s impossible to elect the candidate who doesn’t have a strong base of support.” Of course, it is possible to elect almost anyone if the necessary work is done within the necessary time. God doesn’t ask us to base our choices on “the possibility of miracles,” but rather on solid human reason. The point is that if there’s a relatively unknown but excellent candidate, the time to begin building up support for that person’s candidacy is several years before the election, not several months. What you have to ask as Election Day draws near is whether your vote is needed to keep the worse candidate (of the two, less acceptable but more realistic choices) out of office.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/vote/votingwithclearconscience.htm#choosing
Although your point is correct that in California close elections, Republicans were net benefited by the third parties on the general election ballots, I respectfully disagree as to your broader argument that the jungle primary is harmful.
In California there are really three meaningful political movements. Moderate Democrats (for the moment the most powerful) and radical leftist Democrats and Republicans (who are probably evenly balanced). There is FAR MORE ideological and policy difference between the moderate Democrats and the radical leftist Democrats than there is between the moderate Democrats and the Republicans. Demographics assure that Republicans can be elected only in a steadily-shrinking number of inland, majority-white districts. Anyone who has an economic stake in California has a HUGE interest in helping moderate Democrats win and hold office in the coastal and Hispanic-plurality districts.
Kamala Harris won her seat before the jungle primary came in, but I am very confident that in the intervening three years, her temptation to do wildly left-wing things has been held in check knowing that she could end up facing in November a death-penalty-supporting Democrat federal prosecutor turned County Supervisor with a Hispanic surname rather than whatever dolt the California Republican Party is likely to put up.