The Perverted California Primary System
Insights by Impy [one of our forum’s top campaign researchers] ...
[quote]
Yes, a result of Prop 14 being passed in 2010 California has a “non-partisan blanket primary”. All candidates of all parties appear on the same ballot, the top two, irregardless of party and irregardless if one gets over 50%, advance to the general election.
I find it unconstitutional but it hasn’t been found as such.
In 2012 it actually helped us hold on to a Congressional seat, vulnerable seat, lots of rats ran, 2 Republicans ran and placed 1st and 2nd, guaranteeing a GOP hold. But we lost the seat in 2014.
In this year’s Senate race, only very weak GOP candidates ran, and to my surprise the rat field was very thin, frontrunner Kamala Harris’ only significant opponent was Loretta Sanchez.
The Primary results were
Harris 40%
Sanchez 19%
Top Republican Duf Sundheim 8%
Total GOP Vote was 28.7%, divided between 4 weak candidates and 8 additional complete nobodies.
Harris would have slaughtered Duf Sundheim in November, so I wouldn’t mind this atrocity so much if GOP voters would do the smart thing and vote en masse for Sanchez, to stop Harris, a possible future candidate for President/Vice President, from winning and making the rats regret this system.
However as shown from a previous race for State Education commissioner (officially nonpartisan and always elected this way expect no party labels are listed) Republican voters are too obtuse to use this power. They could have elected a moderate rat over a wholly-teachers union controlled rat in 2014, but they did not, the worse choice won narrowly as GOP counties divided their support.
Harris is leading the polls by a wide margin and will win. It sounds like most Republican officials are smart enough to prefer that Harris loses, but what are they doing about it? Little to nothing.
California Republicans = docile prison [bleeps].
— impy
Quoted your insights here reg. California’s perverse primary system.
Thank you for the time.