I think it will cause more problems than it solves. A fractured field on one side could lead a party that gets the vast majority of votes being shut out of an election.

If 18 Republicans run for a state house seat and split the vote remotely evenly while getting 70% of the total, and 2 Democrats split the remaining 30%, they run a decent chance of being the only 2 on the ballot in the fall.

It feels like a solution in search of a problem. I'm not sure what problem it was even supposed to solve.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

The goal of the systems is to place more moderate candidates on the November ballot. The assumption was that candidates would pander to the independents in the first round of voting instead of the party extremes. In reality it isn't really that clear. Probably worked out in the Senate race this year with the "moderate" incumbent blowing everyone out of the water. It does favor strong party bosses who can get everyone behind one candidate.

Arnie changed the rules to try to promote more moderates, but I agree that it doesn't work well. I suppose it at least will focus the minds of each party to try to reduce their own number of candidates, but in cases where a number of candidates stubbornly remain in the contest, it can definitely backfire on the party.

I don't think it's a good head on balance.

It would work great with ranked choice for the primaries.

I dont like it ... 2 party system is bad enough.. 1 is worse

I don't understand how you can have a jungle primary (top two win regardless of party affiliation) and a closed primary. The are incompatible.

....a single transferable vote system could get rid of primaries altogether. Eliminate and transfer votes to next choice till 1 gets >50%.

if we have to do primaries eliminate and transfer till we are down to 2.

Could help get more moderates elected - the Dem or GOP candidate with some cross over appeal may be few voter's first choice but if they can avoid an early elimination they could pick up a lot of votes as others are removed.

It's been funny how it has been working thus far. It was implemented by a Republican governor and approved by a democratic legislature, both thinking they would get something particular out of it. And as far as I can see living here, neither got what they envisioned, and it is turning into a nightmare for the Dems. So many on the ballots that they were very scared of getting frozen out of the final election because of the fracturing of the vote to so many candidates. I swear, it would not surprise me if I heard that the republicans bankrolled some democrats to run in many of the close races. It would make sense in areas where they have incumbents, and just one more choice besides that one..

But they seemed to have lucked out, and I mean luck. A democrat seemed to eek into some of those types of races, so now they can rally around that one person. In the end it just shows how little control the Democratic Party has over these primaries and who runs, and who drops out to help the party. A lot of rich people just fund their own campaigns and give the finger to them, either purposefully or just for their egos. I cannot fathom why so many candidates with only a couple % points, stay in the race knowing they may insure a lockout of any candidate from their party in the runoff..

I dont see some of the house seats that they though were very flippable going their way now, republican incumbents got 50+% of the entire vote in some cases, so unless it was just lethargy in this election, it will be more of the same in the house..

Governor is going to be Gavin Newsome, think that is the one slam dunk you could bet your house on at this point...

There are issues with instant runoff too, including some serious logistical issues with ballot-tabulating. There are tradeoffs with every system.

Do you mean that everyone would have to keep voting over and over like the way they vote for the winner of "the voice"? It's hard enough to get people to vote once.

We have a reality show president, might as well try reality show voting!

---

---------------------------
''Sweeney - you can both crush your AG *and* cruise in dead last!! 😂 '' Murphy's Law

It seems like a good way to divide a party.

I agree that it would weaken the two parties. And I think that's a move in the right direction.

---

---------------------------
''Sweeney - you can both crush your AG *and* cruise in dead last!! 😂 '' Murphy's Law

He means an instant runoff. You only have to vote once, but you rank every candidate (or any you care about). The system uses your top vote and eliminates one candidate per round. The process automatically keeps voting and eliminating candidates util one is left. So you don't have to keep re-voting.

Beyond that he is proposing a primary with instant runoff until you get two candidates. That would allow for those two candidates to better get their message across compared to a crowded primary.

I wish we legitimately had more than two parties.