California Democrats may be breathing easier after the latest results in the governor’s race, but the outcome so far offers little reason for confidence in the state’s election system.
Democrat Xavier Becerra was running in second place behind Republican Steve Hilton in the most recent count, while progressive billionaire Tom Steyer trailed in third. That positioning would ensure at least one Democrat advances to November, averting what had been a politically alarming possibility for the party: two Republicans moving forward in one of the most Democratic states in the country.
But the way the race arrived at this point has renewed concerns about whether California’s primary system is producing healthy democratic outcomes.
For much of the campaign, Democrat Eric Swalwell had been a leading contender. He left the race after multiple women accused him of sexual misconduct, including one allegation under investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney. Whether the timing of those allegations was driven by political strategy or by the normal pace of reporting and corroboration, the result was unmistakable: the race was upended, the Democratic field shifted quickly, and the party narrowly avoided a disastrous general-election matchup.
That kind of volatility, critics argue, is not evidence of a strong system. It reflects a political structure shaped by low-turnout primaries, crowded fields and enormous campaign spending — conditions that can leave major decisions in the hands of a relatively small slice of the electorate.
The eventual first-place finisher in the primary may do so with roughly a quarter of the vote. In a state where primary turnout often includes only about 20% of eligible voters, that means a candidate can effectively lead the field with the active support of only a small fraction of Californians.
For voters across Southern California and the Inland Empire, the consequences are not abstract. The state’s political system continues to struggle with issues that dominate daily life: housing costs, utility bills, school funding challenges and growing wildfire risk. Those problems persist not because policy options are unknown, but because the incentives facing elected officials often reward partisan loyalty, donor support and base turnout more than broad public problem-solving.
One proposed change is ranked-choice voting, which allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference rather than choosing only one. Supporters say it reduces the chance that a candidate wins with a narrow plurality after similar candidates split the vote.
Another model would allow the top five primary finishers to advance to the general election, where voters would then use ranked-choice ballots to determine the winner. Advocates say such a system would make it more likely that California elects a governor with broader majority support.
Alaska has adopted a version of this approach, sending the top four primary candidates to the general election and using ranked-choice voting to select the winner. Voters there approved the system six years ago and rejected an attempt to repeal it in 2024.
Still, election mechanics alone may not solve California’s deeper civic problem. A better ballot does not automatically persuade disengaged voters to participate. Many Californians skip primaries because they do not believe voting will produce visible results on the issues that matter to them.
That points to a larger challenge: the weakening of civic institutions that once connected residents to government. Unions, religious congregations, neighborhood groups, veterans’ organizations and other trusted local networks historically helped voters understand candidates, organize around shared concerns and hold officeholders accountable.
Rebuilding that kind of civic infrastructure may be as important as changing the ballot itself. Without stronger public engagement, California may continue to depend on luck, scandals or fragmented vote totals to avoid troubling political outcomes.
The latest governor’s race may have spared Democrats their worst-case scenario. But narrowly escaping a political crisis is not the same as fixing the system that made it possible.
Original source: CalMatters
