When California voters approved the state’s top-two primary system in 2010, supporters promised it would weaken partisan extremes and reward candidates who could appeal beyond their party’s base.
More than a decade later, the system has not consistently delivered that result.
The open primary, used for most state and congressional contests, allows all candidates to appear on the same ballot regardless of party. The two candidates with the most votes advance to November, even if they belong to the same party. In theory, that setup was meant to encourage broader campaigning and give independent and moderate voters more influence.
In practice, most statewide races still end up looking much like traditional partisan elections: one Democrat and one Republican advancing to the general election.
Andrew Sinclair, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College, said California’s political balance helps explain why. Although Democrats dominate statewide politics — no Republican has won statewide office in California since 2006 — the state is not so overwhelmingly Democratic that two Democrats routinely capture both runoff spots.
There are exceptions. In the current insurance commissioner’s race, two Democrats have been holding the top two positions as ballots continue to be counted. But those cases remain relatively uncommon in statewide contests.
Political analysts say voters also tend to approach the top-two primary much like an old-style partisan primary. Democrats often rally around the Democrat they see as most viable, while Republicans do the same on their side. That leaves less room for candidates trying to draw distinctions based on ideology rather than party label.
That dynamic can hurt candidates who are trying to run as moderates or outsiders. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, a moderate Democrat who entered the governor’s race with criticism of “extremism on both sides,” received about 4% of the vote. Progressive challengers without strong party or institutional support can face similar barriers.
Eric McGhee, a political researcher at the Public Policy Institute of California, said many voters are not closely tracking the ideological differences among candidates from the same party.
“The evidence we have of how voters view these contests is that they don’t have a clue who the moderate or the liberal is,” McGhee said. “It’s always a good bet that voters are way, way, way less tapped into the nuances of what’s going on than you are if you’re interested in politics.”
The system also has created opportunities for strategic spending by campaigns and outside groups. In the 2024 U.S. Senate primary, a super PAC supporting Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff spent heavily to elevate Republican Steve Garvey, a move that helped shape the field and damaged former Democratic Rep. Katie Porter’s chances of advancing.
Critics describe that kind of tactic as evidence that the top-two primary can be manipulated by well-funded campaigns seeking the most favorable November opponent.
Democratic political consultant Steve Maviglio, among those calling for an overhaul, has filed a proposed ballot measure that would repeal the system. Opponents of the current model have suggested returning to partisan primaries or moving toward ranked-choice voting, which allows voters to list candidates in order of preference.
The debate is likely to continue as California reviews the results of its latest primary. For voters across Southern California and the Inland Empire, the question is not just which candidates advance, but whether the primary system itself is producing the broader choices and more moderate politics its backers once promised.
Original source: CalMatters
