Problems with Partisan Primary System
In “safe” districts, or districts where a large majority of voters support one party, partisan primaries result in this problem
What is “disenfranchising voters”
Voters are disenfranchised by partisan primaries in safe districts because the winner of the primary of the majority party in that district is almost guaranteed to win their election. Therefore, only the voters who participate in the majority party primary actually have a say. This leaves out voters of the minority party and, in states that require party registration to participate in primaries, independent voters.
Top-four primaries (increase/decrease) moderate and independent voter participation
What is “increase voter participation”
In a top-four primary, voters vote for their top choice, and the four with the most votes move on to the general election ballot. In the general election, voters rank their choices, so that even if their top choice doesn’t win, their next choice might have a chance. This way, independents and moderates can participate without being registered with a party. Also, they are more incentivised to participate in a top-four primary since a more moderate candidate has a much better chance of making it to the general election. After that, the ranked-choice part allows for voters who do not identify with the ideological extremes to vote for moderate candidates who more accurately represent their views. Increasing the number of viable moderate candidates increases moderates’ and independents’ motivation to vote. This is shown in Alaska’s 2022 top-four primary where a higher percentage of moderates and independents turned out.
Since moderate candidates are more likely to be elected through top-four primaries, this frustrating Congressional phenomenon would decrease
What is “gridlock”
Returning more moderate candidates to Congress via top-four primaries would decrease gridlock because compromise would increase. When legislators are less reliant on an ideologically extreme electorate, they are less worried about the ideologically extreme punishing them for compromising. It's also important to mention that extreme Republican legislators are more willing to accept gridlock than compromise since it jives with their anti-big government platform. The rank-choice aspect of the top-four system has a better chance of weeding out extreme Republican candidates since they would likely be low on the list for Democrats, independents, and moderates. Decreasing the number of extreme Republicans in Congress would increase compromise and decrease gridlock.
Top-four systems lead to better representation because they reduce the ______ effect, or the phenomenon when two candidates from the party favored by the majority split the votes allowing a winner from the other party
What is “the spoiler effect”
Top-four systems reduce the spoiler effect because the top four candidates are ranked by each voter. This way, the two candidates from the party favored by the majority of voters will be ranked in the top two spots in the majority of ballots. One of these two candidates will win instead of the candidate supported by the minority.
In general elections that result from partisan primaries, less informed voters take cues about a candidate's policy stances by looking at what party they are associated with. Voters (can/cannot) rely on cue taking in top-four primary systems
What is “cannot”
Less informed voters may be discouraged from participating in top-four voting systems because there are often multiple candidates from the same party or independent candidates, and it requires more effort to understand which candidate best aligns with their interests. While this may seem like a major threat to voter participation, voters can still rely on the parties for cues. Even if they cannot differentiate between two Democratic candidates, they could rank them as their top two if they like the Democratic platform in general. Furthermore, this is not a threat to widespread participation given that top-four systems result in increased turnout. For example, turnout in the 2022 Alaskan top-four primary was 12% higher compared to the previous midterm election which was a partisan primary.
Candidates in safe districts often cater their campaigns, rhetoric, and policy objectives to primary voters. This results in (increasing/decreasing) polarization in Congress
What is “increasing polarization”
Voters who participate in primary elections are more likely to be on the extremes of the political spectrum. To get elected, candidates cater their campaign to this group. When seeking reelection, representatives’ legislative priorities are influenced by what this more extreme primary electorate supports. As a result, representatives’ policy positions in Congress are more extreme.
The winner in a top-four voting system has a (stronger/weaker) mandate to pursue policy change compared to the winner in a partisan primary system.
What is “stronger”
Candidates must appeal to a wider electorate than simply their own party base. Therefore, the winner often has support from a more diverse electorate compared to the partisan system. They have a stronger mandate to make policy because they were put into office by people with a wider range of views, rather than being selected by a small, extreme partisan group like in partisan primaries.
Legislators are (more/less) accountable to their constituents in top-four voting systems compared to partisan primary systems.
What is “more”
Since candidates in a partisan primary only have to appeal to the small, extreme partisan electorate, they often cater policy towards this extreme group while ignoring its effects on the rest of their constituents. Since candidates in a top-four system need the support of a more diverse electorate, they have to consider how the policy they make affects this entire electorate. This can lead to policies that benefit a wider range of people. It can also encourage compromise and work across parties because legislators need to please an electorate with moderates. This can lead to a more productive Congress with policy that is better for a more diverse group of people.
Top-four systems improve representation because they allow for ______ voting, rather than forcing voters to strategically vote to avoid the worst option
What is “sincere”
In the partisan primary system, voters are often forced to strategically vote for the candidate who has the best chance of beating the candidate they do not like. This would be like someone in the Green Party voting for a Democrat. They like the Green candidate the best, but they choose the Democrat because the Green candidate doesn’t have a chance of beating the Republican. With top-four voting, this voter can rank the Green Party candidate first and the Democrat second without worrying about “wasting” their vote.
In safe districts where a closed partisan primary switches to a top-four system, there is the threat that outcomes will remain the same if states do not inform voters about what a change in the primary system means. This could lead to a similar electorate as closed primaries where voters are _________ partisans.
What is “extreme”
Top-four voting systems might not change the primary electorate if the state does not do a good enough job of informing voters about changes to the primary, especially if their previous system was a closed partisan primary. If similar electorates to closed primaries turn out, this could result in only extreme candidates. Given that it has been a safe district in recent years, the top-four system could end up with the same result of a more extreme candidate, or a candidate who caters to the extreme partisan primary electorate. While this is a problem, it is not any worse than the partisan primary system, and this likely would adjust over time as activist groups became involved in educating the electorate about the new system.
Legislators believe that the partisan primary electorate will punish them for compromising with the other party. Because of this, Congressional representatives are less willing to compromise resulting in this phenomenon
What is “gridlock”
Modern representatives are increasingly rejecting compromise, even if it moves the status quo closer to where they would like it. This opposes spatial model predictions that legislators will vote for measures that move the status quo closer to their own positions. Incumbents feel that partisan primary voters would punish them more for compromising with the opposite party—even if it adjusts the status quo in their favored direction—than if they make no progress at all. In this sense, partisan primaries contribute to congressional unproductiveness and Congress’s dismal approval rating.
Top-four primaries (increase/decrease) competition in elections.
What is “increase”
It is important to have competitive, contested elections to encourage legislators to be responsive to their constituents rather than interest groups. When incumbents are elected uncontested, this gives more power to interest groups who can donate to their campaigns in exchange for favorable policy. They are able to have this influence when candidates are uncontested because candidates are not as responsive to their constituents when their victory is guaranteed. Top-four elections decrease the number of uncontested elections because the final ballot can have two or more candidates from the same party on it, unlike in safe partisan primary districts.
As a result of the top-four system party leaders have less ________ over their legislators, also known as the power to use carrots and sticks to elicit Congressional action from their own party.
What is “direct influence”
Switching to top-four primaries could cause a decrease in party leadership power in Congress. Party leaders have less direct influence because candidates are less reliant on party leader support in elections. Because candidates do not have to appeal only to a small, extreme partisan wing of their party in top-four systems, getting the public support of party leaders is less important. It might even hurt candidates who are trying to appeal to moderates if they had vocal support from party leaders. This means that party leaders do not have the leverage of election influence as a reward or deterrent when it comes to Congressional votes or committee action. This could lead to less legislators consistently voting the party line, especially if they are trying to appeal to moderate and independent voters as well.
Top-four systems can mitigate the effects of________, or the phenomenon where legislators representing the minority of Americans outnumber the legislators representing a majority of Americans and are able to pass bills that don’t represent the will of the majority of Americans
What is “external countermajoritarianism"
Republicans in the Senate more often have the external countermajoritarianism advantage since many small states produce Republican candidates, and external countermajoritarianism occurs more when the Republican majority is slim. Since top-four systems are more likely to produce moderate candidates than partisan primaries, the top-four system could allow for more moderate Republican senators. While the top-four system cannot prevent external countermajoritarianism, it can mitigate the effects by encouraging more moderate candidates who would be more likely to compromise or pursue moderate policy that is closer to the preferences of the majority.
Top-four voting systems can cause administrative issues and vote-counting issues because they are more complex than partisan primary systems. This can (increase/decrease) the potential for vote-counting errors.
What is “increase”
Top-four voting systems require more administrative knowledge and training to implement. Because votes are counted in a complex manner that may involve turning to the discretion of officials, there is a higher potential for error in counting votes. For example, when going through the process of eliminating the bottom candidate in a Senate election, sometimes two candidates can be tied. This would be if votes were tallied by counting how many districts each candidate won, for example. In these cases, officials often have to make a decision on who is the ultimate loser. Sometimes, it is based on the pure count of votes that each candidate received regardless of district. Other times, it is done on a district basis, where candidates are evaluated based on who got the most second choice votes. Depending on the state laws and discretion of the election officials, elections could turn out very differently. While this is not a problem in partisan primaries, they still often end up with less representative candidates, despite being more straightforward processes.