Independents would be the true beneficiaries of California's open primary initiative because primaries will occur on a more level playing field. In the long term, bringing more moderate viewpoints, center-left as it were, to Sacramento widens the pool of possible candidates. And in the short term, it immediately gives independents a greater chance to win the primary, and win the election, by opening the field to competition, regardless of party affiliation.
So the initiative helps, does not hurt, third-party candidates. Which is why it's strange that the New America Foundation's Steven Hill seems uncomfortable with what he calls the "top two primary" because, according to Hill, it "bans" third parties from the general. Hill would appear to be a lone ranger off on a propaganda crusade with every newspaper he can find, to make sure this thing isn't passed, at the expense of democracy and common sense. What's his evidence? One primary in Washington last year? Does he think decades of fierce and divisive politics are just going to be washed away in one election cycle?
The Post Partisan
I think Hill's sensitivity and his rhetoric are unwarranted, and reflective of the same kind of partisan nitpicking and dissecting of rainbows, we need to do away with. (And I feel the same way about rossl'sanalysis of this.)
First, as a matter of rhetoric, it's not a "top two primary" as Hill says; it's a top two general election. There's a big difference. The primary is come-one, come-all--that's the whole point. For the same reason, it's not accurate to say that third-parties are "banned" from the general when, in fact, they would be getting a fairer shake at getting in and winning the general.
Second, the suggested alternative--three person instant run-off--is ill-advised. In a run-off voters rank their top three choices among all comers. If a voter's top choice does not receive the most votes, their vote goes to their second choice as the "run-off" vote, and so forth until you have a "majority" winner. The problem is that it could lead to inaccurate results (like people's second choice could actually win), and is otherwise convoluted and messy. It could also lead to more, not less, false divisiveness.
One compromise would be doing a three person run-off in the general election, preceded by an open primary. But, at this point, and I've been wrong before, I think it would be a net loss. Organizing strong majorities of political support can't be done through a technocratic formula at the expense of clarity and correctness. It must be done by candidates.
Here's the point: Under the current system independents are disfavored. Under open primaries, the process would ultimately favor no one. That's the way it should be.
Which is not to say that our ideological biases can be removed in one, or two, or even three election cycles, as Hill ridiculously intimates. But they will be removed, if we open up the process now.
Finally, we need to analyze this initiative on its own terms, not in terms of WHO introduced it, or HOW it make it into the budget. Those issues are irrelevant.
To read more about this issue, click here. Thanks.