Disagreement is Evidence of Success

Abstract

Disagreement is Evidence of Success Shaudi Falamaki Fulp The fact that practitioners disagree and academics have found inconclusive evidence about the impact of California’s Top Two electoral system is, itself, an indication that the reform is working in its nascent years. Yes, it is too early to portend long-term trends from only two elec- tion cycles, but the fact that more variables have been introduced to elections has forced candi- dates and consultants to challenge their previous assumptions about campaign strategies, voter behavior, and governance. It’s difficult to pinpoint which recent California political reform, or combination of reforms, is responsible for the greatest change in the political landscape. There are so many to point to— Propositions 11 (redistricting), 14 and 20 (top two primary), 25 and 26 (majority-vote budget while maintaining a two-thirds vote threshold for tax increases), and 28 (term limits)—but state government clearly operates differently than it did before they went into effect. On-time budgets have replaced long, contentious battles that led to the state issuing IOUs. Newly elected assem- bly members and state senators now approach legislation with newfound patience, acknowledg- ing they have some time to get the policy right instead of governing by press release. And be- cause of Top Two, candidates, consultants, and independent expenditure contributors continue to experiment with various approaches in search of a blueprint that will lead to victory. In politics, when electoral dynamics become predictable, stagnation can result. Old campaign playbooks are recycled. Voter engagement is taken for granted. Critical thinking in governance is dulled. Wherever one lands on the Top Two spectrum—defining it as a game changer, a muted asterisk in California’s reform narrative, or even antimajoritarian—one thing is clear: it has in- troduced greater variables and chaos to the electoral landscape. While turnout continues to de- cline (a trend that predated the implementation of Top Two) and independents continue to sit on the sidelines, particularly in primaries, candidates and consultants have been forced to throw out decades-old assumptions and reinvent. In any industry, disruption that leads to innovation is encouraging. While political operatives have been gearing up for the implementation of the state’s political reforms, many voters are still unclear as to the new primary rules, many times not even knowing they have changed. With rec- ord low turnout in 2014, there is clearly room for improvement and Secretary of State Alex Pa- dilla’s focus on how to “boost the vote” could result in promising outcomes. As voters become more educated on the new primary system, which some campaigns are seeking to do as they woo votes, the impacts of the Top Two primary will become more pro- nounced. For example, in Senate District 6 in the Sacramento region, as two Democrats compet- ed on the general election ballot, Democratic and Republican consultants were hired by cam- paign committees to facilitate bipartisan turnout. Republican voters were nudged by campaign communications to vote strategically, as they were reminded that no Republican candidate would