If you think the debates over how to change election rules are fierce, then you need to turn your attention to the endless battles between baseball traditionalists and reformers. The former view the American pastime as something almost sacred: a slow-moving, timeless bastion of beauty in an ever-changing world. Unlike professional football, which continually tinkeres with its rules, baseball should, they believe, cling to the past.
“I observed a tendency toward instant gratification in a game whose best quality was to challenge us to be patient,” wrote traditionalist Noah Gittell. But after seeing the results of recent changes to Major League Baseball designed to speed up the game (for example, adding a field clock), he has decided the changes are OK. This isn’t the first time the league has changed the rules, he noted.
Columnist George Will, who wrote a book celebrating gaming culture, welcomed the new rules. He believes the latest adjustments to the rules restore the spirit of the past, when fast-moving games were common and athleticism was more important than analysis (see Moneyball). They could also restore participation levels. Sometimes the best way to energize an institution is to adjust how it operates.
At the last Giants game I attended, I almost fell asleep from boredom, so I’m not the best person to pontificate about balls and strikes, but I see parallels with our electoral system. For years, reformers have sought to reinvigorate the democratic spirit by continually modifying and adapting the voting process. They are responding largely to low voter turnout.
Unlike their counterparts in baseball, American politicians have not yet found the right formula, perhaps because most people proposing rule changes have a vested interest in the outcome of specific games (unlike MLB officials, the whose interest is centered on the game). itself.) It’s clear from Tuesday’s primary election, however, that the latest “big” primary rule change in California is a failure.
In 2010, California voters approved Proposition 14, which created the top two primaries for every election except for president, central committee, and nonpartisan elections such as boards of supervisors and superintendent of public instruction. Under the old system, Republicans would choose their candidate and Democrats theirs. They would have faced each other in November. With the new rules everyone is racing against each other. The two most voted ones face each other in the general elections, regardless of their party.
Supporters made grand promises about how the new system would reduce partisanship and force candidates to moderate their positions by campaigning for all voters rather than the party faithful. It would have increased voter participation and strengthened democracy. “It’s time to end the bickering and gridlock and fix the system,” according to the “yes” argument for Prop. 14. Supporters argued it would force politicians to work together for the good of the state.
You don’t have to be cynical to realize that the “first two” did not usher in an era of peace and goodwill. The California elections are more violent than ever. The state Republican Party has largely disappeared, but the result is fiercer battles between Democratic factions. The legislature and state constitutional offices are now filled with progressive ideologues. Tuesday’s turnout was low. You can’t blame Prop. 14 for everything, but it hasn’t lived up to what it promised.
The “Top Two” have created a new set of rules for ambitious politicians to play by. Consider the race for U.S. Senate. In the past, Democrat Adam Schiff would argue with his Democratic opponents in primaries focused on which candidate best appealed to Democratic primary voters. Republican Steve Garvey would debate his GOP opponents in an effort to woo GOP voters.
Instead, Schiff used reverse psychology by running ads attacking Garvey in conservative media as a means of bolstering support for Garvey. It was a clever tactic for her to keep her primary opponents, Democrats Katie Porter and Barbara Lee, out of the final runoff. The end result is the same: the Democratic leader faces the Republican leader in November, with Schiff almost certainly the winner. But who can argue that this stupid process has reduced arguments and cynicism?
Politic also reported that a union, annoyed by state Sen. Josh Newman (D-Orange County) for not supporting one of his signature bills, “launched and funded a collection of first-time Democratic challengers” in an effort to dilute the women’s vote Democratic primaries and keep Newman from advancing to November. It has failed. Similar gaming skill took place in traditional primaries, but the “top two” made these games easier to play.
It’s probably time to change the rules once again, perhaps with a “final five” system (more on that in a future article). Just like in baseball, there is nothing wrong with changing the rules to achieve a better outcome. But let’s not pretend that any redistricting is a panacea for whatever ails our electoral system, and let’s make sure the new rules actually make sense.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.