The Text:<\/strong> The \u201ctop two\u201d primary system California debuted yesterday takes some getting used to, but it could be a helpful tool for combating the biggest single problem in Washington: Republican extremism.<\/p>\nIn the Tea Party-era, the congressional GOP has pursued a legislative strategy that rejects any compromise and exploits every available legislative tool and loophole to obstruct the other party\u2019s agenda and engage in partisan warfare. As Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann argue in their new book, \u201cIt\u2019s Even Worse Than It Looks,\u201d this conduct might be acceptable in a parliamentary system, but in Congress it inevitably leads to disaster \u2013 like last summer\u2019s debt ceiling standoff, which led to the first-ever credit downgrade for the United States.<\/p>\n
The GOP\u2019s embrace of extremism is fueled by the far-right absolutists who make it to Congress by winning primaries in safely Republican districts (where there\u2019s no general election penalty for extremism) and by the survival instincts of other Republican lawmakers, who choose to conceal their pragmatic urges for fear of becoming the right\u2019s next primary victim. Those dynamics have only been reinforced by this year\u2019s primary season, which has featured several high-profile upsets of Republican \u201cestablishment\u201d politicians.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
This is what makes California\u2019s experiment so interesting: It has the potential to dilute the power of the GOP base in heavily Republican districts and to create new incentives for Republican incumbents to work cooperatively with Democrats.<\/p>\n
Under the new system, which was approved by voters in 2010, all candidates run on the same ballot, regardless of party, with the top two then squaring off in November. Thus is it possible for general election voters to end up choosing between two candidates from the same party, with the other party locked out. (As a result of yesterday\u2019s results, this will be the case in a handful of California\u2019s congressional districts this fall.) In theory, this offers a check on the influence of each party\u2019s base. In a solidly Republican district, for instance, Democratic voters could end up as the decisive bloc in a race between a moderate and conservative Republican.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m high on it,\u201d Ornstein told me this week.<\/p>\n
\u201cI doubt very much that it\u2019s going to cause any significant harm, and the upside potential of moving beyond the overweening influence of a small, fringe ideological group just makes it something that seems to me is a no-brainer.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ornstein stressed that the California system isn\u2019t a panacea, and that the effect he\u2019s hoping for won\u2019t be felt in this year\u2019s races. There aren\u2019t many open seat races in the state to start with, and it takes a particular set of conditions for it to even have a chance of working. 2014 should be a better test, though.<\/p>\n
\u201cNext time around, there\u2019ll be enough unsettlement that you\u2019ll probably have a few open seats,\u201d Ornstein said. \u201cYou\u2019ll have instances where the primaries, the nominating process could really matter more, and you may have some opportunities to get nominees who don\u2019t fit the usual pattern.\u201d<\/p>\n
There\u2019s also the potential psychological impact on incumbent members of Congress. Ornstein points to the example of Bob Inglis, the South Carolina Republican who ran afoul of the Tea Party by (among other things) imploring conservatives to \u201cturn off Glenn Beck.\u201d Inglis was trounced in a Republican primary in 2010, ending his congressional career. Had his state been using the California system, Inglis might not have paid the same steep price.<\/p>\n
\u201cLet\u2019s say you\u2019re a Bob Inglis, and you\u2019ve got an open primary,\u201d Ornstein said. \u201cYou\u2019re going to get several candidates running. You\u2019re going to attract a different interest \u2013 you\u2019re going to attract Democrats to the race, and independents. And it doesn\u2019t necessarily mean that you\u2019re going to end up getting bumped off by some radical.<\/p>\n
\u201cSo what that means is, when you\u2019re thinking about how you\u2019re going to vote, you\u2019re not going to say, \u2018Jeez, the only thing that can kill me is if I get outflanked on the right, so I better not get outflanked on the right.\u2019 So I think it creates more incentive for problem-solving, less incentive for posturing.\u201d<\/p>\n
Currently, Washington and Louisiana use jungle primaries like California\u2019s, without any discernible effect on polarization. The system, Ornstein stresses, is only a small part of the solution to the problem he and Mann are highlighting. They also favor instant runoff voting and advocate expanding the voter pool by easing voting restrictions, automating registration, shifting elections to Saturdays, and even copying an Australian law that fines voters who don\u2019t go to the polls. But it wouldn\u2019t hurt if more states followed California\u2019s lead, Ornstein said.<\/p>\n
\u201cAt least you have a real chance now of getting somebody who doesn\u2019t represent that extreme wing, or isn\u2019t only influenced by the core base if they get elected.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Article: The Cure For The Tea Party? by Steve Kornacki in Salon. The Text: The \u201ctop two\u201d primary system California debuted yesterday takes some getting used to, but it could be a helpful tool for combating the biggest single problem in Washington: Republican extremism. In the Tea Party-era, the congressional GOP has pursued a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[259],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n
A Cure For The Common Tea Party?<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n