Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T13:33:56.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

No Republican, No Vote: Undervoting and Consequences of the Top-Two Primary System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Colin A. Fisk Open the ORCID record for Colin A. Fisk [Opens in a new window]
Colin A. Fisk*
Affiliation:
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
*
Colin A. Fisk, Indiana University, 210 Woodburn Hall, 1100 E. 7th Street, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA. Email: colinfisk27@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Washington and California adopted the Top-Two Primary in 2008 and 2012, respectively. Under this new system, all candidates regardless of party affiliation run against each other, narrowing the field down to the top two for the general election. In some jurisdictions, the general election features two candidates from the same party. Ten percent of California voters chose not to vote in the 2016 U.S. Senate election which featured two Democrats. Using data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (2012-2016), I find that among those who vote in the national November elections, orphans, or voters without a copartisan candidate on the ballot are more likely to undervote, opting out of voting in their congressional race. Levels of undervoting are nearly 20 percentage points higher for orphaned voters compared to non-orphaned voters. Additionally, voters who abstain perceive more ideological distance between themselves and the candidates compared to voters who cast a vote. These findings support a multi-step framework for vote decisions in same-party matchups: voters are more likely to undervote if they are unable to vote for a candidate from their party (partisan model), but all voters are more likely to vote for a candidate when they perceive ideological proximity (ideological model).

Keywords

ideologypartisanshipvoting behaviorpolitical behaviorelectoral systemselectionstop-two primary
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , September 2020 , pp. 292 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramowitz, Alan I., and Saunders, Kyle L.. 2008. “Is Polarization a Myth?” The Journal of Politics 70 (2): 542–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahler, Douglas J., Citrin, Jack, and Lenz, Gabriel S.. 2016. “Do Open Primaries Improve Representation? An Experimental Test of California's 2012 Top-Two Primary.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 41 (2): 237–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, Ansolabehere, Stephen, Antonsson, Erik, Bruck, Jehoshua, Graves, Steven, Palfrey, Thomas, Negroponte, Nicholas Peter, Rivest, Ronald L., Selker, Ted, Slocum, Alexander H., and Stewart, Charles H. III. 2001. “Residual Votes Attributable to Technology: An Assessment of the Reliability of Existing Voting Equipment.” (accessed December 5, 2019).Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Sinclair, Betsy. 2012. “Electoral Institutions and Legislative Behavior the Effects of Primary Processes.” Political Research Quarterly 65 (3): 544–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, Kevin. 2008. “Can Partisan Cues Diminish Democratic Accountability?” Political Behavior 30 (2): 139–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ash, Arlene, and Lamperti, John. 2008. “Florida's District 13 Election in 2006: Can Statistics Tell Us Who Won?” Chance 21:2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2000. “Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952-1996.” American Journal of Political Science 44:35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2002. “Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions.” Political Behavior 24 (2): 117–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonica, Adam. 2017. “Database on Ideology, Money in Politics, and Elections (DIME).” (accessed December 5, 2019).Google Scholar
Bullock, Charles S. III, and Hood, M. V. III. 2002. “One Person- No Vote; One Vote; Two Votes: Voting Methods, Ballot Types, and Undervote Frequency in the 2000 Presidential Election.” Social Science Quarterly 83 (4): 981–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
California Constitution. Article II, Section V.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Voting. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., Peterson, Erik, and Slothuus, Rune. 2013. “How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation.” American Political Science Review 107 (1): 57–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., and Abrams, Samuel J.. 2008. “Political Polarization in the American Public.” Annual Review of Political Science 11:563–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaines, Brian J., Kuklinski, James H., Quirk, Paul J., Peyton, Buddy, and Verkuilen, Jay. 2007. “Same Facts, Different Interpretations: Partisan Motivation and Opinion on Iraq.” Journal of Politics 69 (4): 957–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garlick, Alex. 2015. “‘The Letter after Your Name’ Party Labels on Virginia Ballots.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 15 (2): 147–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, James M. 2006. “The Primary Runoff as a Remnant of the Old South.” Electoral Studies 25 (4): 776–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald, Palmquist, Bradley, and Schickler, Eric. 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Green, Donald Philip, and Palmquist, Bradley. 1994. “How Stable Is Party Identification?” Political Behavior 16 (4): 437–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Melinda Gann. 2007. “Voting in State Supreme Court Elections: Competition and Context as Democratic Incentives.” The Journal of Politics 69 (4): 1147–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Danny, and McKee, Seth C.. 2008. “Toward a One-Party South?” American Politics Research 36 (1): 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Lelkes, Yphtach, Levendusky, Matthew, Malhotra, Neil, and Westwood, Sean J.. 2019. “The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States.” Annual Review of Political Science 22:129–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
yengar, Shanto, Sood, Gaurav, and Lelkes, Yphtach. 2012. “Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (3): 405–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2000. “Party Polarization in National Politics: The Electoral Connection. In Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era, (Ed.) Bond, Jon and Fleisher, Richard. Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press, 9–30.Google Scholar
Kam, Cindy D. 2005. “Who Toes the Party Line? Cues, Values, and Individual Differences.” Political Behavior 27 (2): 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, Karen M., Gimpel, James G., and Hoffman, Adam H.. 2003. “A Promise Fulfilled? Open Primaries and Representation.” Journal of Politics 65 (2): 457–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, V. O. Jr. 1996. Southern Politics in State and Nation. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Klar, Samara, and Krupnikov, Yanna. 2016. Independent Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeper, Thomas J., and Arnold, Jeffrey. 2017. “Package ‘Margins.‘” (accessed December 5, 2019).Google Scholar
LegiScan. 2018. (accessed December 5, 2019).Google Scholar
Lindell, Noah B. 2017. “One Person, No Votes: Unopposed Candidate Statutes and the State of Election Law.” (accessed December 5, 2019).Google Scholar
Masket, Seth. 2016a. The Inevitable Party: Why Attempts to Kill the Party System Fail and How They Weaken Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masket, Seth. 2016b. “Why Some People Don't Vote in a Top 2 System.” Vox, June 21. (accessed December 5, 2019).Google Scholar
Mason, Lilliana. 2015. “I Disrespectfully Agree? The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (1): 128–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, Lilliana. 2018. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Political Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McGhee, Eric. 2014. “Voter Turnout in Primary Elections. ” Public Policy Institute of California Report..Google Scholar
McGhee, Eric, and Shor, Boris. 2017. “Has the Top Two Primary Elected More Moderates?” Perspectives on Politics 15 (4): 1053–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, Samuel, and Grofman, Bernard. 1999. A Unified Theory of Voting: Directional and Proximity Spatial Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mickey, Robert. 2015. Paths Out of Dixie: The Democratization of Authoritarian Enclaves in America's Deep South, 1944–1972. Vol. 147. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nagler, Jonathan. 2015. “Voter Behavior in California's Top Two Primary.” California Journal of Politics and Policy 7 (1). (accessed December 5, 2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, Stephen P. 2012. “Polarizing Cues.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (1): 52–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peskowitz, Zachary. 2017. “Ideological Signaling and Incumbency Advantage.” British Journal of Political Science 49:467–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard L.. 2011. Ideology and Congress. Vol. 1. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, and Macdonald, Stuart Elaine. 1989. “A Directional Theory of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 83 (1): 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, Brian F., Streb, Matthew, and Wright, Gerald. 2001. “Teams without Uniforms: The Nonpartisan Ballot in State and Local Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 54 (1): 7–30.Google Scholar
Shor, Boris, and McCarty, Nolan. 2011. “The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 105 (3): 530–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J.Andrew. 2015. “Winning from the Center: Frank Bigelow and California's Nonpartisan Primary.” California Journal of Politics and Policy 7 (1). (accessed December 5, 2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, Donald E. 1963. “Spatial Models of Party Competition.” American Political Science Review 57 (2): 368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taber, Charles S., and Lodge, Milton. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theodoridis, Alexander G. 2017. “Me, Myself, and (I), (D), or (R)? Partisanship and Political Cognition through the Lens of Implicit Identity.” The Journal of Politics 79 (4): 1253–1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wattenberg, Martin P., McAllister, Ian, and Salvanto, Anthony. 2000. “How Voting Is Like Taking an SAT Test: An Analysis of American Voter Rolloff.” American Politics Quarterly 28 (2): 234–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westholm, Anders. 1997. “Distance Versus Direction: The Illusory Defeat of the Proximity Theory of Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review 91:865–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Fisk supplementary material

Appendix

Download Fisk supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 364.1 KB