Doubling down on an open primary will expand voter choice in California

The 2024 election is fast approaching and recent polling points to a highly competitive U.S. Senate race in California that could once again yield a general election matchup between two Democrats. Conservative voters are no doubt frustrated by this outcome as it’s been more than a decade since a Republican Senate candidate advanced to the general election, leading some to call for a repeal of California’s Top Two primary. 

While a lack of party choice in the general election for the Senate is a fair critique of the current system, a return to partisan primaries is the wrong remedy. Instead, California should give more options to voters by expanding the number of candidates that advance to the general election and determine the winner using an instant runoff, also known as ranked-choice voting. This can satisfy conservative dissatisfaction with the candidates offered while avoiding a return to an outdated, partisan system. 

California has a long history of primary election models that encourage voter participation and candidate competition, and the state can constructively build on this tradition. Proposition 198, approved in 1996, was the first step toward opening partisan primaries to all California voters before being struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Proposition 14 in 2010 resolved the Supreme Court’s concerns and replaced partisan elections with the current Top Two primary, where eligible candidates from all political parties compete in a single election open to all voters, and the candidates receiving the two highest vote totals advance to the general election. 

And while single-party general elections are possible under the Top Two system – the California U.S. Senate races being high-profile examples – they occur infrequently. Republican candidates reached the general election in 20 of the 24 statewide elections held since 2012 – including every election for governor, attorney general and secretary of state. 

Of course, increasing voter choice in the general election is a laudable goal, and conservative critiques of the senatorial candidate choices remain valid. This can be resolved, however, by expanding general election choices beyond just two candidates, ensuring voters aren’t limited to one party’s choices.

After all, nearly 30 percent of California voters currently have no party preference or are registered with a third party, and a recent survey found one in three voters have an unfavorable view of both the Republican and Democratic parties – up from 20 percent in 2020. 

Amid this growing dissatisfaction with Republicans and Democrats, a system that increases opportunities for third-party or independent candidates by advancing more than two finalists to the general election becomes an even more attractive solution. It also works to quell the concerns of conservatives who might find a Republican or third-party candidate more attractive than just two Democratic choices. 

If such reforms were pursued, California would not be the first state to expand beyond the Top Two electoral framework. In 2022, Alaska implemented a Top Four system. The main difference between the two is the use of an instant runoff, or ranked choice voting, to determine the winner. Voters rank candidates in order of preference and candidates get knocked out one by one until one reaches a majority of support. 

With more candidates competing in the general election, it is harder to secure a majority in the first round. To win, candidates need to appeal broadly so they can earn not only first-choice but also second and third-choice support. This creates an incentive for candidates to step outside their partisan bubbles and avoid negative campaigning – a boon to California’s growing bloc of voters dissatisfied with partisan politics. 

California voters had the foresight years ago to establish a primary election system that is open to voters and candidates from across the political spectrum. As a result, California’s elections are well positioned – by design – to adjust to evolving voter attitudes around political parties. A return to partisan primaries is the wrong policy at the wrong time. Instead, Golden State leaders should expand the number of candidates who advance to the general election to give voters more options and create healthier political incentives.