A jointPolitics andEconomics series
Social choice andelectoral systems
Social choice Mechanism design Comparative politics Comparison List (By country)
Single-winner methods Single vote –plurality methods First preference plurality (FPP) Two-round (US:Jungle primary) Partisan primary Instant-runoff UK: Alternative vote (AV) US: Ranked-choice (RCV) Party block voting Plurality block voting Condorcet methods Condorcet-IRV Round-robin voting Minimax Kemeny Schulze Ranked pairs Maximal lottery Positional voting Plurality (el.IRV) Borda count (el.Baldwin,Mdn.Bucklin) Antiplurality (el.Coombs) Cardinal voting Score voting Approval voting Majority judgment STAR voting
Proportional representation Party-list Apportionment Highest averages Largest remainders National remnant Biproportional List type Closed list Open list Panachage List-free PR Localized list Quota-remainder methods Single transferable vote (Hare,Droop) Schulze STV CPO-STV Quota Borda Approval-based committees Thiele's method Phragmen's method Expanding approvals rule Method of equal shares Fractional social choice Direct representation Interactive representation Liquid democracy Fractional approval voting Maximal lottery Random ballot Semi-proportional representation Cumulative SNTV Limited voting
Mixed systems By results of combination Mixed-member majoritarian Mixed-member proportional By mechanism of combination Non-compensatory Parallel (superposition) Coexistence Conditional Fusion (majority bonus) Compensatory Seat linkage system UK:'AMS' NZ:'MMP' Vote linkage system Negative vote transfer Mixed ballot Supermixed systems Dual-member proportional Rural–urban proportional Majority jackpot By ballot type Single vote Double simultaneous vote Dual-vote
Paradoxes and pathologies Spoiler effects Spoiler effect Cloning paradox Frustrated majorities paradox Center squeeze Pathological response Perverse response Best-is-worst paradox No-show paradox Multiple districts paradox Strategic voting Lesser evil voting Exaggeration Truncation Turkey-raising Wasted vote Paradoxes ofmajority rule Tyranny of the majority Discursive dilemma Conflicting majorities paradox
Social and collective choice Impossibility theorems Arrow's theorem Majority impossibility Moulin's impossibility theorem McKelvey–Schofield chaos theorem Gibbard's theorem Positive results Median voter theorem Condorcet's jury theorem May's theorem Condorcet dominance theorems Harsanyi's utilitarian theorem VCG mechanism Quadratic voting
Politics portal Economics portal Mathematics portal
v t e

Anonpartisan primary,top-two primary,^[1] orjungle primary^[2] is a primary election in which all candidates for the same elected office run against each other at once, regardless of political party. This distinguishes them from partisan primaries, which are segregated by political party. This is the first round of atwo-round system. As opposed to most two-round systems, the "first round" is aprimary heldbefore Election Day, and the "second round" is not optional (most two-round systems skip the second round if the winner of the first one gets more than 50%). A two-round system where the first round is held on Election Day is known in the US asrunoff voting ortop-two runoff.

Advocates claim two-round systems will elect moremoderate candidates, as members of a minority party could vote for a more moderate candidate from the majority party,^[3][4][5] with somepolitical scientists expressing similar views. However, empirical research on the system have found no effect on candidate moderation^[6] or turnout among independent voters.^[4][7] A first round with only two winners is also susceptible tovote-splitting: the more candidates from the same party run in the primary, the more likely that party is to lose.^[3][8][9]

The top-two system is used for all primaries inWashington andCalifornia (except presidential primaries).Alaska has used a highly-similar top-four primary with aranked-choice runoff since the2022 House special election.

The nonpartisan (jungle) primary is different from the partisanblanket primary. They are similar in that voters can vote in the first round for a candidate from any political party. The partisan blanket primary was used in Washington for nearly 65 years^[10] and briefly in California. However, the blanket primary was ruled unconstitutional in 2000 by theSupreme Court of the United States inCalifornia Democratic Party v. Jones, as it forced political parties to associate with candidates they did not endorse. The nonpartisan (jungle) primary disregards party preference in determining the candidates to advance to thegeneral election, and for that reason, it was ruledfacially constitutional by the Supreme Court in the 2008 decisionWashington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party.^[11]

Chief JusticeJohn Roberts concurred in the 2008 decision, stating: "If the ballot is designed in such a manner that no reasonable voter would believe that the candidates listed there are nominees or members of, or otherwise associated with, the parties the candidates claimed to 'prefer', the I–872 primary system would likely pass constitutional muster." Each candidate for partisan office can state a political party that they prefer. Ballots must feature disclaimers that a candidate's preference does not imply the candidate is nominated or endorsed by the party or that the party approves of or associates with the candidate.

Subsequentas applied challenges were rejected by lower courts. On October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court refused to hear appeals fromWashington Libertarian Party andWashington State Democratic Party. TheWashington State Republican Party had earlier dropped out of the appeal process.

Both Washington and California implement a two-winner nonpartisan primary by plurality vote.

The plan is used inTexas and other states inspecial elections but not primaries. A notable example involved former US SenatorPhil Gramm, who in 1983 (while a member of the House of Representatives), afterswitching from the Democratic to the Republican Party, resigned his seat as a Democrat on January 5, ran as a Republican for his own vacancy in a special election held on February 12, and won rather handily.

There have also been efforts inOregon to pass a similar law. However, theOregon Senate rejected it in May 2007^[1], and it failed in a November 2008 referendum as Measure 65. Oregon voters defeated it again in November 2014 as Measure 90, despite a $2.1 million donation from former New York City MayorMichael Bloomberg and a $2.75 million donation from formerEnron executiveJohn D. Arnold to support it.^[12]

Maryland has explored a top-two primary, erroneously naming it an open primary, such as in 2019 House Bill 26.^[13] Testimony was provided by several organizations, includingFairVote andCommon Cause, and independent constituents, and included statements aboutCondorcet systems, proportional representation andsingle transferable vote, and concerns that a top-two rather than top-three or more primary would not supply adequate choice for voters.^[14]

In Florida, an amendment to adopt the top-two primary was unsuccessful in 2020. 57% of votes were in favor but this failed to reach the threshold of 60% to pass.^[15]

In the2020 Alaska elections, voters approvedMeasure 2, which replaced party primaries with a single non-partisan primary, atop-four primary. The top 4 candidates advance to a general election that usesranked-choice voting. It is used for all state and federal elections except for the president.^[16]

California'sblanket primary system was ruled unconstitutional inCalifornia Democratic Party v. Jones in 2000. It forced political parties to associate with candidates they did not endorse. Then in 2004,Proposition 62, aninitiative to bring the nonpartisan jungle primary to California, failed with only 46% of the vote. However,Proposition 14, a nearly identical piece of legislation, passed on the June 2010 ballot with 53.7% of the vote.^[17]

Under Proposition 14, statewide and congressional candidates in California, regardless of party preference, participate in the jungle primary. However, a candidate must prefer the major party on the ballot that they are registered in. After the June primary election, the top two candidates advance to the November general election. That does not affect the presidential primary, local offices, or non-partisan offices such as judges and the Superintendent of Public Instruction.^[18] The California Secretary of State now calls the system a "Top-Two Primary".^[19]

The 2012 general election was the first non-special election in California to use the jungle primary system established byProposition 14. As a result, eight congressional districts featured general elections with two candidates of the same party: the15th, 30th, 35th,40th,43rd, and 44th with two Democrats, and the 8th and31st with two Republicans.

In the 2014 general election, eightcongressional districts featured general elections with two candidates of the same party: the 17th, 19th, 34th, 35th, 40th, and 44th with two Democrats, and the 4th and 25th with two Republicans.

In the 2016 general election, theU.S. Senate race featured two Democrats running against each other and sevencongressional districts with two Democrats running against each other: the 17th, 29th, 32nd, 34th, 37th, 44th, and 46th. There were no races with two Republicans running against each other.

The 15th district is based in theEast Bay and includesHayward andLivermore. DemocratPete Stark, who represented the 13th district from 1993 to 2013 and its predecessors since 1973, lost reelection to fellow DemocratEric Swalwell in the general election after Stark won the primary.

Along withCalifornia andAlaska,Washington had ablanket primary system that allowed every voter to choose a candidate of any party for each position. That kind of system was ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court inCalifornia Democratic Party v. Jones (2000) because it forced political parties to endorse candidates against their will.^[11]

The Washington State Legislature passed a new primary system in 2004, which would have created a top-two nonpartisan primary system. It provided an open primary as a backup, giving the Governor the option to choose. Although Secretary of StateSam Reed advocated the system, on April 1, 2004, the Governor used the line-item veto to activate the open primary instead. In response, Washington'sInitiative 872 was filed on January 8, 2004, by Terry Hunt from the WashingtonGrange, which proposed to create a nonpartisan (jungle) primary in that state. The measure passed with 59.8% of the vote (1,632,225 yes votes and 1,095,190 no votes) in 2004.^[20] On March 18, 2008, the US Supreme Court ruled, inWashington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, that Washington'sInitiative 872 was constitutionally permissible. Unlike the earlier blanket primary, it officially disregards party affiliation while allowing candidates to state their party preference. However, the court wanted to wait for more evidence before addressing the chief items in the complaint and remanded the decision to the lower courts.^[11]

Washington state implemented this Top 2 primary, starting in the 2008 election,^[21] which applies to federal, state, and local elections, but not to presidential elections.^[22] There is no voter party registration in Washington, and candidates are not restricted to stating an affiliation with an established major or minor party. The candidate has up to 16 characters to describe on the ballot the party that they prefer.^[23] Some candidates state a preference for an established major party, such as the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, while others use the ballot to send a message, such as Prefers No New Taxes Party or Prefers Salmon Yoga^[24] Party. Since this is a "preference" and not a declaration of party membership, candidates can assert party affiliation without the party's approval or use alternate terms for a given party. Gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi's2008 stated preference was for the "GOP Party", although he is a prominent Republican.^[25]

First Ballot, August 17, 2010^[26]

Second Ballot November 2, 2010^[27]

In this race a three-way primary led to a two-way race between two members of the same party (Republicans) in the general election. With over 20% of the population voting for the Democrat and neither Republican winning close to a majority in the primary, both of the Republican candidates had to appeal to Democrats and other voters who did not support them in the first round. For example, incumbent Norm Johnson came out in favor of same-sex civil unions, moving to the left of challenger Michele Strobel, who opposed them.^[28]

First Ballot August 17, 2010^[29]

Second Ballot November 2, 2010^[30]

In this heavily Democratic district, Berkey was officially endorsed by the 38th District Democratic Party.^[31] However, Democratic challengerNick Harper bankrolled ads for the Republican candidate to "Squeeze the Middle" and prevent the moderate incumbent Berkey from running in the general election.^[32][33] When Berkey placed third in the primary by a margin of 122 votes, theMoxie Media scandal ensued: the state's election watchdog committee unanimously voted to refer the case to the state Attorney GeneralRob McKenna, who within hours "filed suit, alleging multiple campaign-finance violations".^[32] Despite the call of several former state senators to hold another election, the election results were upheld, and Berkey was prevented from running in the general election.^[32][33] Harper easily won the subsequent uncompetitive runoff election.

First Ballot, August 17, 2010 (only top three vote-getters listed)^[34]

Second Ballot November 2, 2010^[27]

In this race, the three leading candidates' competition resulted in a more moderate and popular Republican facing off against the incumbent Democrat, with a relatively close general election.Clint Didier andDino Rossi were the two main Republicans vying to run against the incumbent Democratic SenatorPatty Murray. Rossi had much greater name recognition, had narrowly lost two races for governor, and was favored by the party establishment. Didier, a former tight end for theNational Football League'sWashington Redskins, had never run for elected office and was endorsed by Tea Party favoritesRon Paul andSarah Palin. Didier might have been able to win the GOP nomination from Rossi in a closed primary that rewards candidates for appealing to the hardline of their base, but the more moderate Rossi was easily able to defeat Didier in the Top Two primary. While one might expect more Democrats in the Top Two primary to vote tactically for Didier, the Republican candidate who was doing much worse in polls against Murray, most Democrats seemed content voting for Murray. If any tactical voting occurred, it seemed to be on the Republican side, with the vast majority of the Republican voters choosing Rossi, perceived as a more electable candidate. In this case, the Top Two primary resulted in a more moderate Republican candidate running against the Democratic incumbent, and likely a much more competitive race than if theTea Party candidate had run against Murray.^[35]

The 4th district is a large and predominantly rural district inCentral Washington that encompasses numerous counties and is dominated by theTri-Cities andYakima areas. RepublicanDoc Hastings, who represented the 4th district since 1995, retired.^[36] The two winners of the top two primary were the Tea Party candidateClint Didier (endorsed byRon Paul) andDan Newhouse, the former Director of the Washington State Department of Agriculture underChristine Gregoire andJay Inslee and former State Representative.^[37][38] In a close general election, Newhouse prevailed.

Though the intention is to allow multiple candidates from the majority party to advance to the second round, critics note that this can also happen to a minority party when that party runs fewer candidates than another and thus faces lessvote-splitting. Under the nonpartisan blanket primary, a party with two candidates and only 41% popular support would beat a party with three candidates and 59% popular support if voters split their votes evenly among candidates for their own party. For example, inWashington's 2016 primary for state treasurer, Democrats won a majority of the vote but failed to move on to the general election:^[41]

Political science professor Todd Donovan published an article in 2012 for theCalifornia Journal of Politics & Policy called "The Top Two Primary: What Can California Learn from Washington?"^[42][43] Donovan was the onlyexpert witness in favor of the top-two idea,^[44] for theas applied court challenge of Top-Two. His academic paper states, "The partisan structure of Washington's legislature appears unaltered by the new primary system." Donovan concluded, "The aggregate of all this did not add up to a legislature that looked different or functioned differently from the legislature elected under a partisan primary."

In Washington, major parties originally used an alternate process of party endorsement for partisan legislative and county administrative positions.^[45] This would ensure that one official party candidate will be in the primary, theoretically reducing the risk of intra-party vote-splits. However, the law does not allow nominations or endorsements by interest groups, political action committees, political parties, labor unions, editorial boards, or other private organizations to be printed on the ballot.^[46]

The indication of partypreference as opposed to partyaffiliation opens the door for candidates to misrepresent their leanings or otherwise confuse voters. In 2008, a Washington gubernatorial candidate indicated party preference as "G.O.P." instead of Republican. A public poll found that 25% of the public did not know that the two terms mean the same thing.^[47]

Further research on California's 2012 jungle primaries suggests that a jungle primary does not tend to lead to large amounts of crossover votes.^[48] Most voters who crossed over did so for strategic reasons. Furthermore, there is evidence that having the top two candidates from the same party could lead to a drop in voter participation in the second round. With regards to reducing political polarization, this does not seem to hold true. Due to lack of crossover votes, an extreme candidate from the majority party can still win over a moderate from either party.^{[49][50][51][52]}

• Instant-runoff voting – Single-winner ranked-choice electoral system
• Two-party-preferred vote – Result of election after distribution of preferences
• Two-round system – Voting system

• Land of a Thousand Liebermans analysis byNate Silver ofFiveThirtyEight.com
• Will California's 'Top Two' Primary Work?The New York Times provides six views on new California primary
• Washington's top-two primary gets voters the better choiceThe Seattle Times editorial praising Top Two primary in Washington state 2010 elections
• Top Two primary worth considering advocating Top Two primary for Arizona
• Pros and cons of a top-two primary TheLos Angeles Times presents two views on the Top Two primary
• Stop Top Two Free and Equal Elections Foundation, a coalition of independent and minority party activists opposing the Top Two primary
• Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party upholdingtop-two primary

• California elections
• Washington (state) elections
• Primary elections
• Elections in the United States
• Single-winner electoral systems

• CS1 maint: archived copy as title
• Webarchive template wayback links
• Articles with short description
• Short description is different from Wikidata