California’s 4th state senate district, redrawn after the 2020 census, includes parts of the Central Valley and a large swath of the sparsely populated areas along the state’s border with Nevada. Last week, as they did statewide, voters in Senate District 4 went to the polls for California’s primary elections. 


Votes are still being counted (California is one of the slowest-counting states), but with 93% reporting as of this writing, the apparent outcome is unlikely to change. Under the current results, 60 percent of those who cast a ballot voted for Republican candidates and 40 percent voted for Democratic candidates. That breakdown resembles the new district’s voting patterns over recent presidential and statewide elections. Such a margin, with voters clearly favoring one party over the other, would usually make this a relatively safe Republican district. 


But in November, the Republican-leaning voters of Senate District 4 will only have a choice between two Democrats, thanks to California’s misguided Top Two elections system. 

In most states, the top Democratic candidate and the top Republican candidate would face off in the general election in November, each as the nominees of their respective parties, together with any third-party or independent candidates. But in 2010, California adopted the Top Two system. Under Top Two, all candidates regardless of party affiliation run in the same primary. The first and second place finishers then advance to the general election, again regardless of party. 


In Senate District 4, that means two Democrats will advance over a much more crowded Republican field. Because Republican voters were split, none of the six Republican candidates individually received more votes than the two Democrats in the race. Those two Democrats got 22 percent and 18 percent of the vote, respectively, while the top Republican came in third with 17 percent. 


Top Two was well-intentioned. Its proponents, including then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, hoped to reduce partisan polarization and encourage moderation and bipartisanship. That’s a common goal for electoral reform efforts. However, the evidence that Top Two has actually worked out that way is scant. Instead, California has repeatedly ended up with a scenario where voters are forced to choose from two candidates, neither of whom represent the party preferred by most voters in the district. 


This isn’t the first time this has happened, including at times for federal office. In 2012, California’s 31st congressional district saw the same scenario with the parties reversed. A district that President Obama won by double digits was left with only two Republicans to choose from, even though it’s obvious that’s not what the voters wanted. 


The problem is that Top Two creates perverse incentives. The more popular party in a district (that is, Democrats in blue districts and Republicans in red districts) tends to attract more candidates. This then divides that party’s voters, making it possible for the less popular party to claim both spots in the general election. This dynamic creates immense pressure for the parties to elbow candidates out of the race and clear the field before voters have their say, which is the exact opposite of what Top Two proponents intended. Top Two also effectively excludes third-party and independent candidates from the general election ballot, also denying those voters the chance to vote for a candidate who best represents their views. 


Top Two has even produced the spectacle of some voters going to the polls in November to find only Democrats on their ballot, for every office, including statewide races. The sight of a one-party ballot is evocative of the farcical fake elections in one-party dictatorships, even if voters are allowed to choose between two candidates from the same party. In such cases, a large portion of voters from the unrepresented party simply leave their ballots blank. Instead of encouraging candidates to appeal to the other party’s voters, as was intended, Top Two results in those voters abstaining en masse. 


When it comes to electoral reform, it’s a good thing for states to experiment with different ideas. Popular proposals include ranked choice voting, which has already been adopted in some states and localities, and multi-member districts with proportional representation, which would most closely resemble common methods used in other liberal democracies. On this front, the states can literally be “laboratories of democracy.”


But the Top Two system is a failed experiment. It has unintended negative consequences and produces manifestly unfair, undemocratic results. California should go back to the drawing board.