I attended a conference yesterday at the Institute for Government Studies at UC Berkeley. It consisted of three panels, one academics who gave off a decidedly right of center flavor, although it was hard to get their gist, with tiny graphs on the screen, and their continual use of the word "moderate" as if that is necessarily a good thing.
The theme of the conference was the Top-Two primary in California. Has it changed the political landscape, how and why?
The Top-Two and other factors influencing voting patterns
First off, what is a top-two primary? It means the top two vote getters, no matter what party they belong to, face off in November, which often leads to two Democrats in blue districts or two Republicans in red districts.
Secondly, other newly enacted factors influence the patterns of voting as well, such as the open primary, where any voter can vote for any candidate in the primary, no mater the party of the voters, and the 2010 redistricting, which changed the make-up of many of our State and Federal districts.
They seem to think, although it is really too early to tell, it has, in that legislators, mostly Democrats, have "moderated" their voting patterns. They seemed to think this was a good thing, as opposed to, say, polarization, which is a bad thing in anyone's mind.
However, without defining their terms, who knows just what moderate means. Looking at voting patterns, it seems to mean wimpy. Democrats, even with a two thirds majority, are having a tough time getting legislation passed. Why? Because some of the more "moderate" Dems elected in the last cycle either vote against some of the most progressive bills, or abstain from voting altogether.
That M word: Money
No one on the first panel mentioned the influence of corporate money pouring into these campaign to elect the moderate Democrats as a factor in this new behavior.
Yours truly did bring it up during question and answer time, and they said, "interesting, yes, that could be a factor."
Panel number two was more balanced and in touch with the real world, consisting of campaign operatives, including a Democratic pollster, two Rep consultants and one Dem consultant.
They saw the money issue as big, forcing the Dems to spend heavily in the primary to protect their incumbents, even in safe seats, thereby leaving less for the Party to spend in Dem on Rep elections in swing Districts.
