Jungle primary

References

1. ^.
2. ^
3. ^ . The theory was that candidates would be forced to moderate their appeals to win a broader section of the electorate. ... leading to a November ballot between two candidates from the same party. That would happen if multiple candidates from the same party crowded the ballot, canceling each other out as they divided a finite group of voters
4. ^ . The idea was that by opening up primaries to all voters, regardless of party, a flood of new centrist voters would arrive. That would give moderate candidates a route to victory .. Candidates did not represent voters any better after the reforms, taking positions just as polarized as they did before the top two. We detected no shift toward the ideological middle.
5. ^. This approach aims to soften how partisan the winners are. ... support for the middle is divided among three candidates (we call this vote-splitting). Plurality's winners are largely determined not by the merit of the candidates, but rather by who else is running.
6. ^ 827. doi:10.1017/psrm.2016.43. ISSN 2049-8470. SSRN 2260083. neither the Citizens Redistricting Commission nor the top-two primary immediately halted the continuing partisan polarization of California's elected lawmakers or their drift away from the average voter
7. ^ 432. doi:10.1007/s11109-015-9319-3. ISSN 0190-9320. S2CID 54541384. Two groups that were predicted by advocates to increase their participation in response to this reform—those registered with third parties or no-party-preference registrants (independents) who were not guaranteed a vote in any party's primary before the move to the top-two—also show declines in turnout
8. ^. If too many candidates from one edge of the political spectrum enter the same race without a clear frontrunner, they risk splitting their side of the vote, canceling each other out, and handing the top two spots to the opposition party.
9. ^. The two Republicans might get 25 percent of the vote apiece, while the Democrats each receive 5 percent.
10. ^.
11. ^ . Archived(PDF) from the original on 2010-01-07.{{}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title ()
12. ^ 2014.
13. ^.
14. ^.
15. ^.
16. ^.
17. ^ . California Secretary of State. 2010-07-16. Archived from the original(PDF) on July 22, 2010.
18. ^.
19. ^.
20. ^
21. ^ 2018.
22. ^.
23. ^.
24. ^.
25. ^.
26. ^
27. ^
28. ^
29. ^.
30. ^.
31. ^ . Archived(PDF) from the original on 2016-03-04.{{}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title ()
32. ^ .
33. ^ .
34. ^
35. ^
36. ^ 2014.
37. ^ 2014.
38. ^.{{}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service ()
39. ^ 2019.
40. ^ 2019.
41. ^
42. ^ 2017.
43. ^ 22. doi:10.5070/P2959Z.
44. ^
45. ^
46. ^.
47. ^.
48. ^ .
49. ^ .
50. ^ .
51. ^
52. ^ .