The unthinkable was inevitable: California, the nation’s bluest state, was sure to elect a Republican governor.
How could this be? For the June 2 Primary election in California, there were seven Democrats running for governor, three quite equally strong ones expected to get most of the Democratic votes. Republicans had smartly entered just two, also quite equally strong, and polls showed a period during which they were the top two. So the two Republicans were destined to get the most primary election votes and advance to the upcoming November election, ensuring a Republican governor.
This is one possible quirk of the “top two (primary)” voting system that California and Washington states share: the top two vote-getters in the primary election, regardless of party, advance to the general election.
But then it unraveled. Eric Stalwell, one of the three leading Democrat California gubernatorial candidates that also included Xavier Becerra and Tom Steyer, had to drop out because of sexual assault and misconduct. And President Donald Trump upset the even balance between the two Republican candidates by endorsing one of them. Unsurprisingly, Trump thought it more important that his endorsed Republican easily beat the other Republican than that California have a Republican governor for the next four years.
The same “top two (primary)” quirk was earlier brewing in the race to replace retiring State Representative Timm Ormsby in Democrat-heavy, Spokane-centered Legislative District 3 (LD3) where Republicans’ only hope is being top two vote-getters in the Aug. 4 primary election. Democrats Pam Kohlmeier, Luc Jasmin III, and Zack Zappone initially announced for the office. They were/are all excellent candidates, and relatively equally well-known, so could have spread the Democratic vote quite evenly. But Republicans failed to take the bait; they forfeited any chances of winning by running only one candidate, even though a third Democratic candidate had filed after Zappone exited the race.
This same “top two” quirk actually occurred in the 2016 Washington State Treasurer race. Two Republicans and three well-known Democrats entered the primary election. Percentages of primary election votes garnered by candidates were Duane Davidson (R), 25.09%; Michael Waite (R), 23.33%; Marko Liias (D), 20.36%; John Paul Comerford (D), 17.97%; and Alec Fisken (D), 13.24%.
Total Democratic vote comfortably exceeded total Republican vote, 51.58% to 48.42%, but the “top two” candidates advancing to the November 2016 General Election were, again quite comfortably, both Republicans, ensuring a Republican winner for the state office.
Democrats got smarter and just ran the single candidate, Mike Pellicciotti, for State Treasurer in the 2020 election; he easily won and was re-elected in 2024.
Other types of “top two” quirks — more precisely, tricks — are possible. Recent examples include:
(1) California’s 2024 Senate race eventual winner Democrat Adam Schiff helped fund opposing Republican front-runner and former LA Dodgers first-baseman Steve Garvey’s campaign. That way Garvey made the “top two” so that Schiff could run against Garvey rather than against a stronger Democrat candidate in the general election.
(2) Louisiana used the “top two” voting system, but changed in 2026. So in the latest Republican US Senate primary involving just Republicans, they could defeat incumbent Republican US Senator Bill Cassidy, who had voted to convict the impeached Trump after Trump inspired the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. Otherwise, under the previous “top two” system Cassidy probably could have received enough Democratic primary election votes to advance to the upcoming November general election and likely be re-elected.
In returning to the originally considered quirk, it could happen in the case of three candidates from one party and two from the other, that the three-candidate party — having 3/5 of the candidates — could receive up to 3/5, or 60%, of the votes and the two-candidate party still have the top two vote-getters. This follows using straight-forward algebra — or as already mentioned, intuitively, noting 60% of the candidates are Democrats.
For a simple example of this quirk, suppose each candidate of the three-candidate party garners 1,000 votes and each candidate of the opposing two-candidate party gets 1,001 votes — so both two-candidate party candidates advance to the general election — and calculate how close to 60% the total three-candidate party vote (3,000) is of the total vote (5,002): 59.98%. This also illustrates that this quirk is more likely to happen the more evenly the votes are shared among the candidates of each party.
Similarly, it could happen in the case of four candidates from one party and two from the other, that the four-candidate party—having 4/6 or 2/3 of the candidates — could receive up to 2/3, or 67%, of the votes and the two-candidate party still have the top two vote-getters; or could happen in the case of five candidates from one party and two from the other, that the five-candidate party — having 5/7 of the candidates—could receive up to 5/7, or 71%, of the votes and the two-candidate party still have the top two vote-getters; etc.
Commented