Californians deserve better than strategic voting

By: Kylie Holzman

Earlier this week, the New York Times published an article examining key takeaways from early results in California’s June 2 primary election. Two of their main takeaways are precisely the problems that Top Three for California is attempting to tackle: strategic voting and representation. 

I had many lengthy conversations this past spring with family, friends, and neighbors back home in California as they wrestled with how to cast their votes in the primary. Many of them are registered as Democrats, and with such a broad field of Democratic candidates leading up to the primary, they felt the pressure rising. It seemed more and more likely that our top two vote-getters from the primary would be Republicans. So, they started talking about strategy—about voting strategically. Instead of voting for the candidates they actually liked the best, or those who would best represent their values, many of them were going to vote according to which candidates they perceived to be most likely to advance. 

Strategic voting is an indicator of a flawed system. When voters feel they need to game the system rather than simply voting for the candidates they feel are best, we know that there is an underlying issue with our electoral process. Our new survey of registered California voters shows that a staggering 72% of voters say they lack meaningful choices in the general election. What is more, 70% of voters say that the general election can leave voters deciding between two candidates who do not fully represent them. This is clearly a problem—and we have a solution.

By increasing the number of candidates that advance to the general election from two to three, California voters are given more meaningful choices and an increased likelihood that the candidates in the general election represent them. Under Top Three, it is more likely that more than one candidate from each of the major parties will advance to the general election, and there is also space for independent and third-party candidates to advance without being “spoilers” in November. There is no longer a need to vote strategically because the top three vote-getters from the primary are compared head-to-head by voters in the general election. The winner of the election is the candidate who beats all other candidates head-to-head, meaning that this candidate is the one who best represents the majority of the electorate. 

California needs better choices, better representation, and no more strategic voting. Learn more about Top Three for California.