Talk:Nonpartisan blanket primary

message: This article absolutely needs to be merged, but not with blanket primary, which is a completely different thing. The key difference is that in a blanket primary, a voter must choose among candidates from the same party for a single office, though they can choose different parties for different offices. In a jungle primary, however, all parties' candidates for each office are listed together. Not the same at all, despite the "also known as", which should have been removed.
However, the "jungle" primary has several names that do mean the same thing. "Louisiana primary" and "Cajun primary" redirect here; there should be a merger with run-off primary election under this title or "Louisiana primary" -- not run-off primary, which is an incredibly confusing term, as many states have primary run-off elections but only Louisiana has the so-called run-off primary. --SuperNova |T|C| 17:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: Political scientists classify American primary elections into four main types (actually, there are sub-types as well, depending upon how a voter is legally defined as "affiliated" -- registration, affirmation, etc.). A closed primary is one where voters affiliated with a particular party may select for all offices contested a nominee from choices of only that party. An open primary is one where voters regardless of party affiliation may select for all offices contested a nominee from choices of only one particular party. A blanket primary is one where voters regardless of affiliation may select for each office contested a nominee regardless of the nominee's affiliation, as long as only one choice is made per office. A nonpartisan blanket primary is one where candidates run in the same primary contest regardless of affiliation.
The last describes the Louisiana system since 1975. In 20+ years in the profession until I saw this entry I never had encountered the term "jungle primary." It is not the proper name as used by those who study election systems, and should be replaced by the term, "nonpartisan blanket primary." Voteearlyvoteoften 14:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the informed input. I would support a merge/move to nonpartisan blanket primary, with a redirect from Louisiana primary (and this and the other terms, just because). Do any other states have such a system or is Louisiana the only one? --SuperNova |T|C| 00:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this article needs to be merged into blanket primary or that both be merged into "nonpartisan blanket primary".  As far as I know, the term "jungle primary" was never meant to be anything other than an ironic, dispariging nickname for the process, not its official title. Rlquall 17:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to have correct taxonomy and titles 

message: Terminology aside, isn't this exactly the same as the Two-round system as used in France? The French don't call the first vote a primary, but apart from that I fail to see a difference. Therefore I think this article should be merged with Two-round system. -- 212.63.43.180 13:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The biggest difference is that in France (and many other countries) parties select candidates through their internal processes, rather than the public electing them in primary elections. Consequently you don't get all the contenders for a party's nomination running against each other and against other party candidates in the public election itself. For instance Ségolène Royal was selected as the Socialist candidate for the French presidential election, 2007 against Laurent Fabius and Dominique Strauss-Kahn in a ballot of party members. Fabius and Stauss-Kahn were never up against Nicolas Sarkozy and Royal effectively fought three elections - one to get the party nomination, another in the first round of the Presidential election to get into the last two (which her predecessor as Socialist candidate failed to achieve in 2002) and then finally the second round head to head with Sarkozy. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't this exactly the same as the French two-round system? 

message: I thought California had an "open primary" for a while, and that there was a failed ballot measure for the Louisiana primary.  Could someone who knows the specifics find the proposition numbers? Scott Ritchie (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was this really used in California 

message: The article really needs a criticism section.  The main one, of course, is the very real possibility that two candidates from the same party make it into the second round.  In such a case, the winning party is whichever one had fewer candidates - a party with only 2 contenders will split its votes far less than one with 10.  Scott Ritchie (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's subjective.  Some may consider it a good thing to have two from the same party in the second round.  Also, just because a party has fewer candidates does not necessarily mean it will advance two of them to the final round.  A party could have 10 candidates, but if one is well-known and the other nine aren't, the well-known candidate will likely dominate the vote. 98.209.116.7 (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the argument that we need one from each of (only two) parties is nonsense. But a section that discusses criticisms and delivers responses thereto could be enlightening. D. F. Schmidt (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because of California's non-partisan blanket primary, two Democrats ran against each other for a US Senate seat in 2018, receiving a combined total of 10,900,270 votes while Republicans candidates received 0 (zero). This allows the fake news media to claim that Democrats won "the national senate popular vote" by 9 million votes. Hobbe Yonge (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Only in your fevered imagination. I never heard this despite getting lots of liberal hogwash in my Facebook feed, and the first hit (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/29/the-most-bogus-stat-of-the-2016-election-how-democrats-won-the-senate-popular-vote) in a search was an article from the Washington Post (!) saying that such a statistic is meaningless. The Democrats "won" this in 2016 as well, with no effect of instant runoff, and they also did not do very well in that election. I also have to point out your bogus wording which implies that somehow the Republicans actually "won" this statistic, when in fact any estimate would require the votes to be redistributed (an idea would be to copy the CA governer's race, which would also add all the Republicans who did not vote for either candidate, a possibility you also ignored). Talk about fake news.Spitzak (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really needs criticism section 

message: Any suggestions on how to add Washington's new Top Two primary to this article? TechBear (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's write an article about 872.  Chadlupkes (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some more still needs to be done though; I'll add some more material. Peace, --Wikibojopayne (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington 

message: The criticism section doesn't explain why critics dislike calling this an open primary system. 98.209.116.7 (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also current one looks pretty messed up. There are comments that seem to be inverted "top two primary reduced the likelihood of running against a same party candidate" which seems absolutely impossible, and the Todd Donovan person apparently appears in *favor* of the top two primary, yet somehow somebody cherry-picked quotes that sound *negative* about the top-two! Hard to imagine he did not have any kind of positive quote.Spitzak (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: I think this article is cleaned up now. Thoughts? --Wikibojopayne (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page looks cleaned up to me 

message: The article says that gamesmanship can be used in which voters from one party split their vote to send 2 candidates from their own party to the second round. This implies that a given voter gets 2 votes, which seems unlikely. Is the voter supposed to agree with his buddy that each will vote for a different person from their favored party? the description in the article is unclear how the "vote split" works to their advantage. Edison (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Voter splitting

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Nonpartisan blanket primary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101103173546/http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2010/primary/propositions/14/analysis.htm to http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2010/primary/propositions/14/analysis.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Nonpartisan blanket primary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/byinst.asp?sessionid%3D10rs%26billtype%3DHB%26billno%3D292
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100722063405/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2010-primary/pdf/2010-complete-sov.pdf to http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2010-primary/pdf/2010-complete-sov.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/Results.aspx?ElectionID%3D37%26JurisdictionTypeID%3D5%26JurisdictionID%3D63443%26ViewMode%3DResults
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2013328444_guest03vognild.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2012744540_statesenjeanberkeyasks.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/land-of-thousand-liebermans.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2012672963_edit20toptwo.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://azdailysun.com/news/opinion/mailbag/top-two-primary-worth-considering/article_615362ce-1f63-5292-98d1-a549b7a76049.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article currently makes the following statement:  "Louisiana's primary is virtually identical to the Washington state primary system."  However, that statement appears to be highly dubious.  In Louisiana, the primary is held on the general-election day in November, and the runoff is held in December.  In Washington, by contrast, the primary is held before the general election.  Even more importantly, in Louisiana there is no runoff at all if a candidate wins an absolute majority in the first round.  In Washington, by contrast, the primary and the general election are both always held, so effectively there are always two rounds.  My understanding is that if only two candidates file, then the same candidates will square off against each other twice.  That wouldn't happen in Louisiana.  
More generally, I think the article could use some more details about the system used in Washington State.  I'm not an expert, so I won't try to change the article myself, but the article could use some attention from someone knowledgeable in the subject.  Kevin Nelson (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, Kevin Nelson. Ballotpedia clearly distinguishes between a primary runoff and a top-two primary; this article, sadly, does not. I recommend splitting the two systems, which are not the same, into two different articles.Wikibojopayne (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between versions used in Louisiana and Washington 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Nonpartisan blanket primary's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Results":
From Louisiana gubernatorial election, 2007: Louisiana Secretary of State Retrieved October 21, 2007  
From United States House of Representatives elections in Washington, 2014: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Nonpartisan blanket primary]] 

message: This page as-is focuses heavily on top-two, as if the system cannot elect more. Top-two has serious pathologies, and a quasi-authoritative source (Wikipedia is heavily-influential) biased so strongly for a two-winner system influences political systems which adopt these systems.  I'm working on disentangling the number from the format. John Moser (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any examples of this being used (or even proposed) where there are more than two winners that go on to the general election? Seems to me to be rather pendantic of a change. I am also worried that if this is ever proposed, it will be given another name other than "Nonpartisan blanket primary" and make all your edits incorrect.Spitzak (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focuses too much on Top-Two 

message: Referring to the fact that the system does not empirically increase moderation is not objectively "a problem"--that is a political point of view. We should change the phrasing so it is clear that some might value "moderation" and wish to support approval voting or whatever.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.189.62 (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if moderation is an intended goal by many proponents of such a system (such as myself),arguments that it does not succeed in doing this are a legitimate complaint/problem.Spitzak (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Issue 

message: The statement that, "However, when the primary uses first-past-the-post voting, it is highly susceptible to vote splitting" seems a bit out of place here. Top-two is by definition not first-past-the-post.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Mendelson (talk • contribs) 03:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top-two is not first-past-the-post 

message: Why is this article just focused on the USA. Shouldn't we list California and Washington as subcategories under the USA? Per Wikipedia's Bold, Revert, Discuss policy I will go ahead and add the category, and make California and Washington as subcategory but I hope someone else can talk about nonpartisan party primaries outside the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle Myclob (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA? 

message: The article states that:
> Also, political parties are not allowed to whittle down the field using their internal techniques (such as party primaries or conventions).
But it doesn't show any mechanism by which this is done. What prevents parties from using an internal mechanism to select one or more candidates and instructing others not to run? RationallyDense (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  How are political parties prevented from reducing the field?