Talk:Runoff primary

anonymous
The Louisiana system, while popularly called an "open primary," is actually a non-partisan general election with a runoff, if necessary. (See "primary election" in the dictionary.) The parties have no way of officially nominating candidates, e.g., caucus, convention, or party primary.

In November 2004, Washington became the second state to enact this kind of election system. In Washington, there is always a runoff, even if one candidate gets 50%-plus in the first round of voting. On July 15, 2005, a U. S. District Court struck down Washington's system, known as the "top two." The Grange and the state will appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In November 2004, the voters of California defeated an initiative for a system like Washington's "top two." Notably, California voters had defeated a similar measure in October 1915, as had North Dakota voters in 1925.

The recently-passed law changing the timing of Louisiana's congressional elections seems to me to be clearly unconstitutional.

I've written in detail on this topic on my web log, but it's evidently against your rules to provide such a link.


 * The above anonymous comments are indeed relevant, and this article should certainly mention this view. We may even want to place it in the same article about all "top-two runoffs" at top-two runoff. Scott Ritchie 22:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger
This article and jungle primary both discuss the unique Louisiana primary system. We don't need two articles on the exact same thing. Jungle primary is a better term, though, since "run-off" is a term used in many states (see Two-round system) and does not differentiate Louisiana's process enough.--SuperNova |T|C| 17:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Jungle" is not a better term, as it was never the real name of the process and was given as an ironic nickname for it. A true "runoff" occurs when no one receives a majority of the votes in a party's primary for its nomination or when no one receives a majority in the general election for an office; in each instance the top two vote-getters advance to a runoff.  A system which by its intent exists to get two finalists for a final general election is of necessity not exactly a runoff, but it is far different from an open primary.  I'm going to edit the article a little to reflect this pending its merger. "Run-off primary election" and "jungle primary" are essentially the same thing, "nonpartisan primary election" might be a better choice for the title of the merged article, or perhaps, as has been suggested, "nonpartisan blanket primary".  Rlquall 17:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that "Jungle Primary" seems like a very poor name choice. Jon 17:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

article contradicts "Jungle Primary"
The "Jungle Primary" one was that 2006 was the last of this type for congressional offices. This one say LA is moving the Primary back to October but seems to imply the "Jungle Primary" would be kept. Jon

favors incumbents?
I'm surprised by this claim:

The main arguments against this system include:
 * 1) It favors incumbents, who usually win a majority of the vote in the primary.

I would think plurality most favors incumbents. And if the incumbent wins a majority in the primary (in the full field of choices), under what alternative WOULD NOT have this result?! Tom Ruen 19:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

... I can see the incumbent is helped if a fringe candidate makes the final around for an easy second round. However a closed primary would still have Duke as the republican primary winner, and same top-two in the second round. Tom Ruen 02:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)