Still no competitive elections

September 14, 2012 - By Joseph Perkins

Sept. 14, 2012

By Joseph Perkins

For much of the baseball season, I’ve been following Sports Illustrated’s weekly rankings of all 30 major league baseball clubs.

But I stopped following back in July when it ranked the Boston Red Sox, not even leading its division, the sixth best team in all of baseball, ahead of a dozen teams with better won-lost records, including five actual division leaders.

SI’s MLB Power Rankings came to mind when I read Ballotpedia’s just-released State Legislative Electoral Competitive Index, which asserts, “California’s legislative elections in 2012 are more competitive than most of the country.”

My suspicion was that the authors of the Ballotpedia analysis must have been smoking the same medicinal marijuana as the geniuses responsible SI’s baseball rankings. Because it is as much a joke to rank the Golden State’s legislative elections the nation’s most competitive as it was, back in July, to rank the Sox major league baseball’s sixth-best team.

Where both SI and Ballotpedia went wrong was by basing their rankings on some one-off statistical matrix that had no correlation with true-to-life results, which are all that matter in baseball and elections.

Indeed, in baseball, it’s all about winning percentage. And, in elections, it’s all about the number of seats claimed by Democrats and Republicans when all the counting’s done.

Ballotpedia’s methodology for ranking the competitiveness of legislative elections was based on rather simplistic criteria: whether an incumbent is running; and, if so, whether the incumbent faced a primary challenger; and whether there is only one major party candidate in the general election.

On these bases, Ballotpedia declared California’s election the nation the most competitive.

And the Christian Science Monitor went so far as to attribute California’s supposed electoral competiveness to two putative political reforms the Golden State instituted in recent years:

Taking redistricting out of the hands of the legislature and giving it to an ostensibly nonpartisan commission.  And scrapping the state’s traditional primary system and replacing it with “Top Two” primary in which voters may cast their ballots for any candidate, and the top vote getters advance to the general election, irrespective of parties.

CSM actually suggested that California might be a political model for the rest of the states. Which made me wonder if its political writer was in the same room as the SI geeks and Ballotpedia analysts, toking on California’s medicinal.

Here’s the reality: California has become a one-party state. Democrats hold every statewide elective office. We have a Democrat governor. And both houses of Legislature are Democrat-controlled.

The much ballyhooed political reforms the Monitor mentioned haven’t done squat, as borne out by a new report by the Public Policy Institute of California.

“The primary results were broadly what might have been expected under the old system,” concluded Eric McGee, co-author of the PPIC report.

Indeed, every Democrat incumbent advanced to the November ballot. As did every non-incumbent Democrat backed by the party.

I don’t foresee the Democrat domination of California’s electoral politics ending anytime soon. At least not without real political reforms that create truly competitive legislative districts that guarantee Democrats fewer safe seats.

  1. Queeg says:

    How can you redisrict when the demographics have made. You a political party of the past.

    The party leadership has doubled down on a poor platform….and people never will forget the goose steppers who launched Proposition 187.

    Hope does spring eternal for inflexible fat cat Globalists and fanatic personal behavior regulators!

  2. Queeg says:

    Hope does not spring eternal

  3. Dyspeptic says:

    Right-on, right-on Joseph Perkins. I said the same thing when this website published an article on the phony Ballotpedia analysis. Organizations like Ballotpedia, Politifact, Wikipedia, Snopes etc. are not objective, disinterested parties. They have a left wing ideological agenda. They are journalistic, academic and analytic frauds.

    To extend the baseball reference, don’t take your eye off the ball. It’s the result that counts, not contrived measures of electoral competitiveness. The elitist cabal of the lunatic left still runs this state and will continue to do so because most voters like it that way or are to stupid to figure out the swindle.

  4. Tony Andrade says:

    SEIU, CTA, and other Public Employee Unions
    buy Politians to represent them and not the people
    and that is why California is corrupt and bankrupt.
    More important there is no hope of a change in going off the cliff.
    I recently ran for the SCOE District 5 office in Sacramento
    and lost the election by 888 votes out of 50,000 votes.
    The Unions spent $175,000 for a position that is not

  5. Queeg says:

    If your relavent you win!

  6. Rex the Wonder Dog! says:

    SEIU, CTA, and other Public Employee Unions
    buy Politians to represent them and not the people
    and that is why California is corrupt and bankrupt.

    That is it in a nutshell!

  7. Ted Steele, Associate Prof. says:

    Tony— I guess you don’t like living in a rep. democracy. You might try Somalia.

  8. Tony Andrade says:

    Hi Ted!
    The USA is a Republic where we select a representative
    From our PEER group to represent us.
    Special Interests like the Railroad Companies, Corporations, and
    Public Employee Unions should be restricted in
    buying corrupt Politians. That is the agenda of
    Prosition 32 that will accomplishes this objective.
    It is hard to understand to why liberals want to give their
    Freedom/civil rights to be an ass.

Archive By Categories
  • Budget and Finance
  • Infrastructure
  • Inside Government
  • Politics and Elections
  • Regulations
  • Rights and Liberties
  • Steven Greenhut
  • Waste, Fraud and Abuse