The Dodgers don't often get intentional help from their archrivals, the Giants. But something strange just happened in the California primary: former Dodgers great and current Republican candidate for the United States Senate. Steve Garvey advanced to the general election along with Democratic Rep. Adam B. Schiff, after being promoted almost entirely by the other team. The former National League MVP's risky Senate bid benefited from an estimated $35 million in television ads from a surprising source: Schiff and his allies.
Why did the Burbank Democrat spend a small fortune to boost Garvey's name recognition and blanket the airwaves with ads touting the former first baseman's conservative credentials? You could call it a pressure play: Schiff wanted to keep his two closest Democratic competitors out of the fall race, and he succeeded. Garvey had the second-highest vote total in the two major primaries, while Democratic Reps. Katie Porter of Irvine and Barbara Lee of Oakland finished third and fourth, knocking them out of the race.
This is a classic example of a problem that could be solved by ranked-choice voting, a proven nonpartisan reform that discourages such games and more accurately represents what most voters want.
Schiff's ruse was unfortunate but entirely rational under the current system. In California's unusual “jungle” primary, all candidates run in the same preliminary election and the top two vote-getters advance to the general election regardless of party affiliation. Schiff seemed certain to claim one of the two seats from the start, but he faced a potentially competitive race in the fall against a progressive Democrat like Porter or Lee.
So Schiff decided to try to pick an easier opponent. California Democrats Outnumber Republicans 2 to 1and the state's voters have not sent a Republican to the Senate in 35 years.
Schiff's beneficence deserves much of the credit for ensuring what has become an all-too-common feature of California general elections.: a statewide race in which a Democrat will likely defeat a sacrificial Republican rather than face real competition within his own party. Garvey's largely silent campaign ran no television ads of its own, and his campaign appearances were few and far between. The Republican spent just $1.4 million through mid-February, a small fraction of what Schiff and his allies spent to push it forward.
Porter condemned the contest as “equipped” due to Schiff's tactics, but his allies resorted to similar tricks. They tried to elevate a more conservative Republican, perennial candidate Eric Early, as “far more dangerous than Steve Garvey.” His obvious hope was to take enough votes away from Garvey to allow Porter to finish second.
Our politics do not have to be so underhanded. It would be easy to end this ruse and ensure that the candidates with the broadest and deepest support face each other in the fall.
Ranked-choice voting, whose revival began in the Bay Area and is spreading rapidly across the country, is the best tool for reflecting voters' desires in any race with more than two candidates. It allows voters to rank their chosen candidates (first, second, third, etc.) and allows for an instant runoff: if no one gets a majority of first-choice votes, the last-place candidate is eliminated and their votes are awarded to their followers. ' following election, a process repeated until a candidate obtains more than 50%. This eliminates spoiler candidates, wasted votes by eliminated candidates, winners with relatively small pluralities, and deceptive tactics like those of Schiff and Porter.
One option is for California to adopt a “final four” model like the one being used successfully in Alaska. Instead of fielding just two primary candidates, the state admits the top four to the general election, which is then decided by ranked-choice.
This allows multiple candidates of different ideological leanings within a party to run against each other without dividing the field, which is particularly important in an overwhelmingly blue state like California. It also helps ensure that both major parties have at least one candidate in the general election. That could have allowed Schiff, Garvey, Lee and Porter to make their cases to a much larger and more representative November electorate.
Meanwhile, voters could choose their actual favorite from a wide field, along with their second and subsequent choices, without fear of being spoilers. The winner would be the candidate with the deepest and broadest support among all California voters. And the election would have a completely different vibe: Instead of ignoring his strongest Democratic opponents, Schiff would have had to compete to be the second choice of his supporters.
California has long been at the forefront of electoral reforms that produce fairer results, and the top-two primaries were an important innovation. But there's no reason to stop there.
Ranked-choice voting would make state elections even fairer. The Dodgers can't decide which teams they play and politicians shouldn't be able to get their way either.
Marcela Miranda-Caballero is the executive director of the California Ranked Choice Voting Coalition. David Daley is a senior fellow at FairVote and author of “Unrigged: How Americans are fighting to save democracy.”
