This Google™ translation feature is provided for informational purposes only.
The Office of the Attorney General is unable to guarantee the accuracy of this translation and is therefore not liable for any inaccurate information resulting from the translation application tool.
Please consult with a translator for accuracy if you are relying on the translation or are using this site for official business.
If you have any questions please contact: Bilingual Services Program at EERROffice@doj.ca.gov
A copy of this disclaimer can also be found on our Disclaimer page.
Select a Language Below / Seleccione el Idioma Abajo
26-0004
Proponent: Steven Maviglio
Initiative Received: 05/08/2026
05/13/2026
I just noticed this initiative. It's currently May 13, 2026. I could make many comments on this and may make more. I essentially believe we can do a lot better than just undoing top two. We can and should make use of Ranked Choice Voting. We could keep top two but use Instant Runoff Voting to determine who the top two are. Another neat idea is to go back to partisan primaries but put the top three vote-getters from each party's primary on a general election ballot that uses Ranked Choice Voting. The general election ballot could even show voters how many votes each candidate received in their party's primary.
Thank you,
Thomas Jefferson Cares
Proponent of 26-0001, 2, and 3
05/15/2026
Unless this initiative will allow for alternatives to the typical partisan closed or open primary system, I would not support this and doubt that many others would, either. In fact, a report from the Unite America Institute (2023) entitled "California's Top-Two Primary: The Effects on Electoral Politics and Governance" suggests that top-two reform in California has reduced polarization, introduced more competition in primaries, and increased voter turnout in the primary. There are many election reforms, including multi-member districts, ranked voting, and proportional representation, that could improve our system. I do not believe simply repealing the top-two primary system will accomplish that, even though it will likely reduce the effect that vote-splitting can have in the primary.
05/16/2026
The problems with our current primary system can be easily solved by adopting approval voting. Don't limit voters to only one choice. Let them select all candidates they approve of for the job. We should not go backwards to a flawed system when we can easily move forward to one of the best voting systems known to man.
05/17/2026
Steven Maviglio is correct that Californians want our election system to encourage
broad participation and to provide meaningful choices among candidates in elections. He's also correct that the "open primary'' was meant to reduce
partisanship, lessen the influence of special interests, and promote cooperation
amongst elected officials. He's even correct in saying that the "open primary"
experiment failed. However, his diagnosis and treatment plan are wrong. Going back to our previous system, the system that inspired Proposition 14 in the first place, won't magically fix all of the issues that previously existed. The reason the top-two open primary system isn't working is because we're using the same old broken"choose-one" plurality method of selecting the top two candidates to move on to the general election. When voters can only choose one candidate, this causes huge divisions among voters between similar candidates, and it discourages voters from supporting their true favorite if they're a longshot. Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, we should keep the top-two open primary but replace broken plurality with the far more sensible "vote for every candidate you approve" method of Approval Voting. Approval Voting eliminates vote splitting, allows voters to always support their true favorite without fear of their vote being wasted, and ensures the two candidates with the highest genuine voter approval will advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation. Patching the primary with Approval Voting will achieve the full promise of the top-two open primary system. Let's move forward, not backwards.
Sincerely,
Dylan Hirsch-Shell
I just noticed this initiative. It's currently May 13, 2026. I could make many comments on this and may make more. I essentially believe we can do a lot better than just undoing top two. We can and should make use of Ranked Choice Voting. We could keep top two but use Instant Runoff Voting to determine who the top two are. Another neat idea is to go back to partisan primaries but put the top three vote-getters from each party's primary on a general election ballot that uses Ranked Choice Voting. The general election ballot could even show voters how many votes each candidate received in their party's primary. Thank you, Thomas Jefferson Cares Proponent of 26-0001, 2, and 3
Unless this initiative will allow for alternatives to the typical partisan closed or open primary system, I would not support this and doubt that many others would, either. In fact, a report from the Unite America Institute (2023) entitled "California's Top-Two Primary: The Effects on Electoral Politics and Governance" suggests that top-two reform in California has reduced polarization, introduced more competition in primaries, and increased voter turnout in the primary. There are many election reforms, including multi-member districts, ranked voting, and proportional representation, that could improve our system. I do not believe simply repealing the top-two primary system will accomplish that, even though it will likely reduce the effect that vote-splitting can have in the primary.
The problems with our current primary system can be easily solved by adopting approval voting. Don't limit voters to only one choice. Let them select all candidates they approve of for the job. We should not go backwards to a flawed system when we can easily move forward to one of the best voting systems known to man.
Steven Maviglio is correct that Californians want our election system to encourage broad participation and to provide meaningful choices among candidates in elections. He's also correct that the "open primary'' was meant to reduce partisanship, lessen the influence of special interests, and promote cooperation amongst elected officials. He's even correct in saying that the "open primary" experiment failed. However, his diagnosis and treatment plan are wrong. Going back to our previous system, the system that inspired Proposition 14 in the first place, won't magically fix all of the issues that previously existed. The reason the top-two open primary system isn't working is because we're using the same old broken"choose-one" plurality method of selecting the top two candidates to move on to the general election. When voters can only choose one candidate, this causes huge divisions among voters between similar candidates, and it discourages voters from supporting their true favorite if they're a longshot. Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, we should keep the top-two open primary but replace broken plurality with the far more sensible "vote for every candidate you approve" method of Approval Voting. Approval Voting eliminates vote splitting, allows voters to always support their true favorite without fear of their vote being wasted, and ensures the two candidates with the highest genuine voter approval will advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation. Patching the primary with Approval Voting will achieve the full promise of the top-two open primary system. Let's move forward, not backwards. Sincerely, Dylan Hirsch-Shell