The Golden State has rejiggered its primary process. The two candidates with the most votes in the primaries, regardless of party, will make it on the general election ballot. Ambers looks at the consequences:
Who funded the initiative? Chamber of Commerce types, who know that pragmatic candidates won't want to alienate business interests in the state. It was opposed by activists from both parties, who believe it to be an incumbent protection measure of first order.
Seth Masket was against the proposition:
As I've mentioned before, the research on this subject suggests that this won't do a whole lot to reduce partisanship in California's legislature, and even if it did, weak partisanship isn't necessarily something to aspire to. Beyond that, this new law will reduce the number of minority party candidates appearing on the general election ballot. If you like to vote Peace & Freedom or Libertarian or Green, or if you're a San Francisco Republican or an Orange County Democrat, you're not going to find many candidates from your party on the general election ballot anymore.
Ed Kilgore is also wary of the new system:
In a possible glimpse of California's political future in a "jungle primary" system, the non-partisan primary for state Superintendent of Public Instruction featured a twelve-candidate free-for-all in which the two candidates with most polarized views, retired school superintendent Larry Aceves and Democratic legislator Tom Torlakson, will apparently meet in a runoff...