Law & Principles

‘Quit fixing it, you’re only making it worse’: The case against the California ‘top two’ election system

October 28, 2025

Rick Farmer, Ph.D.

“Quit Fixing It, You’re Only Making It Worse” is the title of the final chapter in Seth Masket’s book The Inevitable Party: Why Attempts to Kill the Party System Fail and How they Weaken Democracy. In the book, Masket summarizes the research on California’s “top two” elections and discusses why party nominations are essential for effective democracy. 

The title of the final chapter captures well the overall theme of the book, namely, that Progressive reforms aimed at weakening political parties have largely failed to produce the results Progressives promised and have, in fact, made politics worse.  

Most of these reforms have a two-fold purpose, according to Masket. They play on the public’s disillusionment with politics, and they enhance the proponents’ political prospects. In fact, he suggests, “One may similarly view ‘reform’ as just a name given to the coalition currently out of power.”    

Since the late 1800s, Progressives have sought to stamp out the influence of political parties. They suggest that parties allow a small group of people to wield undue influence over public policy. They proffer that without parties, voter turnout would increase, and more moderate candidates would get elected. Unfortunately for them, the available political science research demonstrates the opposite. 

The California “top two” election model is only one of the reforms Masket reviews; some of the others include open primaries, nonpartisan ballots, and restricting parties’ access to money. These reforms did not eliminate parties, increase voter turnout, or produce moderate candidates. In some cases, they had the opposite effect. 

Progressive reforms did not kill parties because parties are “intensive and creative” networks of citizens seeking to influence public policy. When the rules change, these networks adapt by changing tactics. They often emerge stronger after the reform. 

The research shows that nonpartisan ballots actually lowered voter turnout. Without parties to push turnout and without partisan voting cues, moderate voters and low-propensity voters do not participate in the election. As a result, incumbents, with much higher name recognition than their challengers, tend to win even more frequently than in partisan elections. 

Open primaries also did not reduce political polarization. The trendline is slightly upward, indicating that if there was an effect at all, it is that open primaries increase polarization. 

When Progressives tried to cut off parties’ access to donors, party networks formed 527 SuperPACs and 501(c)(4)s. This led to a lot more money pouring into campaigns. Only this money was not coordinated by anyone accountable to the voters. In Colorado, a liberal umbrella organization called AmericaVotes coordinated spending across 37 different organizations in 2010. This arrangement produces less transparency and less democratic accountability than before the reform. Also, according to a 2015 study, it increases polarization. 

The California election model also failed to deliver on its promises. Multiple studies indicate the “top two” system has not increased voter turnout, and it has not reduced polarization.  

Progressive reforms have succeeded in increasing political polarization, ensuring that incumbents get reelected, reducing voter turnout, reducing transparency, and reducing democratic accountability. That is what prompted Masket to cry, “Quit Fixing It, You’re Only Making It Worse.”    

Parties are organic organizations. They form naturally as teams when like-minded citizens freely unite behind a set of candidates and policies. Trying to block them is like trying to stop a stream of water with your hand. It is futile.  

The California system does not allow for party nominations. It attempts to block voters' freedom of association and right to confer a nomination. Ultimately, it will fail. But, imposing the “top two” system will be very disruptive while the parties are adapting. 

Parties perform essential functions, including creating governing coalitions, giving voters policy cues, and turning out voters in elections. As political scientist E.E. Schattschneider said, democracy would be unthinkable without the work parties perform. 

Masket notes parties are “beloved roughly as much as terrorists and collection agencies.” However, “Despite the parties’ unpopularity, they remain the greatest instruments for organizing elections, turning out voters, running government, and developing policy ideas and seeing them enacted that we’ve ever produced.”