Echoing Aaron Blake’s analysis in the Washington Post, which I blogged about yesterday, Amy Walter, Jessica Taylor, and Dave Wasserman, all of the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter, jointly highlight the importance of the difference in electoral systems in evaluating the results of this year’s primaries. Although their analysis is behind a paywall, here’s a key snippet:
“For years, advocates for ranked-choice voting and top-two (or four) primary system have argued that these reforms will help to moderate our polarized political system. Instead of having to cater only to one’s base voters, candidates can build cross-party coalitions that appeal to a broader (and more representative) swath of the electorate. Given the results of this primary season, those advocates have a stronger case than ever.”
For the same reasons I mentioned yesterday, this Cook Political Report analysis is further support for the idea that Congress should adopt a majority-winner requirement that would permit states to choose among different versions of majority-winner systems–top 2, or top 4, with or without RCV–while at the same time preventing further use of the polarizing plurality-winner system currently in use in most states. In other words: come on board; there’s plenty of room on the majority-winner bandwagon, and the more who join the better!