The Top Two system is a primary election system where all candidates are listed on the same primary ballot and the top two vote-getters, regardless of party affiliation, advance to the general election.
A system where only two major parties are allowed to participate in elections.
An election system where voters can only vote for candidates from their registered party.
A voting method that requires a runoff if no candidate receives more than 50% of the votes.
Oregon and Nevada
Washington and California
Texas and Florida
New York and Illinois
Traditional primaries are usually party-based, where voters select a nominee from each party. In the Top Two system, all candidates compete on the same ballot, and the top two, regardless of party, advance.
Top Two system requires voters to rank candidates in order of preference.
Traditional primaries allow all voters to select any candidate regardless of party affiliation.
In traditional primaries, only independent candidates are allowed to participate.
The Top Two system was adopted to encourage participation from independent or moderate candidates and to prevent the dominance of extreme candidates by party-aligned voters.
To reduce the number of elections held each year.
To limit the influence of political party endorsements.
To ensure that only major party candidates appear on the ballot.
No, the Top Two system is typically used for state-level and congressional elections, not presidential elections.
Yes, it applies to presidential primaries.
It depends on the state's decision each election cycle.
Only during the general election, not primaries.
A criticism is that it can lead to general elections where both candidates are from the same party, limiting voter choice in the final election.
It increases the influence of minor parties.
It has made campaigning significantly less expensive.
It guarantees that two different parties are represented in the general election.
The Top Two system can make it harder for third-party candidates to advance to the general election, as they must compete directly against major party candidates in the primary.
It provides more opportunities for third-party candidates to reach the general election.
It eliminates third-party candidates entirely from the primaries.
It ensures third-party candidates receive public funding.
The effect on voter turnout can be mixed; it may increase turnout among independents but sometimes decreases it among party loyalists if their preferred party candidate doesn't advance.
It always increases turnout in both primary and general elections.
It has no effect on voter turnout whatsoever.
It discourages independent voters from participating.
Candidates often have to appeal to a broader audience, including independents and voters from other parties, which can lead to more moderate campaign strategies.
Candidates focus solely on appealing to their party base.
It discourages candidates from engaging with the electorate.
They only focus on issues that pertain to general elections.
2010
2006
2008
2012
Yes, both candidates can be from the same party if they are the top two vote-getters in the primary.
No, there must be candidates from two different parties.
Only if one of them is an independent.
It depends on the state's voting laws.
Candidates might focus more on broad appeal across party lines rather than solely pandering to party bases.
Candidates only concentrate on winning over very specific voter groups.
It does not alter candidate behavior at all.
It causes candidates to ignore independent voters entirely.
A potential benefit is the possibility of electing politicians who are more centrist, reflecting a wider range of voter interests.
It ensures only major party candidates are elected.
It increases the number of parties in the general election.
It shortens the length of campaign seasons.
Primary ballots list all candidates for an office, regardless of party affiliation, and voters can select any one candidate.
Ballots are separated by party affiliation.
Only major party candidates are listed.
Voters rank candidates in order of preference.
Some argue it reduces polarization by encouraging more centrist candidates, though evidence on its effectiveness is mixed.
It has significantly increased legislative polarization.
It has no discernible effect on polarization.
It eliminates polarization entirely.