Should be fun. After redistricting, especially one as major as CA will experience, you often find incumbents of the same party forced to compete over newly drawn districts. However, with Propl 14, who knows how this will play out, since primaries will be everybody against everybody, regardless of party? Prop. 14 could be a statewide variation on ranked-choice voting, in that a strong third party candidate might do a “Perata,” teaming up with somebody to knock off a presumed front-runner. A David Christenson-type might not make it to the general election but could still be a big factor in the open primary gamesmanship.

Two things to consider for the 2012 partisan primary. First, reapportionment will (or should) be completed by the new Redistricting Commission, with the prospects that more districts will be competitive. Second, because of Prop 14 (June 2010 Ballot), only the top two vote getters from the primary will face off in November. All voters, regardless of party, will receive the same ballot in the Primary, with the exception of President and County Central Committees.

(So you could have two R’s in one runoff and two D’s in another. You will not have a write-in option, and most likely, no minor party candidate will make the top two.)

For those of you watching the formation of the Redistricting Commission, the field has been reduced to 36. The State Auditor will soon select 8 (three D’s, three R’s and 2 others. These 8 will select the final 6 and must yield 5 D’s, 5 R’s, and 4 non D & R’s.

Nice try, but I never stated an opinion on majority vs plurality elections; only about the ranked voting system. Nonpartisan primaries in CA will make the 2012 general election for Congress a 2-person race regardless of what I think. You seem to be overlooking how redistricting and the end of gerrymandering will affect things in 2012. Harmer’s strength was in San Joaquin County, which I’m guessing won’t even be in the same district as Pleasanton, San Ramon, Danville and other parts of the current CD-11. Until we know what the districts are, who can say who will be running against whom, let alone who might be favored to win? Garamendi and McNerney may find parts of their current districts joined together. If Harmer loses this time and wants to make a fourth run for Congress, that’s his choice. He’s been trying since 1996, so he has lots of practice. As for Romney, early indications are that the Tea Party part of the GOP will not stand for him, since “Obamacare” was based on “Romneycare.”

So when (not if) Harmer runs against McNerney in 2012 (and he will, since Romney will be running against Obama), you’ll be in favor of making sure that only those two (and not the AIP candidate, since they WILL win the #1 and #2 spots due to the new open primary rules forced through despite Demogog opposition) show up on the November 2012 ballot for the CD11 seat, yes?

Just checkin’…to see if your words are consistent from one post to the next.

Truthclubber — Actually no. My point is that, if you do have a runoff to get somebody to a majority, then the Oakand and SF system is not the way to do it, in my opinion. If Congressional races required somebody to get a majority, then I would favor a one-on-one approach between the top two, not ranked voting. However, unlike the Mayor’s race in Oakland, House and Senate seats don’t have that requirement. But they will in California due to the open primary system that will eliminate all but the top two for the general election. Harmer might well have won under that scenario, assuming he and McNerney were the survivors in the open primary.

Then you are in favor of a runoff between McNerney and Harmer, no? Neither of them got 50%+1 in this election, right?

Put up or shut up, senor…since you know what the outcome would be with all those AIP votes going to one candidate over another.

For the past 20 years, Oakland seems to have just been a dumping ground for out-to-pasture state or congressional politicians–from Elihu Harris to Jerry Brown to Ron Dellums.