Glad That's Clear

Voters created a non-partisan, top-2 primary system which went into full effect on Tuesday. The purpose of the non-partisan primary, as seen by proponents, was to create more "centrists" (compromise-prone representatives) in the legislature and Congress. Centrists would then form a bridge between the polarized parties. As far as the state budget (and UC's stake in it) goes, the theory was that impasses, particularly over taxes, would be less likely to occur. There is a lot of analysis in the news media post-Tuesday on whether the new system had the effect expected by proponents.

In more detail, the theory is that with partisan primaries and polarized districts, only the primary for the majority party matters and only partisans vote in the primary. So the eventual winning candidate reflects the median party voter, not the median general election voter (with minority party representation).

Supposedly, Mao - when asked about his judgment on the French revolution - said that "It's too early to tell." Actually, he didn't say it and the man who did say it wasn't talking about the French revolution.  See
http://stockerb.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/myth-busting-mao-and-the-french-revolution-with-reference-to-quentin-tarantino/.  But it is a good quote to keep in mind when you read the instant analyses of the primary.  Note that the theory above extends into the general election which has yet to occur.  Even if the top-2 end up coming from the same party, both candidates now have to consider attracting votes from the minority party to get a majority  in November.  So a) None of this is going to have any effect on the 2012-13 state or UC budget.  And b) It's too soon to tell if it will have any effect on budgets beyond that year.

Let's wait awhile before judging: