Your guide to NYC's public proceedings.
TESTIMONY
Testimony by Rob Anglin, Member of the Public, opposing jungle primaries due to lack of evidence for moderation
2:43:42
·
3 min
Rob Anglin, an ordinary citizen, testifies in opposition to final four/top four jungle primaries for New York City local elections.
He challenges the claim that such systems lead to the election of more moderate, less polarized candidates, arguing it is not supported by data.
Anglin cites studies from California (which implemented a top-two system in 2010) finding no substantial effect on the ideological positions of elected officials or party polarization.
- He also argues that Senator Murkowski's reelection in Alaska under a final four system was due to her unique circumstances, not the voting mechanics, and that there's no consistent trend of more centrist candidates emerging there.
- He suggests these systems may reduce ideological clarity and lead to strategic gaming by well-funded candidates.
Rob Anglin
2:43:42
Hi.
2:43:44
Can you guys hear me?
Diane Savino
2:43:45
Yep.
Rob Anglin
2:43:46
Okay.
2:43:46
Great.
2:43:47
Good evening, commissioners.
2:43:49
My name is Rob Anglin.
2:43:50
I'm just an ordinary citizen.
2:43:53
This is my first time testifying, but I moved to do so because I'm opposed to the final four top four jungle primaries for our New York City local elections.
2:44:04
I wanna focus on a popular claim often made in support of this system, that it leads to the election of more moderate, less polarized candidates.
2:44:14
That claim is widely repeated, but not supported by the data.
2:44:18
Let's start with the theory.
2:44:20
Under a top four or two or top two system, all candidates appear on a single primary ballot regardless of party, And the top finishers advanced to the general election, supposedly encouraging candidates to appeal to the middle.
2:44:34
But in practice, this has not happened.
2:44:38
In California, a state that I've once lived, it was, you know, which implemented a top two primary system in 2010 with the same sort of theoretical goal, multiple peer reviewed studies have found no evidence of increased moderation.
2:44:56
A landmark 2016 study by the political scientists Douglas Aller and was it Jack, I think Citroen and Gabriel Lens concluded that California's top two primary has not had a substantial effect on the ideological positions of elected officials.
2:45:15
Likewise, excuse me, in 2020, a report by the Public Policy Institute of California found that legislators elected under the top two were no more moderate than their predecessors.
2:45:29
And the system has done little to reduce party polarization in practice.
2:45:36
The same is true in Alaska where final four voting was introduced in 2022.
2:45:42
While some point to senator Lisa Murkowski's reelection as proof of moderation, the reality is that Murkowski is a long term incumbent with enormous name recognition, a unique brand, and deep financial backing, not the product of Final Four Mechanics.
2:46:02
There's no consistent trend in Alaska showing that the election of more centrist candidates in either state legislative or congressional races, you know, has occurred.
2:46:13
And one cycle of data in a state as politically and demographically distinct as Alaska should not be used to justify sweeping reform in New York City.
2:46:25
In fact, some research suggests that final four and top two systems may reduce ideological clarity for voters and lead to strategic gaming by well funded candidates who can afford to court multiple blocks.
2:46:40
This undermines transparency and makes it harder, not easier, for voters to hold officials accountable.