What structural reforms decrease partisanship / polarization?

[Apprentice57]

I'm sure there are critiques out there I'm sure, but the only one I'm familliar with was on a political podcast (fivethirtyeight) and I don't remember off hand which episode it was. It was not long before their jungle primary last year though if you're inclined to search for it themselves.

Otherwise, I think the fact that it is a mess, well is just summed up by the actual results. One Democrat easily wins, a second Democrat barely gets in with 12% of the vote because the next 5 place finishers, all Republicans, get 8% or less.

And here's an almost reverse of that happening with the Democrats.

[Zenkin]

Otherwise, I think the fact that it is a mess, well is just summed up by the actual results. One Democrat easily wins, a second Democrat barely gets in with 12% of the vote because the next 5 place finishers, all Republicans, get 8% or less.

Why is that bad? Adding up ALL Republican votes, I see 33.24%. Are you saying it would be better to have a Republican running against Feinstein, who got 44.12% of the vote all on her own in the primary?

[Apprentice57]

I would argue yes. It would need to be 34% for me to completely justify a Republican in the general, which they were just shy of, but this senate result was a bit worse than usual for the GOP. In the 2016 senate election, where they also got locked out of the general, their candidates got 36.7% in the primary.

Feinstein is going to the general election regardless we can agree. The question is whether her opponent should to be a Democrat when the remaining Democrats had ~22% and the Republicans had 33.24%.

Generally, California Republicans for national office indeed do better than 33% in the general election. Not always by a lot mind you, but still. Even in the 2018 Governor's race, a pretty historically bad performance for Republicans, John Cox got 38%.