California uses a "jungle primary" system where all candidates for statewide offices appear on a single ballot regardless of party.

This mechanism alters traditional electoral dynamics by allowing candidates of the same party to face each other in the general election. This shift can potentially exclude a major party from the final vote if two candidates from the opposing party receive the most support.

Approved by voters in 2010 [1], the top-two primary places every candidate on one ballot. The two individuals who receive the highest number of votes advance to the November general election [1], [2], [3].

Mercury News staff said, "In 2010, California voters approved the top‑two jungle primary" [1]. The system was intended to increase competition and voter choice by decoupling the primary from party nominations [1], [5].

California is not the only state utilizing this approach. Three other states, Washington, Louisiana, and Nebraska, use a similar top-two system [1]. Meanwhile, Alaska adopted a different model in 2020 involving a top-four ranked-choice system [1].

Despite the intent to broaden choice, some critics argue the system is flawed. In the 2026 gubernatorial primary, five candidates are polling between 10% and 20% [4]. Some analysts suggest this fragmentation could result in a Republican governor in a deep-blue state if Democratic votes are split among too many candidates [5].

A USA Today reporter said, "California's 'jungle primary' system allows the top two finishers, regardless of party, to advance to the general election" [2].

The system's impact will be highlighted this week as CNN hosts a primary debate on May 5, bringing together competing candidates from both parties [3].

“California's 'jungle primary' system allows the top two finishers, regardless of party, to advance to the general election.”

The top-two primary shifts the power of candidate selection from party insiders to the general electorate. While this encourages moderation by forcing candidates to appeal to a broader base, it creates a strategic risk for dominant parties. If a party's support is split among several viable candidates, they may inadvertently lock themselves out of the general election, allowing a minority party to secure a victory with a plurality of the remaining vote.