The Seattle P-I’s Chris Grygiel tells it like it is:
How did Dow Constantine beat Susan Hutchison so handily in last month’s King County executive’s race? As a Seattle Times map shows, he won Seattle handily and got more votes in the Eastside suburbs. Constantine’s strong showing in what, until recently, had been GOP territory bodes ill for the Republican Party heading into the 2010 legislative elections.
The emphasis is mine, and it’s not because I believe the GOP won’t pick up any seats in 2010 (I think they likely will), but because Grygiel’s analysis clearly exposes the lie that is nonpartisan elections.
Had Hutchison won, the conventional wisdom would have been that this would have bode ill for Democrats. So how exactly does the outcome of a supposedly nonpartisan race bode anything at all for one party or another? Of course, it was nonpartisan in name only.
I understand why Republicans would want to promote this particular fiction, and I don’t blame them for trying. But civic leaders who endorsed and supported the charter amendment (you know who I’m talking about, Muni League), and opinion leaders who attempted to perpetrate this lie after the fact (you know who I’m talking about, Seattle Times editorial board) should really be embarrassed by their efforts to deceive themselves and others.
Fortunately, the voters saw through this particular charade.
Thought this doesn’t look like a good map for south King County dems.
@1. George. The land of Pam Roach is a God-forsaken miasma of pestilence, ignorance and perversion (horse fucking).
I think that when it comes to NP offices there are two issues.
1. The election where conservative folks vote for the conservative candidate and liberals vote for the liberal one.
2. How the winner of the election behaves once taking office. The importance of a NP office isn’t in the election, it in behaving in a NP manner once elected.
Easy Susy is a brain-dead, uppity, bitch that wasn’t qualified to run the office and Dow is Qualified to run it.
Dear Goldy,
You are so right with this. Non-partisan elections try to take the politics out of politics.
Democrats need better nomination rules. PCO’s have too much power and that seems to aggravate the non-partisan sentiment. I like the idea of the unassembled caucus, otherwise known as a firehouse primary. There the PCO organizes an event where people can come in, cast a ballot on nominees, then leave.
But it doesn’t matter. Non-partisan elections are on a roll. The “prefers party” top-two is effectively a non-partisan system. “Prefers party” will be on trial next October and if it ultimately loses, there will be a credible effort to make the whole state non-partisan. I think voters will go for it.
Just because there aren’t party labels directly on the ballot doesn’t mean political parties aren’t interested in the races, don’t endorse candidates in the races, don’t expend considerable resources to influence the races, etc. We saw that just as much in the county executive race as we have always seen in city council races and many others; not a surprise at all. It WOULD be surprising if the parties were NOT involved.
Those who express shock and demand that political parties stay out of “non-partisan” races just don’t understand the purpose of political parties or how they work. Political parties have just as much right to make endorsements or recommendations, make contributions, provide volunteers, and otherwise seek to influence so-called “non-partisan” elections as any other individual, group or individuals, or organization.
Likewise, political parties should have no more right to put their endorsements directly on the ballot than any other private organization.
We should eliminate party labels (including self-identified “political preference statements”) from the ballot for ALL races, and, at the same time, purge the fiction that any race is “non-partisan” (i.e., that political parties should not be involved).
Non-partisan elections allow the local elite to hand pick their puppets. None of that interference by party activists or heaven forbid – voters.
@2 – The only way Pam Roach’s name could suit her any better would be if her middle names were Batshit and Crazy.
*clinking bottles together*
Dave Reichert, come out and play-eee-yaay
I think the Legislature should make county elections uniform throughout the state. Whether partisan or nonpartisan, it should be the same in every county. If King County has nonpartisan elections, then the jackrabbit counties should have nonpartisan elections, too. There’s no good reason for doing it differently in the other counties.
If we’re gonna have nonpartisan elections for county councils and county commissioners, then there needs to be a way to enforce their nonpartisanship after they get into office. Therefore, I propose the Legislature make it a felony for anyone elected to a nonpartisan office to become partisan after they take office.
Toby Nixon is right – it makes no sense for a political association to stay out of politics. (And good work with Washington Coalition for Open Government.)
Roger, what does it mean to “become partisan” after they take office? Are you referring to voting as a block with like-minded fellow legislators? What’s wrong with that?
@13 I’m being facetious, Toby. We both know the “nonpartisan” moniker is a sham. In King County, it’s nothing but a gimmick that was promoted by the GOP so they could deceive voters into voting for “stealthy” Republican candidates. But I’m serious when I argue for statewide uniformity. If Republicans can do that in King County, then I think Democrats should be able to do it in the “red” counties. What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.
@13 (continued) Nevertheless, I think passing a law — with criminal penalties — forcing pols elected as “nonpartisans” to behave like “nonpartisans” in office would be an interesting civics experiment. It might be worth building the extra jail cells just for the opportunities it would provide for political scientists to explore new realms of knowledge.
Knox Verdict At 3 PM
The Italian court has reached a verdict and will announce its decision at 3 p.m. our time.
I disagree with you on this one Goldy. The fact that voters turned out overwhelmingly for Constantine undercuts your argument that a non-partisan race allows stealth candidates to slip by the electorate. On the contrary, I’d say it encourages candidates to engage in more open and vigorous debate. Which Constantine did.
When Metro merged with King County and the County Council expanded from 9 to 13 seats, the original plan was for the council to be non-partisan. Lois North (an old-school moderate Republican) was head of the council and she had lined up commitments from a bare majority of the council members to keep party affiliation out of this level of government. The rationale was that party politics too often interfered with good decision-making in the public interest.
When the time came for the actual vote, Brian Derdowski (another moderate Republican) reneged on his promise and voted for a partisan council. North told me it was one of the worst betrayals in her long political career.
I think North was right. We had a decade of growing partisan division in county government that did not serve the majority of the people. It’s going to take several more election cycles for the severe partisanship that infects the county council to fade, but in the long run I think it will be in the best interests of good government in King County.
Except that Dave Reichert is the exception, not the rule. Bellevue/MI/Redmond have been voting for Ds since Al Gore in 2000 if not earlier. This analysis needs to be brought out of the 1980s.
@17 I appreciate your thoughtful comments, Tom, but I’m a realist. Republicans have created a toxic partisan climate at all levels of politics. Designating certain local offices as “nonpartisan” won’t make them so; and until this “red tide” of extreme partisanship subsides — if it ever does — only the most exuberant optimist can believe that “nonpartisan” elections and offices are anything more than a charade.
Democrat Faces Ethics Investigation
The Democrat-controlled House Ethics Committee has opened an investigation into whether Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) used his position as Homeland Security Committee chairman to pressure credit card companies to make campaign donations.
re 20: There you go! Proof positive that all Democrats are corrupt.
Roger, I like to think I’m a realist too. The hyperpartisan atmosphere is terribly toxic right now and somehow it needs to change. There are at least two ways the nonpartisan council could promote this:
1. In our new top-two election system, we are more likely to see moderates from both parties win. For example, even if two Republicans (or more likely Democrats in King County) are competing in the general election the more centrist candidate is likely to win since they will appeal to a broader spectrum of the electorate. Over time I think this will lead to more middle of the road, pragmatic office holders.
2. Once a candidate is elected to a nonpartisan office, there is public pressure from constituents and the media to not act in a highly partisan manner.
It’s an experiement, so I could very well be wrong. But I’m realistically hopeful that the worst offenders from both parties will be weeded out over the next few election cycles.
22….excellent post.
@22
Instant run off voting, AKA rank choice voting. You rank your choices of candidates. (Eg., 1. Kucinich 2. Nader. 3. Clinton 4. Obama–or whatever) If the initial count of #1 votes leads to a clear majority, election over, you have a winner.
But if you have less than 50% clear majority, the candidate with the least number of #1 votes is dropped, and the rankings are shuffled accordingly. Votes are recounted, if 50% reached, election over, you have a winner..
and so on until you have a winner.
The point? People can vote for their preferred candidate and not feel like they have to vote for the lesser of two evils (pick Obama to make sure that McCain doesn’t win).
Works in many places, including san fran, Ireland, new zealand, and I think Vermont. At least one small state in the US.
@24 No argument from me. I’d love to test instant runoff in Washington. I think we’d get a much higher quality of candidate if we had a way to allow everybody’s #2 choice to have a legitimate chance of winning.
The open minds are great but IRV / RCV is pretty much dead in our state. Pierce County voters overwhelmingly rejected it after only using it twice. One of the arguments opponents made was that the partisan version of IRV gave too much power to political parties. Ironically, it was the winner of the non-partisan assessor’s race that soured many with IRV’s debut.
Here’s a Washington Poll study on RCV in Pierce. It shows how partisan labels helped voters with their choices. It also said that many of the dynamics of a traditional primary / general election were mirrored by RCV.
Minneapolis used it last month and according to a Minnesota Public Radio poll 56% of voters liked IRV.
The Top-Two, even with its legal problems with association, is still a majority voting system. You can vote your conscience in the first round then get a second choice, if you wish, in the runoff.
@20 No, it only proves that Democrats don’t sweep it under the rug when one of their own is involved. Can’t say the same for Doc Hastings and the GOP.
That map from Blethen’s Daily Asswipe was created by a fucking moron.
The colors for “Constantine” and “Tie or no data” are almost identical, rendering the map virtually useless. Just like the rest of the Asswipe.
Don’t hold back, Phil. Tell us what you really think.