I don’t often agree with the Seattle Times editorial board, but today’s editorial, “Try again to save Washington’s primary“… well… I don’t agree with that either. On the other hand, the guest column by regular Times contributor Floyd J. McKay, pretty much hits the issue right on the button: “It’s time for state’s voters to move on — to Montana.”
The Times once again pines for the days of the blanket primary, a nominating system whose special place in the hearts of WA voters is derived, as far as I can tell, from the fact that that’s the way we’ve always done it.
Zilly’s ruling is another defeat for voters who want to choose among the best candidates, not between partisan extremes. Last year, the state Legislature approved a top-two primary to replace the blanket primary.
But former Gov. Gary Locke gutted it with a veto, leaving in place a primary where voters had to pick a partisan ballot for the first time in almost 70 years.
Voters disliked it so much, they approved the top-two primary initiative. But the state’s major political parties sued to seize the people’s primary for their own partisan ends.
Um… the state’s major political parties sued in federal court, and the top-two was ruled unconstitutional. The Times thinks Judge Zilly should not have the final word, and perhaps he won’t. In an interview on KUOW this afternoon, Assistant Secretary of State Steve Excell said the Montana primary will be used this fall, but that the ruling would likely be appealed. He sounded pretty passionate about it too.
Sure. Whatever. Change can be uncomfortable. But as McKay wisely points out in his column, “tradition is wonderful, but sometimes you just have to move on.”
I’ve never quite understood why some people get so angry at the thought of voting a partisan ballot in a partisan primary; it seems far from the greatest threat to our democracy. McKay agrees that it is the electorate, not the system, that determines the quality of our elected officials, and if we want better politicians then we all have to get more involved. He also zeros in on a truly worrisome trend:
Perhaps the most disturbing electoral development in Washington in the past few years is not the endless primary battle but the extent to which party leaders and bankrollers want to control the nomination process.
Saturday’s paper, announcing Judge Zilly’s ruling, also contained the news that Dino Rossi is out of the Republican race for U.S. Senate next year, and Safeco CEO Mike McGavick is “the first choice of party leaders.”
That’s fine; McGavick looks like an excellent candidate and party leaders certainly have the right to express an opinion. But what happened in the gubernatorial and Senate races in 2004 was wrong
open primaries or party-funded caucuses/conventions.
If we’re paying for it, our votes should mean something. (independant registered)
If our votes don’t matter, we shouldn’t have to pay for the damn thing.
Thats what it comes down to.
I couldn’t agree more. It’s time to end this fight over replacing one crappy primary system with another, and start pressuring our respective party leadership to get out of the way and let voters have real choices in September. After all, it doesn’t really matter what kind of primary system we have if each major party only puts up a single candidate.
That would imply that the Cajun-style top two primary is the best, but nobody likes that much…
Would Democrats have done the same? Perhaps, but certainly not in 2004.
Now Goldy, you are being dishonest or else you didn’t realize that there was already an established Democrat candidate in Riechert race when the Democrat bigwigs decided to install Dave Ross. I cannot remember the other fellow’s name offhand, but he had alreafy begun his campaign and was quite shocked to learn the party bosses had chosen Ross as the guy they backed after promising it to him.
I think that it is OK if the parties want to pick their own candidates during the primary – just don’t charge the taxpayer for it. There is no requirement that the taxpayer must subsidize what the parties consider “free speech” (the argument they used to throw out our old system).
I think you have to recognize there’s a distinction between putting candidates on the ballot and choosing a candidate to represent a party. Anyone can run as an independent. However, if you want to speak for a party, it’s only reasonable that you should be chosen by that party to do so, and if you’re not, then you’re not that party’s candidate and you don’t speak for them. The parties should be allowed to choose their candidate rather than have the public at large — including opposition voters — choose for them. That’s what the primary litigation has been all about.
aggreing with pbj about anything scares me, but you’re not addressing the money issue Mr. Bunny…
Why should I, as a registered independant, have to pay money so the parties choose a candidate without me?
pbj @3,
My god… that has to be one the stupidest, most twisted, ass-backwards comments you’ve ever made. I’m criticizing the parties for trying to keep challengers out of the primary, other than the anointed one… and you somehow equate that with putting another candidate into the primary? Huh? Gimme a break.
For 70 years we had voted our way here in Washington when it comes to the primary, and now because the state Republican and Democrat parties want to be just like thier national parties and polarize the state, we have to vote the way the Parties want us too? If it goes to the Supreme Court, one Justice will side with Top Two for sure, because 5 years ago, he said it was a great idea. It was Justice Antonin Scalia.
http://www.mikemcgavick.com
funny funny site…
Further, neither Alben nor Behrens-Benedict were pressured to withdraw after Ross was recruited. And of course, both were allowed to speak at the state convention along with Ross.
Alben was recruited before Dunn retired. When she did and Reichert jumped into the race, the state chair obviously thought a different candidate was needed to win.
Personally, I thought Ross was a poor candidate, high name-rec or not, and that June was far too late to start running a Congressional campaign.
Goldy@7,
Here is the entire context:
That’s fine; McGavick looks like an excellent candidate and party leaders certainly have the right to express an opinion. But what happened in the gubernatorial and Senate races in 2004 was wrong — GOP leaders simply froze out anyone but Rossi and Congressman George Nethercutt, respectively. Would-be candidates, some of whom certainly had the capacity to serve with distinction, were told to bug out and were not even allowed to speak at the Republican convention if they criticized a rival. Let’s hope the same pattern isn’t emerging with McGavick. Some lively competition would be good for all.
That type of muscle does not serve the voters — it serves the entrenched powers of the party. Would Democrats have done the same? Perhaps, but certainly not in 2004.
The point here is that indeed the Democrats would and certainly DID do it in 2004. The Democrat party bigwigs annointed Ross and cast aside the other fellow.
Perhaps there is too much nuance here to understand.
My god… that has to be one the stupidest, most twisted, ass-backwards comments you’ve ever made. I’m criticizing the parties for trying to keep challengers out of the primary, other than the anointed one… and you somehow equate that with putting another candidate into the primary? Huh? Gimme a break.
Goldy, please go back and read my original post. It was not about adding ANOTHER one, it was about kicking out the grass roots one for the annointed talk show host Dave Ross. But them again your article stated ‘Democrat would not have done that in 2004’, when in fact that was exactly what they did.
Are we not supposed to point out when you contradict yourself?
Aexia@10,
Alben was the name of the guy. Thanks.
McGavick’s site is pretty amateurish. In the section about why Cantwell should go, they include her votes in favor of invading Afghanistan and Iraq, along with her pro-choice votes and a bunch of other stuff most Washingtonians would agree with.
its fake, wayne…
6
What money are you referring to?
It costs the election board, et al money to run the primaries doesn’t it? To collect and count the votes, pay elections officials, supply ballots and machines…
If I’m missing something huge there, I’m sorry, but I’d just rather not fund the parties, who always unfortunately pick poor candidates.
Goldy:
“I couldn’t agree more. It’s time to end this fight over replacing one crappy primary system with another, and start pressuring our respective party leadership to get out of the way and let voters have real choices in September. After all, it doesn’t really matter what kind of primary system we have if each major party only puts up a single candidate.”
Would you support an initiative to eliminate the primary? Assuming the legislature doesn’t address the issue in the next session by eliminating the primary, or telling the parties (Dems and Reps) to pay for it. I personally would be fine with either solution.
Con1st @18,
I would support an initiative to eliminate the primary, if it enacted IRV for the general election.
Goldy @ 19
“I would support an initiative to eliminate the primary, if it enacted IRV for the general election.”
I’m not a big fan of IRV. Good theory, but seems to be a flawed implementation. If the “Butterfly Ballot” in South Florida in 2000 was too complicated, and disenfranchised voters. Then IRV, especially in a Presidential election, with all the minor party candidates, has got to be very disenfranchising. Also after the election contest trial, I don’t have a lot of confidence in KC Elections to implement IRV. From Bridges ruling:
“The King County Elections Department experienced what have been called deep and significant problems during the 2004 general election and the tabulation that followed. King County used new software for the registration of voters in 2004. In some instances the new software worked. In some instances it was deficient, and in some circumstances different people within the Elections Department had different versions of the DIMS software system which caused accountability reports to be exceedingly difficult to prepare accurately.”
ConservativeFirst @ 20
“I’m not a big fan of IRV. Good theory, but seems to be a flawed implementation. If the “Butterfly Ballot” in South Florida in 2000 was too complicated, and disenfranchised voters. Then IRV, especially in a Presidential election, with all the minor party candidates, has got to be very disenfranchising. “
A form of IRV seems to work very well in Ireland. Elections become almost a sport as a result. You think Washingtonians cannot manage something that Ireland does routinely?
17
The parties could choose their candidates in caucuses. The primary was imposed on them by the state, or more precisely by popular demand, so I don’t see anything unfair about the taxpayers picking up the tab. It would be different if the parties asked the state to run a primary for their convenience, but I think they’d rather dispense with the primary and go the caucus route if they could have their druthers.
“After all, it doesn’t really matter what kind of primary system we have if each major party only puts up a single candidate.”
Which is exactly why we should just forego the primary in this state all together. Nobody will challenge an incumbent from within that individual’s party and garner any support, barring a Jim West-like controversey. And neither party wants its “annointed” candidate for a major state or federal office spending money in a primary when they have to challenge an incumbent in the general election (Read: McGavick vs. Cantwell, Nethercutt vs. Murray).
So at this point, what difference does it make if we have a primary at all? The damn thing costs more than the results it yields are worth. If this is the way it is going to be, fine… I’ll fill out the non-partisan ballot again in September. I’m not a Democrat, I’m not a Republican, and I’m not a Libertarian and I won’t take their ballot. Cancel the damn primary. The parties annoint their candidates long in advance anyway.
The party establishments don’t want their own flock choosing their candidates, let alone an independent voter like me, so have a convention and save the counties and the state the time and trouble of the primary. Mail me my general election ballot and I’ll cross the asile as I damn well please.
ConservativeFirst @ 19
In no way, shape or form would IRV disfranchise a voter – it would not deprive anyone of their legal right to vote, which is the definition of disfranchise. Could it frustrate or perhaps even confuse? Yes. But that’s far from disfranchising voters. It has become the most over-used and generalized word associated with the election process because it scares people.
Darren @ 23:
I agree with the thrust of your argument about primaries.
However, at the same time, the important races are further down the ballot. Not the ones for governor, senator, etc. where the party states its preference and the game is fixed from the start.
Here in Seattle, the primaries are where you actually get to choose your candidate for legislator, county council member, and so on. Once we’re at the general, we are in a position where it’s “Democratic Candidate, meet Sacrifical Lamb. Lamb, Candidate. Shake hands and may the Democratic Candidate win”.
This is stupid and annoying. As I’ve mentioned before, Republicans used to be able to win in Seattle. The people haven’t changed much in 20 years, but the parties sure have. The GOP needs to find a few small-government pragmatists to run instead of the idiots who pledge to hump George Bush’s leg when they’re elected to office. Of course, if you want small-government pragmatists, the Republican Party in 2005 is not a good place to look.
dj @ 21
“You think Washingtonians cannot manage something that Ireland does routinely?”
If you’d carefully read my original post, you’d know my concerns with IRV have nothing to do with the voters and everything to do with the vote counters.
Darren @ 24
“In no way, shape or form would IRV disfranchise a voter – it would not deprive anyone of their legal right to vote, which is the definition of disfranchise. ”
I wasn’t making the claim of disenfranchisement because of the butterfly ballot, others on the left did. My comments were an attempt to show how absurd those claims were in 2000.
“Could it frustrate or perhaps even confuse? Yes. But that’s far from disfranchising voters. It has become the most over-used and generalized word associated with the election process because it scares people.”
I couldn’t agree with you more.
RR @
“The primary was imposed on them by the state, or more precisely by popular demand, so I don’t see anything unfair about the taxpayers picking up the tab.”
Fair enough, I wasn’t aware of this. I’m fine with paying for the “blanket” primary (and see why the parties hate them), but since an open primary seems unpossible, I think it’s time to change the system.
ConservativeFirst
“If you’d carefully read my original post, you’d know my concerns with IRV have nothing to do with the voters and everything to do with the vote counters.”
That is curious. When I reread it, it still sounds like you are saying it is too complicated for voters. Specifically where you say:
“If the “Butterfly Ballot” in South Florida in 2000 was too complicated, and disenfranchised voters[, t]hen IRV, especially in a Presidential election, with all the minor party candidates, has got to be very disenfranchising.”
But, to address the “vote counters,” what is your concern exactly? The 2004 general election in Washington had a pretty low error rate for an election of its size (3 million voters). Of the known errors, it is difficult to see how IRV would a difference in the errors either way.
dj @ 27
“That is curious. When I reread it, it still sounds like you are saying it is too complicated for voters.”
cf @ 26 (which should clarify it for you):
“I wasn’t making the claim of disenfranchisement because of the butterfly ballot, others on the left did. My comments were an attempt to show how absurd those claims were in 2000.”
I also said in the post 20:
“Also after the election contest trial, I don’t have a lot of confidence in KC Elections to implement IRV.”
dj @ 27:
“The 2004 general election in Washington had a pretty low error rate for an election of its size (3 million voters). Of the known errors, it is difficult to see how IRV would a difference in the errors either way.”
I guess a “low error” rate, especially in a close election is not acceptable to me, especially when the County Executive says they had a record a bank would envy. When I’ve ever had a problem at the bank, they’ve alway been able to reconcile what happened and correct it, unlike KC elections. In addition, I think the “low error” rate argument is one to justify or enable incompetence. The elections office should always assume the election will be close and plan accordingly. The fact that there were more votes than voters in KC is disturbing. The fact that KC could never reconcile why there were more votes than voters, is disturbing. The lost votes that kept showing up, is distrubing. The office seems generally incompetent.
Add IRV to the mix and all of a sudden accountability is even more difficult because you have to not only reconcile one vote per voter per office, but multiple ranked votes per voter per office. In a hand recount, like the gubenatorial election of 2004, divining the “itent” of the under votes and over votes seems like a problem that would be compounded as well.
ConservativeFirst @ 28
“I guess a “low error” rate, especially in a close election is not acceptable to me”
Then you are living in a fantasy world. Obviously it is good to minimize errors, but with 3 million voters, perfection will not happen. We need elections anyway even if no free election using a secret ballot has ever achieved perfection.
“especially when the County Executive says they had a record a bank would envy.”
This wouldn’t seem to have any effect on the election outcome.
“When I’ve ever had a problem at the bank, they’ve alway been able to reconcile what happened and correct it, unlike KC elections.”
Of course, the bank analogy is a bad analogy. Your bank doesn’t handle one million individual penny deposits over a couple of days, where the deposits are anonymous. . . . If they did, you would find a few pennies lost under the till, on the ground and in the pants cuffs of the tellers. And attributing those few pennies to the proper account would be impossible with anonymous deposits; correcting deposits to the wrong accounts would be impossible.
“In addition, I think the “low error” rate argument is one to justify or enable incompetence.”
Huh? How does pointing out the low error rate (relative to similar-sized past elections) “justify or enable incompetence.” If anything, it suggests our voting systems are improving.
“The elections office should always assume the election will be close and plan accordingly.”
From what I have learned of the process during the election contest, they do plan for this. Given the number of races on each ballot, it is inevitable that one or more race will be close. The procedures seem optimized for generating recounts and getting accurate results and timely certification.
“The fact that there were more votes than voters in KC is disturbing. The fact that KC could never reconcile why there were more votes than voters, is disturbing.”
Actually, it is not established that there were more ballots cast than voters. The GOP spent millions in a lawsuit and could not demonstrate this. I believe you are making the erroneous assumption that the voter crediting process is more accurate than the ballot counting process. It is not. The ballot counting process is a public process with multiple observers. Voter crediting is not publicly observed—it is a low-stakes administrative function.
“The lost votes that kept showing up, is distrubing.”
Why is this disturbing? This is exactly the kind of thing that the recount process is intended to correct. In elections that are not close, lost votes don’t matter. In close elections, the recount process gets these problems corrected.
“The office seems generally incompetent. “
Wow. . . they handled almost all of 1 million votes in numerous races flawlessly and you think they are incompetent because of a tiny number of errors? In fact, King County did not have the highest error rate in the gubernatorial race in the last election. There were other counties that did worse by almost all measures. But, you chose to focus on KC.
Could it be that you are simply taking your anger over losing one race out on KC Elections?
“Add IRV to the mix and all of a sudden accountability is even more difficult because you have to not only reconcile one vote per voter per office, but multiple ranked votes per voter per office.”
I assume you mean that “counting is even more difficult.” It can be more difficult, but there are some pretty easy technological solutions. Again, IRV is used elsewhere without collapse of civil society. And given how well the state did in the last election (even saddled with a machine recount and a hand recount), the state seems ready for the small increase in complexity from IRV. In fact, the error rate would probably go down under IRV because an entire election is eliminated!
“In a hand recount, like the gubenatorial election of 2004, divining the “itent” of the under votes and over votes seems like a problem that would be compounded as well.”
True under-votes and over-votes are not the real issue here (they are invalid for that race). I wonder if the extra difficulty of discerning voter rankings on a tiny fraction of ballots is really that big of a deal. Perhaps fewer such ballots would be decipherable and hence treated as true over-votes. It seems well worth-it for eliminating the entire primary. More importantly, IRV has other benefits—like making it possible for 3rd party and independent candidates to win office.
Evergreen @ 8
For 70 years we had voted our way here in Washington when it comes to the primary, and now because the state Republican and Democrat parties want to be just like thier national parties and polarize the state, we have to vote the way the Parties want us too? If it goes to the Supreme Court, one Justice will side with Top Two for sure, because 5 years ago, he said it was a great idea. It was Justice Antonin Scalia.
If you recall the blanket primary we used to use was tossed after California had theirs tossed by the federal appeals court. FWIW i was raised in California, and they originally ran theirs like ours is now: You can vote for you parties candidates in the primary. There you actually had to declare a party preference when you registered. I registered independent and never voted in the primaries.
So when they changed to a blanket primary, their trouble started, which led to ours.
And the top two system is patently unfair to the independent parties, who will never have a chance in the general election with the numbers and might of the republicrats.’
I want more then just the choice of those two parties, or remotely possible, two candidates from one party.