Everybody seems to be tamping down expectations for this week’s first ever “top two” primary in Washington state, but the biggest loser Tuesday night may be the top two primary itself. While Secretary of State Sam Reed and his cheerleaders on editorial boards throughout the state have hailed the advent of the top two as a huge victory for Washington’s voters, it’s proving much less popular in practice, with the 27% ballot return rate thus far significantly trailing Reed’s rosey turnout predictions.
Hmm. I wonder why?
In most cases, the outcome from Tuesday’s vote is in little doubt.
Yeah, it’s hard to get voters excited about a meaningless election, but that’s exactly what we have in almost every race on the ballot, where even the handful of hotly contested races will inevitably result in rematches come November. Indeed, with the exception of the State Treasurer’s race, where a field of three legitimate contenders will be winnowed down to two, I can’t think of a single meaningful result to watch for Tuesday night.
(Yeah, sure, some judicial races will be decided Tuesday night, but that was true of previous primary systems too.)
Oh, if one candidate substantially trounces another, it might tell us something about their prospects for the general, but absolutely nothing will be decided; the same folks facing off against each other Tuesday will face off against each other again eleven weeks from now. So why bother voting?
Well, the majority of WA’s registered voters won’t bother, which is a shame. And, inevitable.
The lesson to be learned from all this is that the top two is about as close a substitute for our old blanket primary as Cremora is a substitute for half and half. Sure, primary voters can split their ticket, choosing candidates from both parties without ascribing to any party identification themselves, but with the absence of party labels and the absence of any race with nomination battles in both parties, what’s the point? I suppose it could be argued that top two does have the advantage of eliminating the possibility of third party candidates serving as spoilers, but doesn’t that put control of our elections even more firmly in the hands of the two major parties? That’s not exactly what voters were promised.
And what happens in an off-year election, when Seattle’s 20-percent strong Republican minority finds itself in November with no Republicans on the ballot? Top-two has the potential to reduce turnout in a general election as well.
I suppose the solution favored by the wise old folks on our ed boards would be to simply make all our offices non-partisan, thus covering up top-two’s reduction in choice by reducing the relevant information available to voters. Sure, if they really wanted to give voters more choice they could push for innovative electoral reforms like Ranked Choice Voting, but honestly, all our ed boards really seemed interested in doing was delivering a big, spiteful “fuck you” to the parties for challenging the beloved blanket primary in the first place.
Job well done. Now let’s deal with the consequences instead of pretending there aren’t any.
Roger Rabbit’s Judicial Endorsements – Introduction
Let’s start with the job description. There are two basic types of judges, whose job duties are fundamentally different.
A trial judge presides over trials, deals with lawyers and witnesses, makes procedural and evidentiary rulings, and instructs the jury. A trial judge is responsible for interpreting and applying statutes and caselaw to individual cases, but generally does not create new law. A trial judge should have a good working knowledge of civil and criminal law, proper judicial demeanor, and unswerving commitment to impartiality, due process, and fairness. Litigation experience is essential, and because criminal cases comprise a sizeable proportion of superior court caseloads, criminal law experience is highly desirable.
An appellate judge hears and decides appeals from lower courts. Appellate judges do not preside over trials, and appellate courts generally lack authority to disturb factual findings of juries (or trial judges hearing cases without a jury) as long as they are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Appellate courts generally cannot consider new evidence not presented at trial, and do not “retry” the case. Rather, they review disputed rulings of trial courts for legal correctness, and their interpretations of statutes and prior caselaw are binding on lower courts. In addition, they may articulate legal doctrine on new issues not previously addressed by appellate courts, or revisit and modify prior precedents. The state Supreme Court, in addition to having the last word on legal issues, is the ultimate authority for promulgating rules of court procedure, lawyer conduct rules, and licensing and disciplining attorneys. While trial judge experience is helpful, it is by no means essential; the best candidates for appellate judgeships are lawyers with a wide and sound graps of law, and who are brilliant legal thinkers. Well-regarded legal scholarship is a useful qualification for judicial work at this level. Like trial judges, appellate judges need to be impartial, willing to listen to and consider arguments on all sides of issues presented to them for decision, and have good judicial demeanor.
Judicial demeanor is not merely an impassive expression on the bench, but a respectful and attentive attitude toward the parties, an absence of bias or favoritism, and an ability to project a sense of authority that commands respect without being overbearing.
Judges at all levels are expected to set aside their personal views and political or ideological leanings, and follow the law – even when they disagree with it. A competent trial judge never knowingly disregards binding precedent, and a good appellate judge will follow precedent unless there are sound reasons to overturn it and create new precedent. The primary role of precedent in law is to ensure predictability and consistency; without these, it is very difficult to draft contracts, wills, or legal agreements with confidence that the courts will carry out the intent of the drafters.
Roger Rabbit’s Supreme Court Endorsements
Supreme Court Position 3
Roger Rabbit endorses Mary Fairhurst, the incumbent. A former president of the Washington State Bar Association, she served as a judicial clerk after graduation from law school, then as an assistant attorney general before being elected to the Supreme Court 6 years ago. She is endorsed by King County Democrats, a long list of unions, environmental organizations, attorneys, and judges; and received the King County Bar Association’s highest rating of “exceptionally well qualified.
Michael Bond, the conservative horse in this race, is a partner in a small private law firm with many years of experience in litigating at the trial level and arguing appeals, but he has not presented a compelling case for replacing Fairhurst with himself. His Voters’ Pamphlet statement primarily takes issue with Fairhurst’s rulings in a few high profile cases. In the first place, focusing on a handful of decisions is not an adequate way to evaluate a justice’s overall record. The inherent weakness of this approach is demonstrated in the Seattle Times’ editorial endorsing Bond, which catalogs Fairhurst’s positions in 10 cases, then says, “In a couple of these cases we agreed with her, but the pattern [of siding with government] is troubling,” particularly citing her positions in “property rights” cases. Bond also specially mentions “property rights” in the Voters Pamphlet. This pretty much tells you where both Bond and the Times are coming from – they’re against letting the people, through their elected government, enact restrictions on private landowners for the common good or to prevent broad public harm. This is one of the wingnuttiest of all wingnut ideologies, and a “property rights” ideologue is not the sort of judge I want sitting on our state’s highest court. Remember, the issue here is not whether county councils or the legislature should enact particular land use regulations, but whether they can. His apparent ideological bias – and motive for running – may explain why this lawyer with otherwise impressive credentials earned only a “qualified” rating from the King County Bar Association, which is only one rating higher than “not qualified.”
For liberal voters, this race is a no-brainer.
Supreme Court Position 4
Roger Rabbit endorses Charles W. Johnson, the incumbent. He was an unknown small-town lawyer who came from nowhere to win a seat on the Court 18 years ago, and since then has compiled a respectable record as a competent journeyman justice who, while not a high-profile judicial “star,” has done a workmanlike job that earned him the King County Bar Association’s highest rating of “exceptionally well qualified,” as well as endorsements by King County Democrats and both Seattle daily newspapers. In addition, as the Court’s longest-serving justice, he is a repository of institutional knowledge and tradition that are valuable in any court.
Johnson’s only credible challenger, James M. Beecher, is a veteran small-firm trial lawyer whose argument for replacing the known quantity of Justice Johnson is weak: Johnson has simply served long enough and it’s time for fresh blood. In addition, Beecher earned only a “qualified” rating from the KCBA.
The wingnut horse in this race, C. F. Vulliet, is not even practicing law. His KCBA rating is “not qualified,” and his only endorsements are from rightwing wacko blogs. There is an additional affirmative reason not to vote for him: He refused to sign the “clean and fair campaigning” pledge promulgated by the Washington Committee for Ethical Judicial Campaigns.
Supreme Court Position 7
Roger Rabbit endorses Debra L. Stephens, a Spokane lawyer with broad trial and appellate advocacy experience, and also law school and legal seminar teaching experience. She was appointed to the Court of Appeals by Governor Gregoire last year, and then to the Supreme Court in December to fill a vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Bobbe Bridge. One of the most promising young judicial prospects to come along in years, she has bipartisan endorsements from Democrats and Republicans, and from numerous judges. Although her election is a slam-dunk because she has no opponent, this is a candidate you would want to vote for in a contested judicial election.
Roger Rabbit’s Court of Appeals Endorsements
Court of Appeals, Division I
The 2 candidates on my ballots, Linda Lau and Ann Schindler, are running for separate positions and neither is opposed. Both are incumbents. Lau did not submit a statement for the Voters Pamphlet, so I’ll provide her biographical information here. Prior to being appointed to the Court of Appeals by Governor Gregoire in 2007 to replace retiring Judge H. Joseph Coleman, she was a King County Superior Court judge for 12 years, and before that served as a King County District Court judge, so she is essentially a career judge. Gregoire’s appointment is tantamount to an endorsement, and anyone good enough for Gregoire – one of our state’s smartest lawyers – is good enough for me, too.
Roger Rabbit endorses both of these sitting appellate judges for re-election.
Roger Rabbit’s Superior Court Endorsements
King County Superior Court Position 1
All 3 candidates in this race are endorsed by King County Democrats, and all 3 have lined up big-name endorsements. However, they are not rated equally by the King County Bar Association, and they have significantly different experience profiles. Tim Bradshaw received the highest rating of “exceptionally well qualified,” followed by Susan Amini’s “well qualified” and Suzanne Parisien’s “qualified” rankings. Bradshaw is a career prosecutor; Amini is a sole practitioner who has served as a law clerk and pro tem judge, both useful experience for a prospective judge; and Parisien is an assistant attorney general. You probably couldn’t go wrong with any of these candidates, but of the three, Bradshaw has the most impressive credentials and his experience in trying major criminal cases would be a useful addition to the superior court bench. On the other hand, Amini’s family law would make her a valuable addition to the Family Court – if that’s where she’s assigned. Parisien’s experience, although solid, is less relevant to day-to-day superior court work. The Seattle Times endorsed Amini; Roger Rabbit endorses Tim Bradshaw.
King County Superior Court Position 10
This is another 3-candidate race that presents voters with a choice between 2 “exceptionally well qualified” rated candidates, with a third lesser candidate on the ballot. Les Ponomarchuk is a Superior Court Commissioner seeking to move up to a judge position. Previously, he was an attorney in private practice. He is well-versed in family law. Regina S. Cahan is a senior deputy prosecuting attorney with experience in handling major criminal trials who has an impressive list of endorsements including the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and King County Democrats. Jean Bouffard is a private attorney rated only “qualified” by King County Bar Association who brings nothing compelling to the race. Roger Rabbit endorses Regina S. Cahan, whose criminal law experience is too valuable to pass up.
King County Superior Court Position 22
This race also has 3 candidates, all of whom are rated “well qualified” by the King County Bar Association, a step below KCBA’s highest judicial rating. Two of these candidates, Rebeccah Graham and Holly Hill, are endorsed by King County Democrats. Both have served as pro tem judges, but Graham has more time on the bench than Hill, and also has an impressive array of endorsements. Roger Rabbit voted for Rebeccah Graham.
King County Superior Court Position 26
This one is a no-brainer for liberal voters – and should be for everyone else, too. Laura Middaugh, the incumbent, knocked rightwing nut Jeannette Burrage off the King County bench, for which we all owe her a debt of gratitude. She is endorsed by King County Democrats and rated “qualified” by the King County Bar Association. While this is not KCBA’s best rating, her opponent, Matt Hale, has been a lawyer for only 4 years and is another rightwinger. Even the Seattle Times says Hale “is not qualified to be a Superior Court judge.” Not only due to his lack of experience, but also because of his youth: A superior court judge should have a certain amount of maturity and life experience that can be acquired only with putting in time at life’s toils. Middaugh was a small-firm lawyer for 17 years before becoming a judge 8 years ago, and prior to becoming a lawyer was a nurse for 10 years. Her medical training and experience is a useful skill in personal injury cases. Although not relevant as a judicial qualification, as an informational item, she is state senator Adam Kline’s wife. Roger Rabbit obviously endorses Laura Middaugh over the unqualified wet-behind-the-ears wingnut.
King County Superior Court Position 37
This is another 3-person race where King County Democrats have endorsed all 3 candidates. The King County Bar Association rates Nic Corning and Jean Reitschel as “exceptionally well qualified” and Barbara Mack as “well qualified.” Corning is a veteran personal injury lawyer who looks like Santa Claus, and you wonder why he wants to be a judge. Reitschel is a veteran Seattle Municipal Court judge striving to move up to the big leagues (well, comparatively speaking). Mack is a senior deputy prosecuting attorney. All 3 have significant endorsements. Roger Rabbit has nothing against career judges, if they’re good, and gives the nod to judicial experience in this case by endorsing Jean Reitschel, who is also the Seattle Post-Intelligencer’s choice. I have nothing against Santa Claus, but like I said, you wonder why a successful p-i lawyer wants to preside over cases instead of arguing them. There’s a lot about being a judge that sucks, and being a litigator is more fun. But that’s just my opinion, based on my own experience. I’m going to do Mr. Corning a favor by voting for Reitschel so he can continue doing what he obviously enjoys and does well. Mack’s background, while solid, is not compelling when she runs against a sitting judge.
King County Superior Court Position 53
Mariane Spearman and Ann Danieli are both rated “exceptionally well qualified” by the King County Bar Association. Spearman has the King County Democrats endorsements, while Danieli garnered the Seattle P-I’s endorsement. Both are sitting judges, Danieli as a full-time pro tem Juvenile Court judge (a superior court level position); Spearman as a District Court judge. Spearman has also been a Juvenile Court and Municipal Court judge, and is basically a career judge seeking to make the next upward career move. Relying on the Democratic endorsement seems superficial, but there’s not much else to differentiate them, and Roger Rabbit says you can go either way but Cottontail is voting for Mariane Spearman. Maybe I can justify this by arguing that a district judge’s role is closer to a regular superior court judge’s role than is a juvenile court judge’s role, which is specialized and doesn’t afford as broad an experience as trying the array of petty civil and criminal cases that come before district and municipal courts.
In partisan races, Roger Rabbit endorses (and voted for) the Democrat in every race! We don’t need no damn Republicans hiding behind a “G.O.P.” label or posing as non-partisans. We don’t need no damn Republicans, period! Really, this needs no explanation, but if you want a reason just look at the smoking rubble around you that used to be America.
In partisan races, Roger Rabbit endorses (and voted for) the Democrat in every race! We don’t need no damn Republicans! This needs no explanation, but if you want a reason, look at the smoking rubble that used to be America.
We especially don’t need a damn Republican for dogcatcher! That job is too important to let a Republican fuck it up. Round up all dogs! The entire canine species needs to be gone! Don’t let the job of dogcatcher go to the dogs! Don’t vote Republican!
A “20-percent strong Republican minority” in Seattle doesn’t deserve to have a candidate on the general election ballon. Nor does a 20-percent Democratic minority in conservative places. A party with 20-percent support is a minor party.
Under the old system, a candidate with 30-percent or even as much as 39-percent would be ousted after the primary, just so that the 20-percenter — plus candidates from “third” parties, so named because they can’t attract more than a few votes — has the opportunity to put up a pointless token resistance in the general election.
Top-two puts takes the elections out of the hands of the parties, which is why they hate it. Notice that they aren’t suing to keep the top-two.
I agree that a system like ranked choice voting has great merit, but would this primary be any more exciting in any system? In a vote for only one party primary or the old blanket primary, you still have the same list of candidates and the same likely outcome. We may have a few heavily democratic legislative districts where the republican gets knocked in the primary, but was the republican more than a token candidate in these races anyway? I think not. Maybe the best system is to do away with the primary entirely and have a ranked choice (instant run off) in the general election, but that would certainly get the parties’ panties in a bunch.
Public Notice: Roger Rabbit Going On Temporary Leave Of Absence
Although the patriotic work I do on this blog is vital to securing America’s future peace and prosperity, I have other important responsibilities! This week I’ll be on the road inspecting western Washington’s lettuce, carrots, and celery to make sure the August heat hasn’t damaged my winter food supply, er, I mean the farmers’ crops. YUMMY!!! I (HEART)CARROTS!!!!! Don’t go away, trolls! I’ll return next week to resume stepping on your toes and kicking your shins! Hey wingnut fascist troll traitors! I’ll see you when I see you … if they don’t hang you first.
7, 8 – Why shouldn’t the parties choose their own candidates? Why should the general public nominate party candidates? How much sense does that make? But if we’re gonna do it this way, I’ll be glad to help the G.O.P./B.I.A.W. choose better candidates — they’re doing such a crappy job they need all the help they can get!
No one who “prefers GOP” party gets my vote for at least the next 20 years.
Since I don’t give a rat’s ass about the political parties (which probably puts me in the majority in this state), I don’t despise the top two – although the “prefers xx party” is ridiculous.
But I think there’s a much more basic reason Goldy’s overlooking as to why the primary turnout now sucks: it’s in fucking August. Which, at least in the western half of the state, is one of the only months we have with reliably good weather, and most people are enjoying it and paying zero attention to politics.
The parties wanted to have the primary moved to August, ostensibly so that candidates in contested primaries with delayed (thanks to vote-by-mail balloting) results would have more time for the general. But that’s very few races; the real benefit to parties is that an August vote gives the activist base a much bigger impact on the vote. So I blame the parties – not Sam Reed – for this fiasco.
Most Western democracies do their entire elections in six weeks. We can, too. Want a better primary turnout? Move the vote back to after Labor Day.
Thanks for the endorsements Roger. Enjoy your time off.
We look forward to you returning to kick traitorous wingnut ass!
Yelling Loser Boy SCUM – You never voted for them before so why not the big “announcement:?
Moron
14 – Wrong losing lover of right wing bullshit.
As usual..
LMAO!! He call me scum. Well that puts him BENEATH scum which fits – I’ve always said that about that bet-welshing REPUBLICAN loser MTR.
What’s wrong with cremora???? It never goes bad and has no animal fat.
@12 Geov are you kidding? You think people like this August heat? And are itching to go outside and rollick in it? Most sane folks are holing up in air-conditioned offices and homes!
You’re also wrong about the reason for the August primary. There just wasn’t enough turnaround time after the September primary to certify the primary results, determine winners, print ballots, and give all November general election voters sufficient time to receive, marke, and return their ballots.
The group negatively impacted the most by the September primary was soldiers deployed abroad. It can take weeks for mail to catch up with frequently-moving units operating in a combat zone, or navy ships on sea duty.
After the disputed 2004 election, Republicans and wingnuts tried to accuse Democrats of blocking military votes. In fact, military ballots were returned and counted in exactly the same proportion as absentee ballots generally (81%), and there is no evidence anyone blocked military votes, either intentionally or otherwise. Military voters who don’t receive their ballots also can vote on a Federal Write-In Ballot in general elections.
However, to avoid possible future problems by providing more time for overseas voters to receive and return ballots, the Democratic legislature moved the primary to August. This was opposed by Republicans in the legislature. If Republicans are against something, it must be a good thing.
Of course, the reason Republicans didn’t want the primary moved to August was so they could continue to complain about military voters not being allowed to vote and continue floating bogus claims that Democrats “steal” elections by “blocking” military votes. We all know it’s the Republicans who block military votes — when the military voters happen to be blacks. And they do it deliberately. By moving the primary to August, Democrats helped our military voters exercise their right to vote, and attempted to lay to rest false GOP claims of discrimination against military voters.
Every Democrat and progressive should support the August primary for these reasons.
Nuclear waste never goes bad and has no animal fat, either. Half and half out ranks Cremora, non-fat milk, 2%, lactose free, and even whole milk (in that order). Case freakin’ closed howie.
I’d phrase the questions the other way. Why should a publicly-funded election be used for a (private) political party to choose its nominees? Why should the parties get to place their chosen nominees on the general election ballot regardless of votes in the primary?
@19 I’m sure the parties would rather nominate their candidates in caucuses or conventions. Inflicting the expense of primary elections on taxpayers is not what they asked for. That was someone else’s idea. As for why the parties should get to put their nominees on the general election ballot, why shouldn’t they, if the ballot is open to any and all parties? There’s no reason why you can’t have 100 parties putting up a candidate for each office. People who can’t figure out who or what they’re voting for shouldn’t vote! This would eliminate all Republicans from voting.
RR thanks for the endorsements but I use my time honored tradition of finding out who looooooose johnboy Carlson likes and voting the other way. Been doing it for years and I have an 80-20 margin of victory for my chosen candidates.
No one gives a shit who you endorse Rodent; you’re a one-foot-in-the-grave out of touch with reality, crusty, delusional, old, shut-in. Have fun on your vacation, although I’m not sure exactly what it is you feel you have to vacation away from.
@21 Carlson, Craswell, Rossi. They sure do know how to come up with some losers. And they wonder and whine about how Dems have held the office so long. Of Course! Dems must be cheating! Don’t let Seattle steal another one! What dolts.
@22 Speaking of dolts.
@18: “Nuclear waste never goes bad….”
So, it’s ‘good’ to start with? Actually, over a very long period of time, it gets ‘better’ (less radioactive).
Just a thought.
@19: “Why should a publicly-funded election be used for a (private)….”
Hold it right there, pup. Why narrow your juvenile whine to only primaries? We hand out public funds to promote and support all kinds of “private” stuff that is deemed to be in the “public interest”. I’d say widespread civic participation in the political process is in the public interest.
Goldy …
Given that Rossi and Gregoire ar eunoppsed, what makes you think a party type primary owuld get mor 3einterest?
I suppose one oculd argue that in a party primary system it might be easier to run vs Rossi or Gregoire?
oTOH, is there anything in the new law that prevents the parties from nominating their picks anyway? Then the R and D could support whoever they wanted in the primary and, if we do not like it, you and I can vote in a third party for the final?
@20: Yes, of course, all the parties can and should place their nominees on the ballot. Then, if there are lots of candidates, we have a preliminary election to narrow the field (called the “primary”). And then, the two candidates with the most votes go to the final election (called the “general”). That’s democracy. No party should be entitled to jump the line into the final election if their candidate failed to win more votes.
@25: Yes, we do — and should — spend public money even for private “stuff” when it promotes the public interest. And yes, increasing civic participation in the political process is very much in the public interest. But having an election format that favors the candidates the parties like over the candidates the voters like doesn’t do that.
By the way, is the crack about “juvenile whine” really necessary, even in blog comments? Either insult me or try to convince me (and/or other readers) that you are correct; don’t attempt both.
@17 Roger – I talked at length yesterday with a judicial candidate (one you endorsed, btw – thanks for your knowledgable endorsements of races most folks have no clue about!) who’d spent most of the day shaking hands at various public and neighborhood events in Seattle. She said maybe one person in ten she met was even aware there was a primary this week. And yes, I think summer is a big reason why – kids (and teachers) are out of school, and many people (like you and me) are off on vacations, and the people who don’t like the heat either shut down mentally or escape to the mountains or coast. And the complete lack of media coverage (especially TV) doesn’t help. Folks just aren’t focused on an August primary. Period.
I’ll accept your narrative as to how the primary date got changed, but I have my doubts about the why. Got an e-mail yesterday from an Internet listener to my KEXP show from Greece who was complaining that my endorsements last week came too late for overseas voters – according to her, they had to mail their ballots by Aug. 1. They could vote in advance in a September primary, too. Duh.
I’m off shortly to Denver (will post on that tomorrow). Enjoy your vacation!
have a nice vacation.
It’s an intervention to get him off horses ass. Anyone that posts as much as he does is an addict.
@30 … and a little irony from Marvin! L(not quite)OL
What is INCREDIBLY STUPID is what an opportunity the Greens and Libertarians wasted here. If the turnout rates are this low, it would have been possible for them to have convinced people in low-risk districts to vote for their candidates, or to get as many of their own members to vote as possible.
Alas, no. These idiots pissed and moaned and did NOTHING. This is why third-parties are doomed to remain out in the cold.
The rabbit is the leading poster on this website. To think I’m even close is myopic.
Marvin Stamn,
“The rabbit is the leading poster on this website. To think I’m even close is myopic.’
You, however, earn the prize for the most comments containing factual errors.
Thanks for noticing. Wasn’t the post you replied to factual?
Do you have anything of substance to add or was that it?
The political parties brought this upon themselves. Fuck ’em.
I will predict at least a 40% ballot return rate. Sam Reed may even make his 46% projection for the primary. 27% at this juncture is not bad, since nearly half of all mail ballot voters mail in their ballot either the weekend before, the day before, or the day of the election.
What’s so bad about Seattle’s 20% Republican minority not having a candidate on the November ballot? No Republican has won in Seattle in decades. Most of the time, no Republican even bothered to file under the party nomination system, so there was no Republican on the legislative ballot anyway. At least Republicans will have the ability to cast a vote that counts — picking one of two Democrats to actually win. That beats Republicans totally throwing their votes away.
I can see where the top two system might screw things up in competitive districts. But it will give all voters a choice in one party districts.
@ 1,2,3,4,5 RR
Roger Rabbit, I can’t thank you enough! I’ve been kneedeep with contractors last week and next week reconstructing my warzone of a house (after mold abatement & pipes replacment).
This MORNING (gasp!) I realized I have to mail in my ballot by day after tomorrow. And I had forgotten to remind you to supply your endorsements for the judges. Then I saw you had already delivered! You gave VERY compelling arguments with which I agreed. What a load off my mind, my ballot is now ready to post. Thx again.
Have a wonderful vacation!
@ 4 RR
This gave me a major chuckle! I had missed the connection that THIS is the Judge that finally got embarrassment of a whackjob Jeannette Burrage out of our hair. What a pleasure to mark that Oval.
@27: “But having an election format that favors the candidates the parties like over the candidates the voters like doesn’t do that.”
Well, first you agree with me (public financing of private “stuff” is OK), then you just pull shit out of your ass…like a 3 year old. Just who the fuck are you to “know” who the voters “like” vs. what the “parties” like? So, you’re just making it up.
Go to your room.
@41: Let me explain it with a handy hypothetical example, Ass.
Democrat A wins, let’s say, 45% of the votes in the primary election.
Democrat B wins 35%.
Republican C wins 20%.
Old system: Republican C moves on to the general election because he/she is a Republican (got the love from the party).
New system: Democrat B moves on to the general election because he/she won more votes (got the love from more voters).
I’m assuming the voters vote for the candidates they like. (You gonna debate that?) No making it up. No shit.
@22 Well, actually, I am going to use Roger Rabbit’s analysis for all my votes tomorrow, so someone cares about his analyses. He did the mental work to differentiate the judicial races. I am pleased. Since I know his political views are sound, I will take his advice.
@42 You are forgetting about Independent voters. I’m hoping that all voters really look at the candidates view’s on the issues.
Washington State always votes down a State Income Tax (which my opponents want). Many vote it down because they believe there would probably be 10% sales tax and 10% state income tax! We already have tax fatigue.
I am quite liberal in my views on social issues but feel now is the time to start being fiscally responsible. I want to help people help themselves.
It is also time to TAKE A STAND against elected officials that do not pay attention to what voters want.
I have been financing my campaign pretty much on my own–will owe no one any favors, and truly believe I am the candidate that best serves the public. I do not want to be a professional politician–I want to be the State House Representative for the 36th District, Position #1. Check out my website and see how I have in the past served the public and want to continue to do so.
Thanks for reading.
@32 – Just kidding Marvin. I do see your name on here a lot but not nearly as much at RR, of course. Oh gosh more irony RR = Roger Rabbit and RR= Ronald Reagan.