Although state officials had predicted single-party contests would be rare under the new system, there could be a half-dozen legislative races this year with candidates from the same party running against each other in November.
Couldn’t see that one coming, could you? In fact, I’m surprised it’s only a half-dozen legislative races.
Supporters of the top-two primary, like Sec. of State Sam Reed, keep arguing that it offers voters more choice. Well, in the 36th LD, the district highlighted in the article, voters will be given the choice this November between a progressive Democrat and a liberal Democrat.
How’s that working out for you, Sam?
The political parties brought this upon themselves when they challenged our open primary system. The hell with ’em.
Nuthin’ @1,
Yes, the parties brought this on themselves. But that doesn’t make it acceptable.
Goldy,
I do not see your point unless, as I think is true, you believe that the parties should have permnanaent status in our system.
Under the new system, there is pressure on the parties to do a better job. If they do their jobs and vet the candidates, then the party support for a candidate will be meaningful and folks will vote for the official candidate.
Contrast this with the old system. If the District is solidly Demo. Then the primaries are the final and as it is now the result is winner take all. In effect our system means the government works to keep the parties in power.
Hell, I would go one step further. Why should our election system recognize the existence of the parties at all?
Let the parties decide how they want to make their choices and run whatever process amuses them. Then have an open election with a run off.
Goldy,
What you need to look at is the number of races that are decided in the general election instead of in the primary. Having all races go to the general election is an improvement over the old system.
But that doesn’t make it acceptable.
Maybe those fucking geniuses should have thought about that before they challenged our open primary. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.
The parties complain that they should have control over their nominating processes? Fine. As SJ suggests, let them run their own pony shows however each of the parties want – but let them pay for it, not the state. If they accept the help of the state in running their process, then the people should get some say into how the process is run…and the people here prefer open primaries, always have.
Here’s an area where Goldy and I find common ground, albeit from opposite ends of the spectrum.
It’s common to complain about the Tweedle Dum/Tweedle Stupid nature of our politics – the sameness, blandness, and stuck-record nature of it all. A reason for all this is too aften there aren’t clear and stark choices.
Goldy mentions a race where it will be between two nearly identical Democrats. I mean what’s the difference between a liberal and a progressive anyway? How many pairs of Birks one has over the other?
Individual political parties ought to exclusively be in charge of selecting candidates to run under their banner. Let Dems ALONE pick Dems, and the GOP ALONE pick for the GOP.
The nominating process should be confined to those who not simply call themselves a Democrat or Republican, but show themselves by their activism, financial support, and time spent within the party.
You can’t be a Democrat or Republican only on Election Day – it’s 24/7/365, out there, public, and proud of it.
The open primary was an abomination, and its death came none too quickly. Sad that it is being replaced by this silly top-two hullabaloo.
I’m content to live with the results of tight party control over the nominating processes resulting in those candidates vying in general elections. And I’m content to have the parties pay the freight for same.
Let’s just say I’m content to do away with primary elections as a part of the nominating process.
If that’s not palatable to anyone, then let them join a party in order to influence the choice of nominees. Or if you don’t like the two majors, form a new one of your own. Or hang with the Libertarians or Greens. But please quit complaining that you should have a say in the internal affairs of a political party to which you have neither affinity or affection.
The general election will still be there for the purpose of making ultimate decisions. It would be nice, therefor, that the choices then are real.
The Piper
@3 “Under the new system, there is pressure on the parties to do a better job.”
Hogwash! That has nothing to do with it. Nor does it have anything to do with the quality of the candidates. You could run Mother Teresa in eastern Washington and still end up with 2 GOP candidates because that’s how they vote over there.
You will never see third-party candidates on the general election ballot in most (if not all) districts.
This is ridiculous. Parties, not the general electorate, should choose their own candidates. And, certainly, the two major parties should have candidates on the general election ballot. How can excluding them possibly be constitutional?
What you see here, folks, is the seeds of one-party rule. That’s what happens when you let Republican judges interpret the law.
@6 “It’s common to complain about the Tweedle Dum/Tweedle Stupid nature of our politics – the sameness, blandness, and stuck-record nature of it all. A reason for all this is too aften there aren’t clear and stark choices.”
Typical piper pablum … too much hyperventilating from scratching on the bagpipes!
This is like complaining your stock doesn’t go up because the market doesn’t value it enough. If you’re not happy with the candidates, blame the voters, not the parties! The parties give the public what the public wants, dope! For example, if you want to know how we ended up with a gigantic idiot in the White House, look no farther than the fools who voted for him …
@4 Ah, yes, the general election: In many countries, that means you have to elect the generals again … and we’ve just taken a step closer to that ourselves.
One good outcome might be that we can vote in November between two candidates of the same party and be able to choose the better of them. In Seattle we have been condemned to vote for the Mayor as the obvious choice against a totally unpalatable GOP candidate. Now we may be able to elect someone other than you-know-who. We might get a Democratic mayor for a Democratic city who doesn’t confuse himself with the Pope. As of now, in our family, we haved vowed not to vote again for GN.
@8…RR…
Your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking.
I didn’t blame the parties for the quality of candiates – although there is some fault there – I blamed a system that forestalls tight party discipline over the selection of candidates.
So-called independents have no business choosing who shall be the Democratic nominee or the Republican nominee. They get to vote in the general election, which is as it should be.
But why should they be allowed to help nominate a party’s candidates? Shouldn’t they shuck the independent label first, affiliate with a party, then help nominate?
An added benefit of ditching primaries is eliminating the spending associated with them, so that ought to get the attention of the so-called “good government” types.
Once the nominating process was turned over to a process favoring lowest-common-denominator results, the foolishness of an open primary or top two was inevitable.
The Piper
@9
It beats a handful of folks voting for in the primary and no general election race at all. That’s the direction we were headed in prior to top two, more races where everyone running was on the same ticket.
I’m not saying Top Two is the best thing since sliced bread, it isn’t. I’d support the parties picking their own candidates and using the primary to get us down to two candidates where necessary.
@10…Spike…
By law, the race for mayor is non-partisan. You probably would have to go back to the days of Dorm Braman to find anyone who might be identified as a Republican on the ballot for mayor of Seattle.
Maybe that’s the problem? No real choice in candidates in a one-party town leads to someone like Mayor Quarters.
The Piper
Another problem with the old system is in a race between more than 2 D’s or R’s being decided in the primary your winner tended win without a clear majority of the vote. I’ve never been OK with calling someone who got 31% of the vote in a race where less than half the eligible voters voted a, “winner.”
I’m not trying to argue that we need the Top Two, just pointing out a flaw in the old system.
@13 Yes, I know, but I don’t think that nonpartisanship is effective. We all know who the candidates are, and they are identified with their parties. I think that the new system will change the atmosphere generally to encourage better opposition (intra-party) in the general, even in the city. We have been without a real choice so long that I yearn for decent opposition. I expect nothing of the GOP, so want the Dems to put up a real choice, which we do not have.
Well, I for one don’t have a problem with two candidates from the same party ending up on the general election ballot.
You see, deciding who gets on the ballot is a governmental function, and the government should remain as neutral as possible in dealing with the respective candidates and political parties. So if the voters in the primaries prefer a choice between two Democrats to one Republican, then so be it. Of course, it can work the other way around, also.
The parties can avoid this result by having their own nomination process (caucus or private election/convention) before the party, and then using party discipline to marshall all the resources of the part behind that person in the primary election – so that there is only one person running under that party’s label.
But it is interesting to think about how such a scheme would play out if enacted nationally. It’s possible that in quite a few states, McCain wouldn’t even make the ballot, and it would be a contest between Obama and Hillary in the general election. In other states (Pennsylvania?), it would be between McCain and Hillary, whereas in Washington State it might be between Obama & McCain.
Okay, now all I’ve done is given myself a headache. Time to get back to simple problems, like trying to figure out how to get aircraft parts from the U.S. to Asia in 12 hours or less.
@13, 15
Shit, even in little old Gig Harbor we had a D Vs. an R in our alleged NP mayors race last time around. The R won (crap!).
17: It’s funny how this year, there’s a push to make some partison races “non-partison”, just so the GOP candidates can avoid having the “R” after their name on the ballot.
@18…rhp6033…
I don’t think that’s the reason. If there is any justification for non-partisan races, it is where the office isn’t policy-oriented, but, rather, administrative of a process in its nature.
Still…if we had to go one way or the t’other, I’d pick partisan hands down.
That way, for example, the macabre foul-fest that is the administration of Mayor Quarters could be laid squarely at the feet of Dwight Pelz, a singularly grumpy old man if ever there was one – must have been insufficient love when he was an infant and toddler.
The Piper
The fiction in Rabbiot and Goldy’s arguments is that the parties exist by popular choice.
There must be foks who still identify with the Reps. But I khnow VERY few folks who think the Demo party is important because ofits stands.
So, I will remain an member of the Rationalist Progressives s until someone convinces me that the Demo brand name is worth my time.
PS @ 19: There might be a justification for non-partison races (judicial races would certainly qualify), but that doesn’t mean that the parties aren’t actively involved in them, anyway.
For that matter, in Washington State, you could make the Secty of State and Attorney General positions non-partison, as their functions are more operational, not policy-driven. But changing them to non-partison wouldn’t mean a thing in terms of their operation of the involvement of the various political parties.
I’ve always thought that it was ridiculous the way we seem to elect everybody in this state, down to and including the dog-catcher. Wasn’t there a post about how some partison hacks were trying to seize control of some obscure watershed commission with nothing more than advisory powers? My guess is that they just wanted to put it on their resume when they ran for higher office.
Roger states (back at 10:08) that:
Why?
Where in either the State or Federal Constitutions is this guaranteed?
And, under the “top two” system, if there are two Democrats (or two Republicans) on the ballot, that means that the party candidate that gets eliminated in the primary came in no higher than third.
So, why should the person with the third highest vote count get a place on the ballot, while the person with the second highest vote count is eliminated?
Here’s an example for the mathematically challenged:
Why should Baker be given a spot on the ballot?
So, under “top two” the voters get a real choice between two viable candidates. So what if they’re both Democrats? Contrary to the beliefs of some of our wingnuts, we aren’t all identical in our views. We could easily get two candiates with widely divergent positions.
If we, as Democrats, cannot manage to have a candidate come in at least second place in the primary, then we’re wasting our time and money on that race.
And while it doesn’t bother me a bit if the Republicans want to spend their time and money on candidates that cannot garner the support of even a third of the voters, it does bother me to have my party do so.
Oh, and if a “third party” candidate can manage to win out over one of the “major party” candidates, great! Top two gives them the opportunity to rally their supporters and get a good turnout from them in the primary. If 90% of the Libertarians turn out, while only 20% of the Democrats (or Republicans) bother to vote, then they’ve got a chance to make it on the general election ballot, edging out one of the “major parties”.
Works for me.
I’m fascinated by the gnashing of teeth I’ve seen over this issue. Yes, it’s absolutely true that there will be same-party runoff races this November. Voters in Queen Anne almost certainly will have chosen two Democrats for the general election contest, and voters in Chewelah almost certainly will have chosen two Republicans. And that is brilliant. Because it’s the voters who are choosing their top two candidates.
In order to be angry about the “top two” system, you have to believe that political parties are entitled to a spot on the general election ballot. That’s how we’ve traditionally run our elections; that’s how we choose the teams that go to the World Series and the Super Bowl each year: one champion from each of two conferences. So it’s a mindset that we’re used to, and therefore it’s a tough one to break out of.
But Washington’s new “top two” system demonstrates why those sports conferences are a lousy analogy for public elections: our goal as voters is not to choose one party’s champion over the other, it’s to choose the candidate who represents us the best. Our champion.
So if a district that tends to go Republican chooses two Republicans (or a Republican and a Libertarian) to be on the ballot in the fall, so be it. Likewise for Democratic (maybe even Green)-leaning districts. The general election will be a runoff between two candidates that the voters chose themselves—every time—and that will help keep our electorate involved and our government representative of the people.
This is going to be the best election system Washington has ever had.
The parties complain that they should have control over their nominating processes? Fine. As SJ suggests, let them run their own pony shows however each of the parties want – but let them pay for it, not the state. If they accept the help of the state in running their process, then the people should get some say into how the process is run…and the people here prefer open primaries, always have.
Quoted for truth. This is EXACTLY my problem with the political parties whining about open primaries. This is the PEOPLE’S election, not an election held for the benefit of political parties. If you don’t like it because of all those awful independent voters (how DARE they participate in an election under rules they want for an election they are paying for!), use your own nominating process- similar to how the Democrats do not use the Washington presidential primary to allocate delegates for the presidential nomination.
The nominating process should be confined to those who not simply call themselves a Democrat or Republican, but show themselves by their activism, financial support, and time spent within the party.
Great. Then quit having the independent voters of this state finance the Republican and Democrat nominating process by having partisan primary elections. Why should independent voters pay for something that you think they should have no voice in?
You see, deciding who gets on the ballot is a governmental function
No, not really. I understand what you’re trying to say, and agree as far as it goes – for example, every party fielding a candidate should, in theory, be on the ballot. But as to who represents each party – the purpose of the primary – that is most definitely NOT a governmental function.
My take on all of this is that the state parties decided to stir a bit shitpile, and now they have the nerve to complain about the stink that they themselves released! Somebody, call the wahhhhmbulance!
@16: “The parties can avoid this result by having their own nomination process (caucus or private election/convention) before the party, and then using party discipline to marshall all the resources of the part behind that person in the primary election – so that there is only one person running under that party’s label.”
Well, if there were such a creature as “party discipline” perhaps. At the State Legislature level, there is no such thing. In my district we have gone through this nominating convention charade (grudgingly), and there are still two candidates who will actively campaign right up until the primary.
Likely result: A waste of resources and a lot of bruised feelings amongst this herd of cats.
A few points…
a) Why two? What’s so magical about that number, aside from being the only even prime?
b) The “parties should pay for their own” argument is silly. There’s going to be a primary anyway — for the non-partisan offices — so the marginal cost of adding partisan races is minimal.
c) In judicial elections, a candidate receiving 50% of the vote in the primary is elected right then and there … that office doesn’t appear on the November ballot. Why aren’t other offices being handled the same way? Or perhaps a better question is why are judicial elections handled in this manner?
d) I’d ask why we elect judges in the first place, but that’s for another day. I’m for the Pennsylvania approach — appoint judges, have periodic retention votes.
Sez PTBAA:
Right up until the general, I bet. That’s what I expect to see in the 46th.
And next door in the 36th, the LD Democratic organization refused to play along with the “nominating convention” charade, so the state chair decided all by himself to call one of the two Democratic contenders the “nominee”. As in the 46th, the two candidates will probably duke it out in both August and November.
PS. I still don’t understand why only two Democrats are battling for each of those open seats. Two years ago, we had six fine Democrats going after the open seat in the 43rd.
It wasn’t the Open Primary that the parties challenged, it was the Blanket Primary. And the challenge didn’t originate here in Washington state, it was in California.
Rather than sit quietly and enjoy the “benefits” of the Blanket Primary, a handful of local politicos decided to export the idea, and their first victim was California. It was California political parties that challenged the new state system successfully, thus providing fodder for Washington parties to do the same.
The handwriting wason the wall when SCOTUS affirmed the 9th Circuit striking down the California Initative adopting “our” system. After that, if our parties hadn’t followed through with the lawsuits, one or more candidates eventually would have done so.
It’s clear that both parties will be able to “show harm” after this cycle, and then we’ll have some more time in court (and like before, both parties will cooperate in the lawsuit(s)).
But, I doubt there will be an injunction stopping “top two” while ligiation proceeds.
Evrybody will again get pissed in 2012 when the Presidential Primary (completely separate law not changed by I-872) again insists on voters designating a party choice.
Sounds good to me. But then, I’m not a party hack.
You’re right, Dave.
And I’ll complain again (and again, and again) about the inanity of Washingtonians in their rejection of party registration.
What is really bizarre is the rules that Secretary of State Sam Reed has adopted to implement the Top Two Primary. Back in 2005, Reed adopted some rules for this purpose, but the ballot would have appeared pretty normal, with a party abbreviation of some sort on the same line after the candidate’s name.
With the exactly same law (I-872, approved by voters in November 2004) to implement, Reed drew up completely different rules this year. Now, the full party given by a candidate will be spelled out exactly (up to 16 characters, including spacing) and printed on an additional line below the candidate’s name. Moreover, candidates who do not identify a party will also get a separate line.
So you could have a ballot like this one:
SECRETARY OF STATE
(Vote for One)
SAM REED
(Prefers Republican Party)
ROGER RABBIT
(Prefers Democratic Party)
JOE ANARCHIST
(Prefers Libertarian Party)
CARELESS READER
(Prefers Democrat Party)
DAVID GOLDSTEIN
(Prefers A Good Budweiser Party)
SEATTLE JEW
(States No Party Preference)
In any event, it will take about twice as much space to print the ballot this year, since each candidate for a partisan office will require two lines. And maybe the new election system will bring out more candidates. The primary ballot should be a LOT of fun to deal with!
Basically, the new declaration of candidacy form has exactly 16 boxes for stating a party preference. The candidate can fill those boxes with whatever characters (or space) he or she desires, and the exact characters (up to 16) will be printed on the ballot under their name, as in:
(Prefers ________________ Party)
So, if a candidate is careless, and puts “Democrat” in the party preference space, that candidate will be printed as (Prefers Democrat Party), even if numerous other candidates are printed as (Prefers Democratic Party).
In any event, Goldy says that the Top Two system would be a terrible thing, because voters in the 36th legislative district might end up with a November 2008 general election ballot — WITH TWO DEMOCRATS AS THEIR ONLY CHOICES!
This will be a considerable improvement over the November 2006 general election ballot, in which 36th legislative district voters had ONLY ONE DEMOCRAT AS THEIR ONLY CHOICE for State Senator and both State Representative positions. No candidate from the Republicans, or any other party, bothered to file for any of the three 36th LD positions in 2006, and voters were left with uncontested general elections.
Of course, nobody challenged any of the three incumbents in the 36th LD in the September 2006 Democratic primary either, so it would have been a one candidate ballot in November 2006 for all three positions, either under a Top Two primary, or a party nomination primary.
I think about 1/3 of the entire state legislature in the November 2006 general election had only one general election candidate, because one party was dominant in the given district, and no one from the other party even bothered to file. In many other districts, it was a landslide in favor of the dominant party candidate, even when an opposition party candidate filed.
Many good arguments can be made, both pro and con, regarding the Top Two system. But it would appear likely for the Top Two system to result in more contested elections in November, than we had under the previous party primary system.
Geez…I’m agreeing with Richard Pope…
Goldy: “Well, in the 36th LD, the district highlighted in the article, voters will be given the choice this November between a progressive Democrat and a liberal Democrat.”
To second RP, so this is worse than no contested general or some token Republican (or Democrat) who *might* get 25% if they’re really really lucky?
As previous comments again have said, how else do you propose to keep those reps in very blue/red districts halfway accountable if they’re never going to face any real competition election time?
I find it ironic that you bitch about state intefering in Seattle’s business yet reject out of hand a way to keep your reps pushing for a real progressive (Seattle) agenda – accountability, which the top two can give you.
The Democrats will have (even more) solid majorities/mandates going into 2009 in both the legislature and governorship – but I have no confidence in them using this capital to solve the state’s problems. At some point, the voters will have to tell those Dems to get with it, or get out.
With the Supreme Court ruling that I-872 was constitutional, I declared my candidacy for US Representative in the 8th CD. Until now the conservative Democrats have not had a voice.
What is bizarre is that I have been repeatedly attacked as a Republican calling myself a Democrat and others have compared me to Scoop Jackson. I will stand up to my party when I disagree. The truth is that I am not happy with either party. I am angry with the Bush administration and how the war has been managed. I am also disgusted when I read the letter titled “Democrats can turn U.S. around.”
Democrats took control of Congress two years ago, promising to solve our problems and get us out of Iraq. The new speaker of the House even had a plan to solve the problem of the increasing cost of gas. It was about $2.50 a gallon then. Inflation and the price of food were increasing about 2.5 percent to 3 percent a year. The stock market was growing, unemployment was down and the sales of new homes and automobiles were setting new records. Two years after the Democrats took control, gas is almost $4 a gallon. Inflation? Food and other essentials cost more each month. We are still in Iraq (and should be). The stock market is full of speculators, unemployment is up and we all know how the sales of homes and automobiles are doing.
Can we trust the liberal Progressive Democrats to turn the U.S. around, when they have done nothing for the past two years but whine about the war and point fingers at the Republicans? It is time for change. The Democratic party needs to change leadership and elect individuals that will quit whining and turn the country around. We need solid, common sense, no-nonsense, conservative Democrats.
Jim Vaughn
Different people have different goals for the top-two primary. For certain prominent proponents, the main motivation was to eliminate minor party candidates from the general election ballot and thereby eliminate the “spoiler” effect that, in their minds, resulted in the election of Maria Cantwell (on the assumption that Jeff Jared’s votes would have gone to Slade Gorton) and Christine Gregoire (on the assumption that Ruth Bennett’s votes would have gone to Dino Rossi). Consider that in Sam Reed’s first election as Secretary of State in 2000, he won with less than 50% of the vote (he had 47.08%, Don Bonker [D] had 46.63%, Bradley Gibson [L] 4.13%, and Chris Loftis [RFM] 2.17%). Is it any surprise that eliminating minor parties from the general election ballot would be considered an attractive outcome? Never mind the fact that it squealches alternative opinions and reduces choice.
I continue to believe that the best solution is to eliminate the separate primary entirely and use ranked-choice voting (instant runoff or Condorcet) in the general election. We save $10 million or so per year in the process, there’s no spoiler effect, no feeling of having “wasted your vote” on the “lesser of two evils”, no temptation to vote for the worst candidate of another party to improve your favorite’s chances in the general/runoff, and always have a winner who received at least some level of support from a majority of voters.