Washblog

   But, as you plainly demonsrate, you have no idea how fond the people of Washington were of their former system. I'm not arguing with SCOTUS or the 9th circuit and nothing I've said indicates I don't accept the descision(s). I can even understand the logic.
   I'll go vote a party ballot in September. And, although cross-over voting was largely mythical, there is nothing stopping me from doing it next month, it's even tempting, I have no Democratic primary races and I can still vote for the judges with any of the three ballots.

   The recently declared unconstituional Grange initiative passed with over 60% of the vote and all three parties were working against it.

   And, a top-two non-partisan (lousist idea short of drawing straws) will likely pass muster, what ever you might think.

Dave Gibney Pullman

by gibney on Thu Aug 24, 2006 at 01:19:30 PM PST

---

It's time for private nominating conventions.

Most primary elections around the nation produce a turnout of 30 to 40% if that. Can you imagine if an organization offered the same ballot initiative, year after year, that garnered those kinds of numbers?

But the conventional wisdom tells us that primary elections are important because they winnow the field of candidates thus protecting a political party from diluting its vote in the general. And partisan primary elections were devised as a way to cure corruption in politics. They were supposed to clear the air in the smoked filled rooms where kings were made.

Regardless of primary elections claimed utility, most voters stay away.

And they stay away for good reason. Too many general elections in our nation are uncontested or uncompetitive. And primary elections just exacerbate the problem. Voters face primary ballots with very few choices thus increasing the futility of participation.

Until 2004, Washington State had a blanket primary system. All candidates appeared on the same primary ballot, and the top vote getter from each party would advance to the general election. This system was deemed unconstitutional on free association grounds. And I believe rightfully so. Regardless, Washington voters loved the wide-open choices of this system.

I have worked toward increasing youth involvement in our democracy. I was shocked when I received my partisan ballots for the first time. There were practically no choices on the any of the party ballots. I never voted in closed primaries before. And I shuddered to think of the first time voters who wanted to try out democracy only to get ballots where the most races were uncontested.

Primaries have many more problems.

The state finances what are supposed to be the internal functions of private organization's. This is deemed legal because voters who choose a partisan ballot are effectively made members only by choosing a particular ballot. I believe this charade causes the freedom of association to suffer. Public partisan ballots sideline the party faithful, whose shared values drive them to regular meetings and events.

Also, a candidate, though never having attended a single local party meeting or event, can claim the moniker of that party when they file for office. This could confuse the public and harm the message of the political organization.

When the US Supreme Court Struck down the California Blanket Primary, Justice Scalia, in writing for the majority of the court, encapsulated the essence of political participation, "In no area is the political association's right to exclude more important than in the process of selecting its nominee. That process often determines the party's positions on the most significant public policy issues of the day, and even when those positions are predetermined it is the nominee who becomes the party's ambassador to the general electorate in winning it over to the party's views."

A local political association could give a candidate an official endorsement but with partisan primaries, the rank and file are relegated to mostly organizing picnic's and pancake breakfast's; hardly the ideal provided by the Court. Members volunteer their time while professional campaign consultants and media companies reap the financial yield of the election industry. And this all occurs while the overwhelming majority of primary voters stay home.

Low turnout primaries benefit motivated ideological minorities. In an election with only a 30% turnout, a little over 15% of voters can determine the winner of the election. With Gerrymandering that benefits a single incumbent party, this means the minority will carry the general election.

In the exception of a contested primary, rival candidates need to raise funds for two elections. This amplifies the influence of money in a campaign and only benefits the election industry.

And finally, primary's lack voter turnout but the cost to taxpayers is the same regardless.

I believe that if we stopped having primary elections, most voters wouldn't miss them. And I've said this enough to where I know what kind of response I will get. "But Krist, what about the party bosses and the smoked filled rooms?"

First off, I believe that if a voter is offended by a party that nominates its candidates in an occluded centralized fashion, that voter need not support that party. In contrast, a party that is transparent and decentralized could claim inclusiveness as an attribute to attract voters, along with its other policies.

People are recognizing the problems with primary elections. In my home state of Washington, we've been fighting over primary systems for years and still have not settled the issue.

I've voted in Blanket Primaries my whole life in Washington State. Even though they had many problems, the open choices of the Blanket Primary was very popular. Regardless the Washington Blanket Primary was unconstitutional foremost on Free Association grounds.  

But the Grange is only speaking to the frustrations of voters.  Let's not discount that - or pompously write off voters as ignorant.

I propose we go to a system of privately funded political nominations.

by knovoselic on Thu Aug 24, 2006 at 10:23:20 PM PST

---

We're going to disagree on this topic, and the main reason for that disagreement is our concept of the purpose behind the primary.

<i>"Primary elections - in THIS country - are elections where parties choose their candidates"</i>

Herein lies the basic disagreement.  <b>States</b> (not the nation as a whole) run their election systems, and in this <b>state</b> we have always used the primary as a winnowing tool, rather than a tool to choose the party's candidate.

We like it that way, and the voters of this state have made their preferences known.  You are welcome to disagree, and there is a method available for you to make those changes, should you manage to convince the voters of this state that your system is better.  It is the initiative process.

The parties want to use the primary for the purpose of choosing the party candidate.   There is no constitutional mandate that the state run an election for that purpose, only that the parties be allowed to control who may or may not use their party name and symbols.

Parties have a right to choose their own candidates.  This is not a point of disagreement between us.  In other states, this is often (but not always) done through primary elections.

In Washington, the parties were smart enough to bow to the will of the voters when choosing their candidates.  They would approve of the candidate that made it into the general election, and put their seal of approval on him or her.

They are welcome to find another way of picking their candidates if that did not suit them, but they are not welcome to make the state run their polling process for them.

by jbarelli on Sat Aug 26, 2006 at 10:16:26 AM PST

---

First, there is a possibility that the decision will be appealed.

Still, even if the decision holds, the court, in the decision throwing out the law gave specific instruction as to how to do a "top two" primary that would pass constitutional muster.

The reason that the old method, and the new "top two" primaries were unconstitutional was that the parties did not control who used the party name and symbols on the ballot.  There is a "right of free association" in the Constitution that does, indeed protect the parties from being forced to acknowledge a candidate not of their choosing.

The court said that if all reference to party affiliation was removed, making all races officially "non-partisan" then a "top two" primary would be constitutional.

"Respondents could protect them all by resorting to a nonpartisan blanket primary. Generally speaking, under such a system, the State determines what qualifications it requires for a candidate to have a place on the primary ballot--which may include nomination by established parties and voter-petition requirements for independent candidates. Each voter, regardless of party affiliation, may then vote for any candidate, and the top two vote getters (or however many the State prescribes) then move on to the general election. This system has all the characteristics of the partisan blanket primary, save the constitutionally crucial one: Primary voters are not choosing a party's nominee. Under a nonpartisan blanket primary, a State may ensure more choice, greater participation, increased "privacy," and a sense of "fairness"--all without severely burdening a political party's First Amendment right of association.

CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY et al. v. JONES, SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al

I think that the parties will really hate that system.

by jbarelli on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 07:10:21 PM PST

---

I gotta agree with Dlaw here, and maybe because I lived in NY & CT 'til I was 32. It was pretty clear out there - you belonged to a party - you got to vote in the primary for which candidate that party put forward.

I've always thought it was the oddest, most illogical mish-mash out here.

Sort of like "that's the way my pappy did it" thinking. Oh well.........PH

by Proper PH on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 12:11:52 PM PST

---

These supposedly non-partisan primaries just make sure that there will either be a Dem and Repug, 2 Dems, or 2 Repugs.

It's a nightmare for democracy proposed in the interest of.....nothing.

Something good could be done here: a real primary for Independents. Washington could be the first state to assure that there is an independent candidate on the ballot in every election who has actually gone through a meaningful campaign.

But what they are doing is just an embarrassing waste of time.

by dlaw on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 11:31:48 PM PST

---

We can't save the Parties from themselves.

This is about the purported "right" of campaign organizations to raise and spend a lot of money: In most contested races, far more is spent on the campaigns than the position is worth... even if it's bought and paid for.

This is about the "caucus of those with the money" and their purported right of free speech... actually very expensive speech.

The Parties got what they wanted and colluded together for and jointly spent money on: a primary system to their liking. Has it increased democracy, as some idealists promised? No. Has it increased Party membership? (Leave aside the cynical camel's nose tropes for a moment.)

But Dlaw doth protesteth too much and with too many voices. Does he believe that one primary system or another makes a damn bit of difference? Beyond the useless principle of the thing I see no evidence that he does.

But Dlaw: thank you for the argument. Because you're pointing out that we can't save the Parties from themselves... without trying! You're railing against an entirely plausible prognostication here, and you're not making any solid argument which says that democracy is going to increase or decrease.. not based on the model of our primary (or lack thereof) anyway.

In the corner though is that thrumming of violins, and if we looked we'd see that this, too, is a campaign!

It doesn't really matter, Dlaw admit it: whatever the primary system, or nullification thereof, campaigns will go right ahead exercising their "right" to shout down all other political speech to "preserve" the "right" of the caucus with the money.

We can't save the parties from themselves. Should we save them from the campaign thugs? Or should we just be saving ourselves and our democracy?

by m3047 on Wed Aug 30, 2006 at 05:34:31 PM PST

---

Dude! If you don't expect to vote in the primary...

Watch carefully, as at no time do my fingers leave my hands...

Therefore, I do not expect to vote in any party primaries here in Washington state. I am happy with that because I love the Constitution.

You got a picture on your wall and nothing to steal and in love with yourself.

by m3047 on Wed Aug 30, 2006 at 05:50:44 PM PST

---