Why Washington's new top-two primary will produce more challengers
The Supreme Court ruling yesterday, allowing Washington state to have a "top-two" election system, is being deplored by the state's political parties. Not surprising, since they lose some control over who gets to run for partisan office. But the real impact may be on empire builders such as Speaker Frank Chopp.
Imagine District ZZZ, which has been electing a Democratic incumbent for years. No ambitious challenger from the Democrats stands a chance in the primary, when loyalists and beneficiaries of Rep. Rottenborough give him early contributions and easily nominate him. The Republicans have long since written off District ZZZ, so their candidate gets a paltry 20 percent in the general election -- if anyone runs at all.
Now, under the new system, the Democratic challenger has a much better chance. She runs a barely-respectable race in the primary and comes in second, ahead of the Republican nullity. Now it gets interesting. Republicans and independents get a chance to vote for the challenger in the general election. Money starts arriving. Rep. Rottenborough starts paying attention, probably moving toward the center. Instead of taking District ZZZ for granted, the state party has to divert some money from other races to make sure of holding the seat.
Such might be some good outcomes of the new system, the so-called Louisiana primary. But don't get too giddy. The system is what we now have in nonpartisan races such as Seattle's mayoral and city council races. Last time I checked, incumbents still enjoy a crushing advantage, at least in these high-profile, high-cost races. However, when you look at what happened to the School Board and the Port of Seattle (where all incumbents lost), you might feel encouraged again.
Comments:
Posted Thu, Mar 20, 11:20 a.m. inappropriate
Money Will Still Dominate: Nothing surprising about the School Board or the Port races last time. It was the outsiders who had the big bucks and the backing of the downtown power structure.
Posted Fri, Mar 21, 9:25 a.m. inappropriate
Small Steps: Though the increased competition in formerly 'safe' partisan districts will be small it will have positive effects much greater than actual risk. That's one of the big benefits of free speech - including benefits to those already in power (a little fact the legal profession in King County seems to have forgotten).
The issue of how parties select, and communicate, their preferences is still an issue. In my mind the Supreme's decision on this matter kicks this issue back to us in a very productive manner and evidences high quality lawyering.
Personally, I think we need to do one of two things - either create a caucus step for all parties, major and minor prior to the top two primary or figure out a way to allow cross party/independent votes to be tabulated and reported, though not counted toward a parties decision.
Given the Supreme's Decision something along the lines of the former is probably best - though the latter, might idea, might be viable, if this debate continues in that direction.
Ranked choice voting, like we have in Pierce County, should also be on the table. Such a voting scheme would remove the possibility of troublemaking - like, for example that of the fake democrat running as 'Adlai Kennedy' to dillute a democrats votes.
But perhaps most importantly this decision gives greater weight to the independent voter - now estimated at 40% in Washington State. We might even see an independent get elected in a formerly 'safe', gerrymandered, district.
And, FWIW, if I was to run - if only to step up the profile of my voice - I'd certainly be happy to take primary votes from anyone at all.
Posted Fri, Mar 21, 11:18 a.m. inappropriate
maintaining the powers that be: That's of course what this is abt. To suggest that this will open elections is a fraud and lie. This system in LA has effectivey removed any challengers to the two coporate parties. And anyone suggests otherwise is a flack or lobbyist.
One nice thing is: this will probably greatly reduce election participation, thus saving the gov money. And it will also insure that those candidates deepest in bed with lobbyists can be garaunteed eternal power. Democracy is pesky, and this scheme neatly curtails it! Yay, SCOTUS!