Who dies hard in the 'top-two' primary?
I recently watched TVW's video explaining how the controversial "top-two" primary will work. It features interviews with Seattle Times chief political reporter David Postman and David Ammons, the communications director for the office of Secretary of State.
As Postman notes, it's "highly probable" that in certain districts, such as the 36th Legislative District in Seattle, two Democrats will win the primary and be placed on the November ballot, just as it's likely some Eastern Washington districts may have two Republicans face off in the general election – sans Democrats. That's nothing new. But it does raise an interesting question, one that's been circling the Crosscut office: How will lifelong Democrats vote in districts where the top-two primary winners are both Republicans? What will lifelong Republicans do if the general election ballot is all Blue?
I posed the question to Washington State Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz. Here's how he responded:
We would not recommend any Republican over another. We excel at telling you to vote Democratic.
Right. But what about people who want to vote for someone? Should they not vote at all? Washington State Republican Party Chairman Luke Esser seemed to have more reasonable advice:
If someone called me up and asked me how to vote, I would tell them to vote for the less objectionable Democrat — if there's a meaningful difference in his or her positions and ideology. If not, feel free to not vote for either of those two scoundrels. That's what I would do, personally.
I'll put it to you. If your district primary yields two candidates from the same side of the aisle — but opposite your own — what will you do on November 4?







Comments:
Posted Tue, Jul 29, 10:57 a.m. inappropriate
I don't get Pelz's response. Hell, even The Stranger will endorse candidates in the Republican primaries.
Posted Tue, Jul 29, 12:10 p.m. inappropriate
How to Vote: I'd vote just as I did before the two major parties screwed up our wonderful primary system: the best candidate, regardless of affiliation.
Posted Tue, Jul 29, 1:23 p.m. inappropriate
Eliminate parties from the ballot altogether: We're still focused too much on parties and a candidate's party affiliation. The glory of the new top-two primary is that the electorate is forced to look at a person's political platform, not a collective's platform.
The emphasis on the individual (rather than parties) is actually more in line with Washingtonians' traditional values of self-reliance and populism.
Political parties are voluntary, private organizations for which the state does not have a legitimate interest in supporting or advertising on the ballot. People can voluntarily organize themselves, but the state owes no special favors to two or more of those groups. It would be best if we eliminated all party references from the ballot. That way Pelz and Esser could not rely on state funds to further their agendas, and I would be forced to look more closely at what I think about the candidate, not what others want me to think about the candidate.
Posted Wed, Jul 30, 9:21 a.m. inappropriate
It's coming down to no choice: in the presidential election for me this year for the first time in my life.
That may be the case in our state elections for the first time this year as well.
Which means I will not vote for the lesser of two evils. The problem with voting for the lesser of two evils is that evil still wins.
Tragically, the result is that absolute minority will rule but I believe that has been the case for many years considering the number of eligible voters who haven't voted now for decades.
I believe we are on the road to tyranny since we can't seem to produce intelligent, trustworthy, honest, courageous and commonsensical leaders any more. Add to that the fact that our elections are corrupt and it is really money that brings one to power rather than having the qualities one needs for helpful public service.
Posted Wed, Jul 30, 9:46 a.m. inappropriate
This screws third party candidates: The problem with the top two primary is that it removes choice from the ballot. Third party candidates can't get a foot in with this type of balloting system and stacks the election choices for one party over another.
I'd rather have a preference vote ballot. One where you rank each candidate from one to the number of candidates, with one being your top choice. For example: There are four candidates for an office, you'd rank them from 1 to 4.
This system can be used for instant runoff vote and let the candidate that the most people supported win.
This would be an "Everyone gets to vote on everyone" system, and can be used for primaries and general elections, and it would be fairer than our current systems of electing people to office.
Posted Fri, Aug 1, 4:39 p.m. inappropriate
Beginning this year, Pierce County will use Ranked Choice Voting to elect the following Pierce County officials:
* Executive - Partisan
* Sheriff - Nonpartisan
* Assessor-Treasurer - Nonpartisan
* Council Districts (Positions 2, 3, 4, and 6) - Partisan
In 2010, voters will use RCV to elect the Auditor (Nonpartisan) and Council Positions 1,5, and 7 (Partisan). Ranked Choice Voting will not apply to the election of state and federal officials or the adoption of ballot measures. RCV will not apply to federal and state elections or the elections for Port of Tacoma, cities and towns, school districts, fire districts, park districts, water districts, sewer districts, or drainage districts.