Top of the News

Chosen and ranked by Crosscut editors. Click date for previous days.

Mouse over headline for description.

more top of the news

Advertisement

Advertisement


Most Commented

Crosscut articles of the past 10 days with the most reader comments.

The mayor's block party weekend
(20 comments)

Is Sound Transit really one of 'the world's biggest boondoggles'?
(14 comments)

Crosscut's 2008 election predictions, UPDATED
(13 comments)

Extreme Seattle
(9 comments)

Death by a thousand (paper) cuts
(8 comments)

The post-partisan electorate
(8 comments)

Lake Union Park: a first assessment
(8 comments)

Why Palin, why now
(7 comments)

Election reflections
(6 comments)

The funny thing about Seattle ...
(6 comments)

The Crosscut Blog »

Jul 29, 2008 9:51 AM | last updated Jul 29, 2008 9:59 AM
Election 2008.
Advertisement
Advertisement

Who dies hard in the 'top-two' primary?

By Clark Fredricksen

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
what's a voter to do?
Report a violationPosted by: Benjamin Lukoff on Jul 29, 2008 10:57 AM
Crosscut WriterAs a nearly lifelong resident of the 43rd district, I've never really had much of a choice, but if I lived in, say, #7? I'd do what I always do — vote for the lesser of the two evils. Though I tend to vote D, I'm not averse to occasionally voting R, and if Rs were my only choice, so be it. The only races in which I routinely cast no vote are ones in which only one candidate is running. In those cases, I'll only vote if I affirmatively like the candidate.

I don't get Pelz's response. Hell, even The Stranger will endorse candidates in the Republican primaries.
How to Vote
Report a violationPosted by: Donovan Gray on Jul 29, 2008 12:10 PM
I'd vote just as I did before the two major parties screwed up our wonderful primary system: the best candidate, regardless of affiliation.
Eliminate parties from the ballot altogether
Report a violationPosted by: tiresias on Jul 29, 2008 1:23 PM
Editor's Pick 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.
It's coming down to no choice
Report a violationPosted by: Lainie on Jul 30, 2008 9:21 AM
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.
This screws third party candidates
Report a violationPosted by: kedamono on Jul 30, 2008 9:46 AM
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.
RE: This screws third party candidates
Report a violationPosted by: Benjamin Lukoff on Aug 1, 2008 4:39 PM
Editor's Pick It's worth noting that Pierce County will begin limited ranked-choice voting this fall, with expansions in 2010.

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.
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign up for Crosscut's free weekday newsletter e-mail.
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Crosscut »
Crosscut Seattle is an online newspaper for the Pacific Northwest, including Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia. It's a guide to local and regional news, a place to report and discuss news, and a platform for new tools to convey news.

• More about Crosscut

Contact Crosscut

Tools

Sign up for Crosscut's daily newsletter
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.
Advertisement