Sound Politics: I-872: Dumb Idea

October 06, 2004

I-872: Dumb Idea

Today's Seattle Times endorses I-872, the ballot initiative for a "Top Two" Primary: "Take back primary through I-872". This initiative would allow only the top two vote-getters in the primary election to advance to the general election, regardless of party. As a result, a general election contest could have two Democrats or two Republicans. This would have the effect of splitting one party and eliminating the other party in such races and as a result, both parties would wither away.

Those who don't like political parties might think this is an attractive outcome, but bear in mind that parties provide important services to the democratic process (that's why all democracies have them). These services include: organization, fund-raising, coalition-building, candidate recruitment and training, and most importantly the development of stands on issues and the ability to help voters identify candidates with a particular set of positions. If the parties wither away, other institutions will step in to fill the void.

In the absence of party organizations that tie candidates to platforms and identifiable coalitions of interest groups, elections will degenerate even more than they are into personality contests. Candidates who already have, or can purchase name recognition will have an even greater advantage than they have today: incumbents, wealthy individuals, moneyed interests and celebrities will all come away with even greater advantages than they have today. So will those who control media organizations and would be in an even stronger position to promote their favorite candidates.

Why else would the Seattle Times be so eager to promote an election system that is so idiotic that the only state dumb enough to have adopted it is ... Louisiana.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 06, 2004 03:26 PM | Email This

Comments

1. Though I loathe I-872, I don't know that I agree with your conclusions about the implications.

If I-872 passes, then the parties will simply hold caucuses or conventions to determine their candidates for the primary, and then sue anyone else who tries to run as a Republican or Democrat in the Primary. So essentially, this new primary will be utterly meaningless, doing nothing but handing more power to the grassroots of the parties. Whether or not that's good overall depends on whether the moderates in each party can keep control from the moonbats.

Posted by: Timothy on October 6, 2004 04:13 PM

2. I doubt that caucuses will be held. The parties could have done that a long time ago when the blanket primary was first created by the Grange. The parties never challenged it for about 70 years until recently when they saw an opportunity to get a list of registered voters by party affiliation.

Sharkansky is prescient. The state Republican party will wither, but not disappear. Some might say that party withered many years ago. Many interest groups in Olympia have had more influence over the direction of the staet Republican party, especially with regards to "organization, fund-raising, coalition-building, candidate recruitment and training."

For quite some time, Legislator incumbants and challengers have looked first to interest groups for support, and then having garnered their support, they expect the state Republican party to follow suit.

I can't say the same for the state Democratic party, but I-872 will not change how interest groups work. Frankly, they have been influential because of the vacuum of leadership from the state Republican party.

Posted by: Tim Ford on October 6, 2004 05:00 PM

3. While Sam Reed, the Un-republican, and his minions claim that the parties will not be able to control their names (always making the inappropriate reference to trademark, rather than recognizing the First Amendment associational right inherent in limiting voter confusion by controlling the name), the fact is that the US Supreme Court just accepted another primary election case that will likely demonstrate, once and for all, that the parties have virtually complete control over how they nominate their candidates. And the "winnowing" primary Reed and the Grange tout will be a wasted election, since no party will use it to select its candidates. SO we will spend millions of dollars every two years to reduce a multicandidate field down to two, in the process shutting out all third parties from teh general election in perpetuity (and you don't think bitter old Slade Gorton doesn't back this initiative for precisely this reason?). All in a show of petulance. Of course, this change will have big winners and losers -- winners being squishy moderates in both parties and special interests (who will be even more powerful in terms of election endorsements and $$), losers being principled members of the parties, the major parties themselves, and minor parties. Someone should run an initiative next year that would just eliminate the primary election altogether, have all parties nominate candidates for election through conventions (paid for by the parties), and re-establish the old (less stringent) signature/petition requirements for getting on the general ballot -- applying them to all parties. If we moved the 2-person judge races to the November election, there would be no need for a primary.

Posted by: JC on October 7, 2004 10:22 AM