Is anyone thrilled with our state's Presidential primary system?
The Everett Herald loathes it. The Seattle Times' op-ed page gives some prominent discussion to serious reform of how the primary is conducted. And of course the signed "oath" required for casting a partisan ballot gets many voters grumpy in a hurry.
For my own part, I was never thrilled about the parties going to court to get the primary system their way, though it was understandable. Yet, there is something almost comical about members of the media - and many voters too - insisting that it's up to the public, not the parties themselves, to determine which candidate represents each party on the general election ballot.
Other than that, I'm deeply ambivalent about changing the system. Your thoughts on the state's Presidential primary?
Posted by Eric Earling at February 17, 2008 03:34 PM | Email ThisNo political party should get any kind of taxpayer funding. This includes funding to help them choose their nominees, as in the primary and caucus system.
There needs to be a solution to the "spoiler" problem, where two candidates split the vote of a majority voting block so that the minority candidate wins. I can see two possible solutions:
1) A top two primary, in which as many D's and R's and L's and G's may run as possible, but the top two go on to the general regardless of party. In a few instances, two D's or two R's might go on to the general.
2) Instant Runnoff Voting or Ranked Choice Voting, in which voters indicate their first, second and third choices, and when a candidate scores last, all of his or her votes go to their second choices. This process is repeated until one candidate has 51% of the vote.
I think 2) is better. Pierce county is trying it out this year. First in the nation. I think it will go well.
Party names should not be listed next to the candidates' name on the ballot. Instead, endorsement by a party should appear in the voters' guide along with all the other endorsements. To list the candidate's party next to the name on the ballot serves as a sort of special interest subsidy to the parties. It grants them special power that is not authorized in the state or federal constitutions.
The people may WANT the power to influence the decisions of the D's and R's, but they have no right to do so, short of joining a party and following their rules. It is in the interest of the parties to avoid the bad reputation of serving the elites of the special interests by choosing candidates in "smoke-filled rooms." It is the job of the media to expose this kind of activity.
The founders worried about the negative effects of "faction." But we have enshrined faction in our political rules, and in the process we have eroded our rights to freedom of association, and empowered some very powerful special interests.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 17, 2008 04:05 PMOtherwise I would say let parties choose anyone they wish in whatever way they want - with their own money. Then let let me vote for whosoever I choose in the general election.
Posted by: deadwood on February 17, 2008 04:21 PMI submit that caucuses produce a better outcome than any of the solutions being bandied about now.
It is better to wait until Rossi is governor. The the game can't be rigged.
Posted by: Paddy on February 17, 2008 04:30 PMAll the other parties select their nominee at their conventions.
The issue here is that the media and voters mis-characterize these primaries as elections. They are not. We are choosing a party's nominee, and as such the party should have every right to decide how that is done.
As for caucus vs. primary, I like the way a caucus brings people together, but I appreciate that more people can and would vote in a primary, and think that's how we should go. The oath requirement is not a big deal. If you've chosen to not affiliate with a party, then don't complain that you're being excluded from selecting their nominee.
Posted by: Daniel K on February 17, 2008 05:39 PMThey have given her a party machine operator to run her show Sandeep Kaushik. so now all she has to do is speak nice to all the MoveOn money people and pretend she is qualified.
Posted by: Huh? on February 17, 2008 06:11 PMBut why should government limit a voter's right to select candidates in a primary or general election? If the taxpayers are paying for the election, then all registered voters should be able to pick the candidate of their choice from the entire field. Lets let have a wide open primary to pick the two candidates with the most support to run in the general election. The parties can decide at any time, as private entities, who they wish to support.
Posted by: Frustrated in Seattle on February 17, 2008 07:07 PM1. The state should have no say in how they chose their nominees.
2. The state should have not pay for 1 dime of their election process.
3. The state should not list parties next to candidates names. (if you are interested in know which political party endorses who you should look to the newspapers and voters guide statements like any other groups endorsement.
Of course the people WANT to influence the two parties in their choices of candidates, but they have no right to if they will not join a party.
Just because the people WANT a primary, doesn't mean that they have the right to get one.
Let's say that a majority of the people wanted to vote on who would become CEO of Boeing, or Dean of Seattle U., or head of a non-profit art museum or any other corporation or association. Do they get to? Of course not! Well, the political parties are just corporations. They are just free associations. If you want to influence them, you must join them.
This is just the tyranny of the majority, or mob rule, and the politicians give in to this special interest in order to get re-elected. They grant special power to the parties, and they grant influence with the people via publicly funded primaries. When they do so, they violate the principles that made America great: individual rights.
The problem in this country is too little democracy in some areas, and too much of it in others. We have too little democracy when the elites in Olympia and DC pander to powerful special interests. We have too little when they limit our power of the initiative. We have too much democracy when candidates sell minorities up the river in order to get elected. One form of this is when the Democratic candidate uses class warfare to take from the rich (a very discriminated against minority) to give to the undeserving poor who are many. We have too much democracy when certain non-Eyeman initiatives limit individual rights.
But far more often in this country, special interests who are rich find ways to fleece the average taxpayer. I'll bet that more money flows from middle class to rich via our government than flows from rich to poor.
Citizens have a right to vote in a general election, or in a primary who's purpose is to narrow the range of choices regardless of party. But voters have no right to exert influence in determining the candidate for a political party that they will not join.
Some people argue that the D's and R's have special power in this country, and with that power comes some obligation to the people or some control that the people can exert over them. Well, they DO have this special power, but the solution is not to attempt to regulate or institutionalize this power. The solution is to eliminate their special power, so the parties have to compete in the marketplace for support instead of getting a free ride and protection from competition. The parties should get no subsidies, and no special advantages of any kind.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 17, 2008 11:05 PMI don�t believe that the taxpayers of this state, or of any state, should be forced to subsidize this activity. I have read many comments and editorials decrying the lack of democracy in the caucus system, to which I can only shake my head, and wonder what is being taught in schools these days.
What I do believe however, is that there also could be a mixture. For state level positions, offer ranked choice, but for national elections offer the parties the opportunity for caucuses or primaries as long as they pay the bill. If they don't want the broad voter indicator on their candidates, then so be it. They may eventually wake up and decide that maybe they should offer primaries because it gives an early indication of broad appeal of their supposed candidates.
Parties will still be involved with ranked choice. For example, in Pierce County, the Democratic Party will choose up to three candidates that are offered on the ranked choice ballot. If you don't make that cut then, you would have to run as an independant or under another party affiliation.
Posted by: tc on February 18, 2008 08:05 AMSince the parties insist on putting their rights above the interests of the voters, the only answer is for the parties to go the caucus/nominating convention route.
No space on the public primary ballot for the parties, and not a thin dime of public money to assist the parties' efforts to nominate their candidates for the general election.
If the parties want to stay on the primary ballot, the price must be that they waive their rights, and agree to an open primary.
Posted by: ewaggin on February 18, 2008 01:10 PM