Journal pudge's Journal: Washington Primary System 22
In Washington State, the primary has for many years been a blanket primary: vote for any candidate you want to, of any party, for any office. Vote for a Republican for governor and a Democrat for Senator and a Libertarian for Congress.
Because the purpose of the primary is for the parties to determine which of their candidates should be on the general election ballot, the two major parties sued and the courts agreed that the blanket primary was unconstitutional: the parties should get to choose their own general election candidates.
Long story short, in the Washington primary this year, each voter chose one of the three parties, and voted for candidates only in that party. Some people are extremely angered by this, because they feel their choices are being taken away. And they are right, but their choice is not the point: the choice of the parties is the point. The parties are the ones deciding who they will endorse.
(As a side note, many people are also outraged at the idea of having to "choose" a party, because you do not register a party affiliation in Washington. According to one survey, 30 percent of people lacked confidence their selection in the primary would remain confidential, but that's extremely unlikely. Anyway, it goes back to the main point, that the parties should be able to choose their own candidates with people who choose to identify with that party.)
So out of this anger arises Initiative 872, the Grange Initiative. In it, the primary would revert to a blanket primary, but instead of the top from each party advancing, only the top two -- irrespective of party -- would advance to the general election.
It is the worst of all worlds.
First, it is probably illegal, because it has the same problems as the original primary the courts found unconstitutional.
Second, it is probably illegal for additional reasons: now a group that has enough signatures to get a candidate on the general election ballot would be denied access (third parties, or a minority second party).
Third, and most importantly, even if not illegal for the second point, it is certainly undemocratic, and while it claims to increase choice in the primary, it necessarily significantly reduces choice in the general election. You get only two choices, period. The primary is not a pre-election, it is the election.
Fourth, it will probably end up reducing choice in the primary election, too: the parties do not have to use the primaries, and very likely, if this becomes law, the parties would choose to select most of their candidates at the conventions instead, so the primaries would have only one candidate from each party.
It's a horrible idea, and I can't figure out why it was introduced. It doesn't make any sense, on any level. I know why it is being supported, though; hopefully, voters won't vote for it just because they are angry.
Party power and money (Score:2)
My guess is this is one of those cases when the 'defense' fails because they don't have the money to bring in high powered lawyers.
The parties did get to choose their own general election candidates. They put them on the primary ballots and ran them in the campaign.
Beyond that, just who is this election for? The Party? or the voter?
Re:Party power and money (Score:2)
They had the state of Washington which, while not the wealthiest state in the union, isn't doing too poorly.
The parties did get to choose their own general election candidates. They put them on the primary ballots and ran them in the campaign.
No, that is not how it works. The candidates may register in some fashion with the party, but the candidates themselves choose to b
Re:Party power and money (Score:2)
O.K.
I admit, I don't "get it".
My little brother has a joking behavior he sometimes exhibits. When the conversation in a group starts to trail off, he emphatically sticks his arms out, points his fingers at himself, and declares loudly "No. No. No! Stop talking! Its all about ME. Start talking about ME! ;-)"
It is funny because it is so selfish (and he waits until the conversation got
Re:Party power and money (Score:2)
It was always supposed to be about the party. When it changed, it was wrong to do so. The federal courts finally overturned that change.
Parties exist primarily to get candidates on ballots. The parties get enough signatures to get their nominated candidates on the ballot. Then they choose which candidate to give those signatures to. The primary election's purpose is to enable the voters to make that choic
Re:Party power and money (Score:2)
Again, the primary is not a pre-election. It is a way for the parties to choose their candidates. The parties have signatures they use to get a candidate on the ballot. If you do not identify with the party, then what business is it of yours which candidate that party chooses to use its signatures for?
That sounds like the basis for my belief on political parties. I was told last year by two coworkers (one a Democrat, the other a Republican candidate for Texas state legislature in the primary) that it
Primaries vs. general elections (Score:2)
Fine. Let it be a party function - let each of the parties run its own primary. Let the parties provide the equipment and personel. Let the parties find locations to have the primary. Let the parties restrict the voting to their members.
Let us acknowledge that the primaries are outside the general election.
Furthurmore, do NOT let the parties exclude otherwise valid members because they belong to other parties - let me register in and belong to both th
Re:Primaries vs. general elections (Score:2)
They *are*. They were designed to be. They exist for that purpose.
Fine. Let it be a party function - let each of the parties run its own primary. Let the parties provide the equipment and personel. Let the parties find locations to have the primary. Let the parties restrict the voting to their members.
That's unreasonable, for several reasons, the most obvious of which is that state laws govern the running of them. However, I do not have a seriou
Re:Primaries vs. general elections (Score:2)
Again, to belong to the Republican party I must surrender my pro-choice, anti-state-says-what-marriage-is, etc. beliefs in order to support my pro-gun-rights beliefs.
And to belong to the Democrat party I must surrender my pro-gun, pro-school-voucher, pro-small-business stance.
True, if *enough* people joined $party, they could shift $platform to $new_platform, but that tipping point is far enough awa
Re:Primaries vs. general elections (Score:2)
This is a far larger issue than the primary system.
Consider it like this: would it be correct for Kuro5hin to deny me the right to post comments because I also post on
That analogy is so entirely flawed, I don't know where to begin, so I won't bother trying.
When the Republican party was formed, would it have been impossible for someone to have acted in both the Democrat and Republican partie
Re:Primaries vs. general elections (Score:2)
With regard to my statement about state of affairs at the founding of the Republican party: State for me the relevant section of law, in effect at the time, prohibiting this.
Re:Primaries vs. general elections (Score:2)
Show you how political party affiliations are substantially distinct from what web sites you post comments on?
I think I just did.
With regard to my statement about state of affairs at the founding of the Republican party: State for me the relevant section of law, in effect at the time, prohibiting this.
No. You're the one making outlandish suggestions, you do your own research.
Re:Primaries vs. general elections (Score:2)
Secondly: You are asserting the existance of a law that would have prohibited cross-participation. I am asserting its absense. By the standard rules of debate, the party making the affirmative assertio
Re:Primaries vs. general elections (Score:2)
The simple fact of the many prima facie differences is insufficient? I conclude that it is. I'd find it more interesting to discuss why I am not allowed to drive a car at 10 years old, but I am allowed to eat chocolate. They are entirely unrelated, and any comparison is entirely uninteresting.
I am asserting its absense. By the standard rules of debate, the party making the affirmative assertion must prove his assertion.
You're wrong. S
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Primaries vs. general elections (Score:2)
So a fan club is NOT a political party, as it does not seek to cause political change.
As for "Playing the parties off against each other" - is that not the whole point? The idea is to get the person most likely to support my beliefs into office - that is what each of us seeks to do.
And *I* was the person saying that the parties should be responsible for
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Primaries vs. general elections (Score:2)
My point being that, unless you can demonstrate some other difference between the two, either a) the web sites should not allow for cross-participation or b) the parties should
There is one thing the same about them that argues for neither a) nor b): both scenarios involve private organizations. (Well, parties should be private organizations, and by "private" I mean "non-government," not "secret.") And private organizations can decide whatever rules they want: no girls allowed, no slashdotters, no Repu
Re:Primaries vs. general elections (Score:2)
Fine. Let it be a party function - let each of the parties run its own primary. Let the parties provide the equipment and personel. Let the parties find locations to have the primary. Let the parties restrict the voting to their members.
Let us acknowledge that the primaries are outside the general election.
I emphatically agree with this.
Furthurmore, do NOT let the parties exclude otherwise valid members because they belong to other parties - let me register in and belong to both the Republicans a
What if... (Score:2)
Just to go back to your earlier journal...
Re:What if... (Score:2)
NE (Score:1)
I like that idea myself, and wish other states would adopt it.
I'm not a fan of political parties in general
Democrat wins primary due to Republicans (Score:2)
(It should be noted that once you get into the "iron range" area - you can only win as a Democrat and folks regardless of their ideological beliefs run as Democrats to better their chance of winning).
This was a very interesting