Thoughts on this "top two" primary thing.

[newmajority]

I don't know if I like this idea. I'm not so concerned about the impact on Washington state, because I think we have the population advantage to offset all the idiot Freeper types from THAT side of the state. (No offense to any sane people from east of the mountains, however few of you there are)

What's more troubling is setting a precedent here, since the Supreme Court approved this thing, and having other states pick it up, where there might actually BE two neocon fascist bastards on the final ballot. :scared:

[eridani]

1. Yes. It sucks

Some assholes don't like the very idea of political parties.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. I didn't realize that John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were assholes

The men who wrote The Federalist Papers were strongly opposed to "factionalism" and the division brought about by political parties. You may be interested in readingThe Federalist Papers #10, The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection and http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed51.htm">The Federalist Papers #51, The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments.

From #10:

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a wellconstructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.

...

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

Edited for spelling.

[eridani]

5. It's one thing to theorize, and another thing entirely to build organizations with an ongoing--

--commitment to winning elections. You don't have databases like VoteBuilder available to novice candidates without parties.. "Minor" parties could start on something like this just by spending a few bucks getting voter registration lists from the state, but none have the slightest bit of interest in doing so.

The top two system is idiocy beyond belief. It guarantees that no Republican can ever get elected to the legislature in Seattle, and no Democrat on the dry side. If you think that all elections should be non-partisan, with no candidates ever having any organizational affiliations at all, then advocate that. That ain't what we have now.

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. Under the blanket or pick-a-party primary, did a Republican have a snowball's chance in Seattle?

I really don't think so. Would a Democrat have had much of a chance in rural eastern Washington under the previous two primary formats? Not really. Safe districts have always been safe for the party with a lock on them: a Republican will never get elected from the 43rd regardless of which primary system you use, and a Democrat will never get elected from the 8th. The top two system does absolutely nothing to change this.

What it does change is that the election will not be won in primary. Even if the two candidates are affiliated with the same party, they will have to fight to attract voter attention in a way that those running in safe districts have never had to do. I believe very strongly that this will be to the electorate's advantage.

As for voter databases, a disinterest by minor parties in building voter databases can be attributed to the hurdles that were in place for the partisan general election ballot we had under the blanket and pick-a-party primary systems. With the top two primary, I believe that there are several districts where a minor party or independent candidate could make a strong enough showing to reach the general election. I have little doubt that this will motivate minor parties into doing more to organize and run candidates.

I am optimistic about the top two primary, and I am willing to give it a few years so we can evaluate how it works. I may even run again for the Legislature, now that the ridiculous barriers to minor party and independent candidates have been eliminated. I very strongly urge others to do the same in 2010.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. Effectively, it has made state elections non-partisan

I think it would have been much better to have made the elections non-partisan in fact, though. Also, what gives you the idea that one party or the other has a lock on neocon fascist bastards? There are plenty in both of the state's major parties, and in most of the state's minor parties too.

Overall, I believe the Top Two will have a beneficial effect in minimizing the amount of fascism and arrogance in the political races. Right now, most legislative districts are "safe," with one party having an absolute lock on the seat. I have lived in the 43rd for 15 years, and I've seen a Republican run ONCE, in ONE race. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination automatically wins the seat, no matter how extremist, no matter how in league with the Builder's Association, no matter how anti-labor or anti-environment. Under the Top Two, there will be real, meaningful competition and the candidates will no longer be able to dismiss voter needs so cavalierly. (Yes, Mr. Chopp, I'm looking right at YOU.)

This will be the same in the GOP's safe districts: Republicans who win the primary will not automatically win the seat. Instead, they will have to compete with another, very likely Republican, candidate right up to the end. Chances are good that this will decrease the chances of a neocon fascist bastard win.

As an added bonus, the Top Two makes it a bit easier for third party candidates to make it as viable candidates. This alone should put the fear of the electorate into the candidates: if they want to win and retain their seats, they had damned well better deliver to the people who elect them (as opposed to the people who buy their campaigns.)

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

4. Chopp !

One hell of a example and good a place as any to focus!

[eridani]

6. It will increase the domination of parties

The competition I've seen so far is utterly meaningless. If someone wants to take on Chopp in a real primary, then why not go for it? You're delusional if you think that the Repub minority in the 43rd is ever going to back someone more left than Chopp.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

8. Indeed now How about a sign

That say's LETS JUST CHOP CHOPP !


Change is about chopping Chopp
Vote no Chopp
Chop Chopp!


Don't let Frank Chopp steal the deal
Chop Chopp ~!
A vote for Chop is a vote for a BIAW bedfellow.

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. The problem is that Chopp rules the state Democratic Party

He won't allow a Democratic challenger to face him. Since this is a safe district that would never elect a Republican, he is effectively an incumbent for life. The top two is the only way to unseat him.

I just wish I had thought to file this year; Chopp's only competition is Kim Verde, a "GOP Party" candidate who lists "downhill ski racer" under "significant career experience." I have little doubt that an independent progressive candidate could beat her out in the 43rd and reach the general election, and wouldn't it be fun to see Mr. Chopp squirm?

[eridani]

11. Any Dem who wants to can file against him right now.

Why do we need a top two primary?

[TechBear_Seattle]

15. "Can" is not the same as "allowed"

Chopp has made it abundantly clear that any Democrat who dares to challenge him in the primaries will become persona non grata and lose any and all possible support from the state party. As long as Chopp holds on to power, there is no way he can be unseated except by forcing a meaningful election with the top two primary.

[eridani]

16. The general election is just as meaningless by that criterion n/t

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. You are delusional if you thing a Republican has ANY kind of chance in the 43rd

The change in primary system will not affect that.

The last time I researched this, 38 of the state's 49 legislative districts were considered safe: all of their legislative delegates were of the same party and that party had not changed in decades. This was how things were under the blanket primary; this was how things were under the pick-a-party. This is how things will remain under the top two, only this time, the race will not be over when the primary votes are counted.

The 43rd will never, ever elect a Republican to the Legislature. With the top two, we will probably elect two Democrats in the primary (with the hope that a Green or independent progressive will make a strong second showing, rather than another Democrat.) Rather than the primary -- and therefore, the general -- going automatically to the incumbent, there will be a real challenger in the general election, put there by the voters. Whether it is two Democrats, two Republicans, one of each or some mix of major party incumbent and minor party or independent upstart, I don't care: I fail to see how a meaningful race to the finish line will be bad.

Granted, things will be more interesting in the state's swing districts, where both major parties have historically had strong support. I expect that those districts are evenly balanced enough that they will elect both a Democrat and a Republican at the primary; again, nothing will change from the past.

As I said elsewhere in this thread, I am hopefully optimistic about the top two. I am with the Grange on this one: the blanket primary was superior but with it gone, the top two is a good alternative. It proves an accurate reflection of what the voters want and guarantees that incumbents in safe districts have to run a meaningful race. I just can't see how any of this is a bad thing.

[eridani]

12. You are in reality promoting the kind of neofascism that you purport to criticize

If you hadn't noticed, party identification has been on a long slow slide since TV became a significant force in politics. That has coincided with steadily decreasing voter turnout, reversed only in the last two cycles because of voter reaction to disastrous Repub policies.

In other words, you are cheering for the phenomenon of passive degraded citizenship. People who are involved in political parties participate. In the Seattle Weekly a few years back, someone wrote to explain why he voted for both Rossi and Kerry. He thought Rossi had a "sunny personality," whereas Gregoire was more of a pit bull type--good for an AG, but not as good for a governor. This kind of passive doofus sound bite consumer is what the decline of party identification has led to. Encouraging it amounts to promoting neofascism.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

13. Indeed

Now you picture the politician standing in front of the mirror smiling .

The politician preps for public.

Think not what you really are
But how you prefer to be referred to as
Or what it looks like is what counts
Not what it really is.

And so the politician creates the very image the politician thinks you think is best suited for the position. It is the public interview that makes or breaks the politician.

The politician looks deeper and closer into the mirror.
Ah ha,that's it,just the right political face!
Except for those few of the masses that have the ability to see threw it, I should make go of it.

After all,the spot light is on me not them!

Now has that changed?

Didn't Bush float the phrase he hasn't educated the voter yet?

A old man in his late eighties who lived in California said he voted for Ronnie because he was a horse soldier! But wasn't he one in the movies though!

Another wise old man once said , you either vote for someone or someone else. No matter which one you vote for ,it's either one or the other that is going to win. Now you can cipher threw the bull shit and find of it what ever you can. Or you can toss a coin ,it dosen't matter much which way you do it. Just don't forget to vote. Voting is like most anything else,the more you do it,the better at it you become!

[TechBear_Seattle]

14. On the contrary, I believe strongly that this will energize voters

As I said, this will make races in the safe districts much more meaningful.

And I'm not sure how the top two primary is fascist. Please, elucidate, and include an explanation as to why the Grange -- one of the most democratic organizations in the state -- would be pushing something you claim is incredibly fascist.

[eridani]

17. It makes them far less meaningful

Party members are more involved and informed as citizens. Promoting passivity and empowering the low information voter leads to fascism.

There is no question about the obvious fact that voter participation rates were much higher back when there were higher levels of party identification.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

18. So you maintain strength is in unity

threw the numbers. That will also mean the so called dufus is in demand.That in turn means not only does every vote count but every person counts. More persons ,more numbers ,more strength. Therefore drop the dufus title,it's bad enough one must become a number ,and think in terms of passing on a little knowledge. Most people love to learn.

Rossi=janitor-=humble beginnings, =,s, hard work you get somewhere. So the equation looks like a inspirational place to be,but some people don't know that the smiling face they see doesn't give a damn rather they live or die.

You call them dufus. They wonder,why should they vote. They wonder ,what good would it do. They think,no one gives a damn about them. All they want to do is use them when they need them,than discard them the rest of the time.

Let me ask you this, when is the first time you called somebody dufus or something like that? Did it begin in grade school? Perhaps before that?

Power in the numbers threw unity, isn't that what you are saying?
You know party people are a lot like the theater crowd in that half of them at least don't know much about the theater ,I mean really. They just love to be seen in association with the theater crowd. It make them see themselves more-so like the upper crust type,it's a status thing.

Would it surprise you to know the so called dufus just might know that too?
In fact the theater can always use the so called dufus as a back stage hand. There the useful stage hand learns about all the McDufus's. And those numbers are stifling! It's not about democrat or republican there, it's about the true McDufus'iss !

But here's the clincher every politician knows, anybody can be fooled.

It's a tough topic no doubt. Party unity.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TechBear_Seattle]

23. You blame the change in format. I blame the date.

I think it is far more likely that people are used to voting in a mid September primary, and spaced on it having been moved up. Also, this is the first primary since the state switched to an all-mail election (with King County being the sole exception; they do not switch until next year.)

And as it happens, I am one of those "Grange shitstains." I have reported you for engaging in personal attacks.

[eridani]

24. What effect would the date have on absentee voters?

Want to know what else was at a record low? Third party candidates. None will appear on ballots in November. Thanks for nothing.

[eridani]

19. Well, now we know

Record low ballot reception in a major presidential year. So much for promoting more public involvement. :sarcasm:

URGENT! Low Voter Turnout in Primary Election!
Will this mean Pro-Choice losses in our State?
As of yesterday, only 13% of Washington State's absentee ballots have been mailed in for next Tuesday's Primary Election. This is an extraordinarily LOW TURN-OUT even for a Primary Election.

A candidate's showing in the Primary Election strongly influences the amount of resources that campaigns get for the General Election.


Can we afford to write blank campaign checks to anti-choice candidates?
NO!
Don't let them win the Primary next Tuesday.
We must get pro-choice voters to mail in their ballots or go to the polls on Tuesday, August 19th. Support the candidates that represent OUR VALUES!

Sign up now for a short, 2-hour Get Out The Vote phone bank shift. We'll calling supportive, pro-choice voters this Saturday and Sunday between 11:00am and 7:00pm. On Monday, August 18th (the day before the Primary) we'll make calls between 10:00am and 8:00pm


Sign up for your 2-hour shift now!
Contact Sasha Cousineau at [phone] or email
SashaCousineau {at} ProChoiceWashington.org

[TechBear_Seattle]

20. Never mind

I should have read your post closer the first time around. :blush:

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

21. And don't forget to invite the

the useful stage hands who just may be more useful than you even know.
There is no dufus.

[Krakowiak]

25. Has anyone considered the "Lieberman factor" here?

It seems like it is only a matter of time before we end up with a situation similar to the Lieberman/Lamont race. With no republican in the general election, what's to stop a campaign on the part of the republicans to get mobilize their voters to turn out for the more conservative of the two democratic candidates? I could see this becoming a common practice.

A made up example:

District is 60% Dem 40% Repub.

2 democratic candidates: Candidate A is the more liberal of the two, and is preferred by 70 % of the democratic voters. So, in a traditional primary, Cand. A would have easily advanced to the general election where he/she would have won without any trouble over the republican challenger due to the district demographics.

In the top two scenario, BOTH dem. candidates advance to the general election, with no repub. on the ballot. The republicans realize that since they can't put a republican in office here, they may as well try to swing support to the conservative dem, so a campaign is launched to convince the would be republican voters (40 % of the district) to vote for Cand. B, the conservative dem.

Okay, so that means: 40% of district (Repubs) + 18 % of district (30 % of the democratic voters who supported Cand. B), and suddenly an extremely safe bet for a progressive seat becomes a 58-42 % landslide for a conservative dem against a progressive.

What is to stop this from happening?

Notice, that this isn't even close. There is a lot of room for this scenario to occur.

In the Lieberman/Lamont case, this is effectively what happened, despite the presence of a R on the ballot, the party realized that he couldn't win and began actively supporting Lieberman. So Lamont was faced with a near impossible situation, given the makeup of the state, despite the fact that had Lieberman not been on the general ballot, Lamont would have won in a landslide.

This is my greatest fear as far as the top two goes, and it's only a matter of time before it gets carried out.

[merwin]

26. So? Would you rather have the Republican or the more conservative of the

Democrats?

I would rather see ANY Democrat in office over a Republican because it will increase our numbers in Congress.

[romulusnr]

27. really, really unlikely, or irrelevant

In order for "two neocon bastards" to get through the primary, they would both have to beat out all dem challengers.

That could be a problem, I suppose, if you had, say, two really competitive Repugs and three really competitive Dems in an area that was more than 40% Repugnican.

But if you have any semblance of party unity, that doesn't happen. Party front-runners generally emerge before the primary.

Some states already had this model (Louisiana I think) before WA did.

I'm much more worried about things like KC I-26 which seems to want to make parties obsolete. I don't like NP races. Parties allow candidates to align themselves with a set of goals/values that voters can identify. I want to know which of my city's city council candidates are Democrats, because the Democratic Party's goals/values are most like my own.

But from my PCO doorbelling I've encountered a few people who seem to think "good" character leads to good decision making. Me, I think character is based on values.