Our favorite Republican, Secretary of State Sam Reed will appear on the David Goldstein Show 8p Saturday to talk about Monday's U.S. Supreme Court hearing on WA's top-two primary.
The state's primary system is heading to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Attorney General Rob McKenna will argue the case which will decide whether the state's voter-approved "top two" primary is constitutional.
We passed Initiative 872 in 2004, which allowed voters to pick a favorite for each office, with the top two vote-getters advancing to the November general election, regardless of party.
The political parties hate it and challenged it in federal courts, saying that the First Amendment gives parties the right to select their own nominees without outside forces interfering.
(Pardon us, Messrs. Party Power Player guys if we, the people interfere in our your elections!)
Meanwhile, the fantasy of someday picking between two Democrats for the same office in a November election remains a delicious one.
My fantasy is a little different - breaking the duopoly of our two major parties on our electoral system. And the top two initiative makes it much, much harder for a third (or fourth or fifth) party candidate to make it to November and have a chance to win. It means such a candidate would have to be competitive that much earlier in the process, with many fewer people supporting her or him based solely on party affiliation. To me, long-term, expanding our choices is more important than getting to choose between two Democrats (or, in Tri-Cities, between two Republicans).
Posted by: Geov Parrish | September 29, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Geov: My fantasy's not as fantastical as yours. I accept the duopoly as a political fact of life- not necessarily the best of all possible facts, but a fact nonetheless.
And, of course, I love to rub it in to Republican readers that they're such a sad, entrenched minority in this state.
Posted by: blathering michael | September 29, 2007 at 12:24 PM
If you ever have a third party they inevitably divide the vote between the two of the three that are most similar and give the win to the oddball. Why don't Libertarians and assorted nut jobs run as Republicans and progressive leaning parties as Democrats?
Ralph Nader might be right when he says the two political parties are too similar, but look how succesful Kucinich and Ron Paul have been at having their point of view taken seriously by joining whichever of the two parties most resembles their platform.
The other option would be to have a ballot that says "if choice A loses, who would be choice B?" so if I vote Green Party and they are on the bottom of the pile I can shift my vote to the next choice so in the end I feel atleast somewhat represented rather than like I helped the more evil party win.
Posted by: Andrew | September 29, 2007 at 01:11 PM
Who's Gove Parrish? Is that you, Duf?
I ideologically agree with the multi-party fantasy. Under the current pick-a-party system, third party candidates appear on the general election ballot. If the top two initiative is reinstated, "other-party"'s chances are mitigated by the probable higher vote counts of the two major parties.
Posted by: Fremont | September 29, 2007 at 01:24 PM
I like sticking it in the noses of both parties. Can't see how either one can deny a vote of the people and maintain a straiqht face. Besides, I like messing in the R's nominating process. We helped nominate some pretty great losers with the old system like Ellen Craswell, John Carlson, and Linda Smith.
Posted by: stark | September 29, 2007 at 02:24 PM
Yeah, Stark, it was fab fun to cast a vote for Repug duds...ah, the sweet nostalgia!
Posted by: Fremont | September 29, 2007 at 03:07 PM
Register by party. Post registration information prominently and publicly at City Hall. That's the sensible solution.
For reasons that completely baffle me, Washingtonians are beyond irrational about political party identification. They're more forthcoming about their sexual preference -- hell, about their HIV status -- than their political party identification.
Why is it all a big secret, to be jealously hidden from everyone else? I don't get it.
Posted by: N in Seattle | September 29, 2007 at 03:30 PM
Register by party. Post registration information prominently and publicly at City Hall. That's the sensible solution.
For reasons that completely baffle me, Washingtonians are beyond irrational about political party identification. They're more forthcoming about their sexual preference -- hell, about their HIV status -- than their political party identification.
Why is it all a big secret, to be jealously hidden from everyone else? I don't get it.
Posted by: N in Seattle | September 29, 2007 at 03:31 PM
Register by party. Post registration information prominently and publicly at City Hall. That's the sensible solution.
For reasons that completely baffle me, Washingtonians are beyond irrational about political party identification. They're more forthcoming about their sexual preference -- hell, about their HIV status -- than their political party identification.
Why is it all a big secret, to be jealously hidden from everyone else? I don't get it.
Posted by: N in Seattle | September 29, 2007 at 03:31 PM
we're cowboys, Neal, we like to ride different ponies on different days.
Posted by: blathering michael | September 29, 2007 at 05:07 PM
Or, like your triplicate posts, Neal, the same pony three times in a row. Yep...cowboys!
Posted by: Fremont | September 29, 2007 at 06:30 PM
Wasn't my idea to do a tripleheader...
Let's see if this one is a three-bagger too.
Posted by: N in Seattle | September 29, 2007 at 07:17 PM
It's interesting to me that lefties will openly admit that they seek to undermine Freedom of Association ("I like messing in the R's nominating process"--'Stark').
You don't normally see conservatives admit to such duplicity, especially when it comes to basic constitutional rights. They might exercise it at times, but at least they'll feel some shame about it, and try to hide or deny it.
Posted by: wutitiz | September 29, 2007 at 08:58 PM
"They might exercise it at times..."
uh huh.
They feel shame so that is why they try to hide it?
You're kidding, right? Karl Rove feels shame?
I am going back to canning tomatoes...
Posted by: sparky | September 29, 2007 at 10:08 PM
It's the inane non-party registration so beloved by silly Washingtonians that permits the tomfoolery alleged (but not demonstrated) by wutitiz. If we included political party as a field in the registration process, such shenanigans would disappear.
But Sam Reed, Ralph Munro, and their ilk apparently like such possibilities, perhaps so that they can complain about those dirty, nasty political parties. Talk about wanting to have it both ways...
Posted by: N in Seattle | September 29, 2007 at 11:52 PM
I think people forget that primaries are for the individual Political Parties albeit Dem/Rep/Ind/etc.
It is the process by which they nominate their strongest candidate.
Allowing such election 'tomfoolery' as we do here actually subverts the entire process.
What goes around, comes around.
And Sparky, go back to canning 'tomatoes' as your track record regarding shame isn't so good with your cohorts. Duff is still waiting for Coiler/Joanie/Merci to apologize.
They can't skedaddle forever...or can they?
Posted by: PugetSound | September 30, 2007 at 08:57 AM
Im not sure why you feel the need to put 'tomatoes' in quotes. Your paranoia of who posts and his or her "true" intentions is reaching new heights.
Posted by: sparky | September 30, 2007 at 09:16 AM
Putz, stop whining about the insignificant apologies, puh-leeze!
Posted by: Fremont | September 30, 2007 at 10:21 AM
Sparky, I wasn't so much thinking of the Karl Roves. I guess we all expect that the top pols are capable of any underhandedness, which is one reason they're at the top. The R's of the last 10 years to me are the worst sort, because they got themselves elected as conservatives, then came in and out-Demed the Dems, with pork and lobbyist-driven gov't.
But among Joe & Jane party member, there is this difference--D's are not shy over dirty electoral tricks (in this case, w/ a basic constitutional right involved). I'm not saying it's good or bad, just that it is.
Posted by: wutitiz | September 30, 2007 at 12:02 PM
No whine Fremont, just hoping that Duff is given his just due.
But it isn't really your call to make.
Sparky, you read way too much in the "tomotoes" quote. You might be protesting a tad too much...
Posted by: PugetSound | September 30, 2007 at 12:11 PM
As far as the main topic of forms of primaries, those who want open primaries should never be caught complaining about how both parties are the same.
If anyone can vote for anyone in the primary, the primary is just a general, except held earlier in the year. This will always yield centrists, and the two parties will be lookalikes.
Posted by: wutitiz | September 30, 2007 at 12:24 PM
There is lots of discussion about primaries in WA, but I don't know how much it matters. As long as there is so much money flowing thru Olympia and DC, the wrong people are going to get in, so as to enrich themselves & their friends.
Tinkering w/ primaries reminds me of regulating cold medicine to combat meth. As long as lots of people want to buy and use meth, dealers will find ways to produce and sell it. The controls on psuedo-ephedrine are useless (or worse than).
Similarly, as long there is so much dough in gov't, those who want at it will navigate whatever primary system presents itself.
This is why I like I-960--it is aimed at this very problem.
Posted by: wutitiz | September 30, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Duff lol...the name sez it all
Posted by: zorro | September 30, 2007 at 01:42 PM
whatitiz, I agree with the fact that both sides can be really dirty...just dont tell me that Republican politicians feel shame, unless it is shame that they got caught. ( " I am not Gay, I never have been Gay!"..Senator Toe Tapper) And for the record, the Dem with the money in the freezer should have been tossed out on his ass right after it was made public.
No Putz, Im not protesting too much. Its a definite pattern with you. Even Freemont begged you to drop the hall monitor gig. It's a blog. That's all. Don't be so concerned with who someone might "really" be or what they "really" meant. It really isn't that important.
Posted by: sparky | September 30, 2007 at 01:48 PM
well said
Posted by: zorro | September 30, 2007 at 02:00 PM
Agreed, Sparky--as I said, the recent incarnation of R's is rottener than last year's fish plate.
As for PugetSound, I think he is just doing his part to keep the blog from going into HA mode, which is to say, into the dumper. He should be thanked for that, not derided. Thank you, PugetSound.
Posted by: wutitiz | September 30, 2007 at 02:36 PM
Zorro, my hero.
Posted by: simon | September 30, 2007 at 02:38 PM
your welcome Wutitiz and right back at you the same.
Sparky suffers from selective memory. I love the use of Fremont as support.
Who cares that Fremont agrees with Sparky...as if that's news.
I do think that Duff was dealt a bad hand. And that those that crapped on him should stand up and apologize.
Duff isn't going to demand it but others can and should.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 30, 2007 at 02:42 PM
C'mon Sparky
You always want to start that 'trolling' meter thingie. How about this, a little peer pressure to get 'em to step up and do the right thing.
You did. Why not hold Joanie, Coiler, et al accountable. In the spirit of consistency/doing the right thing I would think you would be all for that. After all, if your going to get that worked up over the word 'tomatoes' in paranthesis, imagine poor Duff over the way he was raked over the coals. A lot worse than the word 'tomoatoes.'
Posted by: PugetSound | September 30, 2007 at 02:55 PM
sparky
don't read too much into the word 'tomoatoes.' just typing too fast.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 30, 2007 at 02:56 PM
Sgt. PugetSound of the Apology Police. Beware everyone. He takes names.
Posted by: sparky | September 30, 2007 at 09:26 PM
" unless it is shame that they got caught. "
Sparky, how about you, you feel shame for making up stuff and getting caught. Tell the truth now.
Posted by: nevets | September 30, 2007 at 10:15 PM
" unless it is shame that they got caught. "
Sparky, how about you, you feel shame for making up stuff and getting caught. Tell the truth now.
Posted by: nevets | September 30, 2007 at 10:16 PM
Joke is on you, Steven. I made up the part about making things up. You believe everything you read on here, dontcha!
And, no, that does NOT fill me with shame. It's pretty funny, actually. And that's the truth.
Posted by: sparky | September 30, 2007 at 10:31 PM
Sherrif Sue Rohr should be turned out of office next time around for her asinine respose concerning the guy with the wife in the ravine. She's even moer anoying than Reichert to listen to. What an ass.
Posted by: Tommy008 | October 01, 2007 at 05:35 AM
KVI is playing a clip of Tom Ryder talking about how Sherrif Sue and her flunkies are blaming him for not finding his wife in 8 days. Earlier theY played a clip of him debating Rohr,and denying that he ever told them his wife only could use the account. He told her they just didn't know how to listen. I knew he never gave them the wrong info, they just got it messed up. It was sickening to hear Rohr on the radio, sanctimoniously blaming Ryder for the delay, by claiming he gave the wrong info. Get the hell out of Dodge, Sherrif Sue.
Posted by: Tommy008 | October 01, 2007 at 07:48 AM
Well go figure, Sparky, who is trying to be the so called moral police chief here on BW, has no morals herself and is just a big hypocrite.
Posted by: nevets | October 01, 2007 at 08:42 AM
au contraire, Steven! I am not the moral police on here...that would be Sgt. Putz. He is the one who gets all worked up about people apologizing, skedaddling, being consistant, defending the honor of The Shark, etc etc etc.
I actually dont give a shit what you say! I would imagine that is about as far from being your moral guidepost as one can get... lololololol
Posted by: sparky | October 01, 2007 at 10:15 AM