Democrats plan to reject primaries

[TechBear_Seattle]

Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer

With the elimination of partisan primaries for choosing political party nominees in Washington state, Democrats say they'll anoint their 2008 candidates in conventions this spring.

But it's unclear how important those endorsements will be.

Under the "top two" system taking effect this year, all candidates for a given office will be listed together on the August primary ballot. The top two vote-getters will advance to the November general election.

Candidates may choose to label themselves as "Democrat," "Republican," "Green" or otherwise on the ballot. No candidate may claim on the ballot to be the official nominee of a party.

Read more: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/358118_primary08.html

---

BACKGROUND

From 1934 to 2003, Washington State had a blanket primary. All candidates appeared on the primary ballot together, and voters could pick one candidate for each race, regardless of party. The candidate from each party who received the most votes became the party nominee in the General Election, provided that the most votes amounted to at least 1% of all votes cast in that race. Independent candidates who received at least 1% of the total votes would also move on to the General Election. This primary system was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 1936, and the first election using it was held that fall.

After a federal court rejected a similar primary in California in 2001, the Washington Democratic Party filed a lawsuit against the blanket primary, and were latter joined by the state Republican and Libertarian parties. In 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the blanket primary did, in fact, violate the rights of political party's to chose their own candidates. In response, the people of Washington passed Initiative 872 in 2004 which created a non-partisan blanket primary; I-872 passed with almost 60% of the vote, 1,632,225 to 1,095,190. It was challenged immediately by the state's major parties, so implementation was suspended until the courts could rule. Instead, Washington has used a "pick-a-party" system, where voters declare themselves for one of the state's major parties and must then limit their choices to candidates of that one party. (Independent and minor party candidates were banned from participating in the primary election.)

On March 18, 2008 the United States Supreme Court issued their ruling on Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party et al. In this decision, the Court upheld the constitutionality of I-872 seven to two. The new primary system will be used for the first time this summer.

[terrell9584]

1. it's the same system they use in Louisiana

and it's worked out fine for them. It's primarily because of this system that the Republicans have not been able to make gains in statewide races in that state they way they have in other areas of the South, because by taking away the option of straight party voting, you do take away a degree of the Republican strength, and many people when choosing to vote for the candidate themselves, rather than a party, will vote for the Democratic candidate.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

2. It's worked out "fine"?

For me, the thing that comes to mind when thinking about Louisiana politics, isn't how "fine" it is.
It's how corrupt it is.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[terrell9584]

4. it was corrupt when they actually had

party nominations and general elections between parties. Changing an electoral system won't change cultural traditions. What it did do was that it blunted the rise of the "moral majority" in the state because you couldn't just win a primary and then pass around leaflets saying "vote a straight ticket" because it wasn't possible to vote the straight ticket.

Louisiana's electoral system probably had a lot to do with Clinton winning the state twice. In our county, in the last election when looking at the results you realize that roughly half of all votes cast were straight ticket votes. And that in some races, the majority of a candidates support came from straight ballots. Taking away the straight ballot requires the voter to take a responsibility for their vote and for actually weighing the decision for each office individually and it prevents the development of an electoral baseline because there is no straight party line that can contribute to a baseline.

[darue]

3. no party is the same as ONE PARTY

this is madness

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. In effect, this has made elections run under state law non-partisan

Why do you have a problem with that?

[darue]

6. it's made the general into a run-off election and the parties irrelevant

anyone can run as a democrat, I don't think this is the time to be weakening democratic party identification, republicans sure as shit know who they are and who is or isn't one of them.

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. That is to say, non-partisan

In Washington, most municipal elections are non-partisan, as are some county and state offices. Under the state constitution, all judicial elections are non-partisan. Anyone can run in those races as a Democrat -- or as a Republican or a Green or a Socialist Worker. The Top-Two primary merely extends this to all elections run under state law.

Also, note that Washington has not had partisan voter registration since the early 1920s; we are registered VOTERS, not registered Democrats or Republicans or whatever. There is no party identification except what an individual wishes to make for himself at a given moment, which is exactly why so many voters were pissed when the parties got the blanket primary tossed out.