7:07 PM Tue, Mar 18, 2008 | Permalink |
Most Washington voters never liked having to "pick a party" and to stick with candidates from only one party. For 70 years, they enjoyed the state's so-called "blanket primary" which allowed voters to pick candidates from any party. When the state political parties challenged the blanket primary in court, voters were furious that they had to declare a party on their ballot. Their response? Pass an initiative--creating the "top-two" primary, which once again would allow voters to pick any candidates they want. Now, after years of court challenges, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld that top-two primary, which means it would likely take effect in August...
Here's the question: Is this creating more or less choice for voters? The obvious argument is that it creates more choice because in the primary, you can pick any candidates you want from any party. But critics point out, that under the "top two" scenario, the top two vote-getters in the primary move on to the general election in November--which means you could have two Democrats, or two Republicans. There's no guarantee you'll have a candidate from each party in the general election, when more people vote. So is that less choice? For example, in the 1996 governor's race, there was a spirited primary battle between Democrats Gary Locke and Norm Rice. Locke won the Democratic primary and went on to face-off with Republican Ellen Craswell in the general election. But if the top two system had been in place, it would have been Locke vs. Rice in the general election (Craswell came in third in the primary and would have been eliminated). Which is a better scenario for voter choice: Locke vs. Rice, or Locke vs. Craswell?
I thought "will of the people" was still valid in the 21st century..Ok, under the old system thats been brought back to life, you could potentially get two demo's or two GOP's and not have an opposing party in a general election. So what? And to make it more of an argument, who said we have to slam the door on the third and fourth party candidates?? Is it because it can draw away votes from the old school party and muck up a race? Every business, even government (which could never operate as such) needs a maverick in the house. It keeps the air from getting stale.
I do not like the top two. I want a choice of someone from each party - not 2 dems, or 2 republicans. I don't mind picking a party in the primary, because you don't have to pick a party in the actualy election. Of course, the whole system in Washington should have never been messed with in the first place, IMHO.
It should have been Gary Locke and Ellen Craswell. This isn't the BCS.
-Rice & Locke Supporter
Ellen Craswell?? Seriously..?? Auntie "M" and Gary?
Sorry, that would be like seeing my mom running for a political seat..
We need to go back to the way it was before "Pick a Party."
What ever happen to freedom of choice? Not all the best candidates are in one party or the two major parties for that fact. The “Pick a Party” made it very tough on independents.
This was another attempt to limit third parties and some real choices rather than just living with the status quo and vote straight party lines.
You can kill a baby and it’s Freedom of choice but try to exercise your vote and your choices are limited. Are people ever going to learn?