Washington state is using the “top-two” system for the first time this year. There are 26 State Senate seats up, and 98 State House seats up, for a total of 124 legislative races this year. Filing for the August 19 primary is now closed. Out of the 124 races, the primary is utterly meaningless in 92 races, since there are only two candidates, or only one candidate, running in 92 races.
Formerly, the Washington primary was the device by which major parties nominated their candidates, but it no longer has that function. Instead, the only function of the August 19 primary is to whittle down the number of candidates in the November election to just two. Obviously, when there are just two candidates (or just one candidate) in a particular race, there is no whittling to be done. In other words, in 74% of the legislative races this year, the primary will accomplish absolutely nothing.
Except for the gubernatorial race, there is no federal or state race this year in Washington with more than seven candidates. One wonders why the primary could not simply be canceled, so that all candidates who filed could run in November.
The total number of Democrats and Republicans running in this year’s primary for legislature is 207. Two years ago, when the state was using an open primary, there were 233 Democrats and Republicans running for the legislature. Thus, it seems one effect of the “top-two” system has been to reduce choices for Democratic and Republican voters.
For counting purposes, any candidate who used the word “Democratic” or just “D” was counted as a Democrat, even if the candidate appended other words, such as “True Democrat” or “Progressive Democrat”. Similarly, any candidate who used the term “G.O.P.” was counted as a Republican, and also any candidate who used “Republican” with other words, such as “Republican Tax Cut” was also counted as a Republican.
I think you may have miscounted.
In 2006, there were 187 House and 47 Senate candidates. There 13 contested House primaries, and 5 Senate primaries. In no cases were there contested primaries for both major parties. Since there were few or none truly contested congressional races, many voters could have picked their party based on which party was picking their legislative candidate in the primary.
There were 7 primaries that picked the loser in the general election. These may have been a result of mischievous cross-over voting, and/or the voters of a party picking a more extreme candidate.
In 2008, there are 209 House and 51 Senate R or D candidates. In addition there are 12 other (10 House, 2 Senate) candidates, either 3rd party or independent. There are 24 House primaries and 5 Senate primaries with more than one Democratic or Republican. In 27 of these races, there is only a single Democrat or Republican, so it is similar to 2006 in that regard. There are also 5 races featuring one D, one R, and one other candidate in the primary.
Overall, the number of races where a voter will actually be making a choice in the primary is up by 89%, and in every one of those races all voters will be able to participate – compared to 2006 when the voter had to first pick a party. Voters who consider themselves independent or non-partisan may be less likely to skip the primary. There is also more risk in mischievous cross-over voting.
A more complete analysis would also take into account open seats (Washington has term limits). For example in 2006 in LD 43, one House race had 6 Democrats, 1 Republican and 1 Progressive. The winner of the Democratic primary had 23% of the vote (only a bit over 5000 total). He easily won the general election with over 37,000 votes and this year faces no opposition (unless there are write-in challengers). On the other hand, in 2008, an open House seat in LD 14 has drawn 6 Republicans and 1 Democrat.
unless we have term limits all the incumbents will remain the turn over is low..
Jim R. says I may have miscounted. He says there were 234 legislative candidates in 2006, whereas I had said there were 233. If he is right and there were 234 instead of 233, that just makes my initial point stronger.
It will be interesting to see which primary has a higher turnout, the open primary of 2006, or the “top-two” primary of 2008. Obviously we will need to wait until August to see.
Thank you for your scholarship on the filings. We presume that filings will rise and fall depending on the number of good open seats. (The flurry in the 43rd LD last time was for an open House seat vacated by now-Sen. Ed Murray, for instance). For years, in one-party districts the race has been essentially settled in the primary. Now the conversation will continue until the November general, giving voters greater choice. The two most popular vote-getters, perhaps from the same party, will have to parse their differences and reach out to the party not represented in the general election. The general election always has a significantly higher turnout, and thus more voters will be involved in the final selection.
Both major parties have done an increasingly sophisticated job of pre-primary clearing the field for their favored candidate _ Rossi, McGavick and Nethercutt being recent Republican examples. This can continue to occur under Top 2. Our belief is that the parties and candidates will adjust seamlessly to the new system __ and the voters will love it.
Thanks to David Ammons, from the Washington Secretary of State’s office, for chiming in. I hope he will comment on what will happen if the Constitution Party member who is running for Auditor, Glenn Freeman, polls more than 5% of the vote in the August primary. Will that make the Constitution Party a fully-qualified party? If not, why not?
Gee – How many gerrymander district incumbents have SOME primary opposition (and later REAL general election opposition) — versus NO opposition in the bad old days ?
WA State will manage to survive the same way that OR manages to survive with ALL paper mail ballots.
Longer term remedy –
NO primaries
EQUAL ballot access via equal nominating petitions
P.R. for legislative body elections
A.V. for executive/judicial elections –
pending longer term head to head math using YES/NO and Number Votes.
Re #3. No you miscounted the filings for 2008.
In 2006, there was a district in which no R candidate is shown in the primary, but there was a a R v D race in November. Maybe there was a write-in candidate.
In any case, there are 274 filings in 2008, including 121 Democratic-prefering candidates and 10 apparent variations; 102 Republican-preferring candidates, and 28 variants; and 13 other party, independents, or did not state a preference.
That is a 17% increase in candidates.
In 2006, there were 65 D v. R races, where the primary was essentially meaningless; and 21 D-only and 14 R-only races, where both the primary and general election were superfluous. There was also one DD and one RR race where the outcome was decided in the primary by voters of one party.
That is 100 of 122 or 84% where the election was a degenerate form of one sort or another.
In 2008, there are 57 D v. R contests and 5 D v. other contests, where the primary is redundant. There are 18-D only and 9 R-only races, where there is no real contest (unless a write-in candidate qualifies for the general election).
That is 89 of 124 or 72% where the election was a degenerate form of one sort or another (an odd number of senate seats, plus a special election to fill the final 2 years of senate term account for the two additional races this year).
There are 2 seats with 2 Democrats, one with 3 Democrats, and one with 5 Republicans, where the eventual winner will be determined by the entire electorate rather than voters in the primary.
While there may be some withdrawals, and some candidates may have been attracted by the novelty, and there may be differences due to open seats, overall at this point there are more candidates and greater voter choice than in 2006.
I was only counting the Democratic and Republican filings, as I explained. It wouldn’t be meaningful to count the minor party and independent candidate filings in 2008, since that type of candidate didn’t run in the 2006 primary.
YOUR CLAIM WAS THAT IN 2008 THAT THERE WERE 207 DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN LEGISLATIVE CANDIDATES. YOU CLAIMED THAT YOU COUNTED ALL THE VARIANTS OF THE NAMES. IN FACT THERE ARE 261 DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN LEGISLATIVE CANDIDATES, USING VARIANTS OF NAMES.
Specifically:
121 (Prefers Democratic Party)
7 (Prefers Democrat Party)
1 (Prefers D Party)
1 (Prefers True Democratic Party)
1 (Prefers Progressive Dem. Party)
131 Total Democratic
102 (Prefers Republican Party)
18 (Prefers G.O.P. Party)
4 (Prefers G O P Party)
2 (Prefers R Party)
2 (Prefers Cut Taxes G.O.P. Party)
1 (Prefers Grand Old Party)
1 (Prefers No Gas Taxes (R) Party)
130 Total Republican
There are 207 Democratic and Republican candidates for the House this year. But there an additional 54 Democratic and Republican candidates for the Senate.
In 2006, the 234 legislative candidates were divided 188 for the House and 46 for the Senate.
2006: 234 total, 188 House, 46 Senate
2008: 261 total, 207 House, 54 Senate
There are two additional Senate races in 2008. But since all but one are in different LD’s, they are less comparable. In addition, there is a significant regional bias in the distribution of the senate races. Of 27 LD’s where at least a portion of the district is in Snohomish, King, or Pierce counties, only 11 (41%) have a senate election. Of 22 other LD’s, 15 (68%) have a senate election.
I disagree with your exclusion of other (non-Democratic-Republicans) candidates. In 2006 such candidates were almost completely shut out of the process, with only a single 3rd party candidate that voters could vote for. In addition, there are 5 primaries in 2008 involving one Democratic, one Republican, and one other candidate. Under a Pick a Party system, there would have not have been a meaningful primary, and it is quite unlikely that there would have been a 3rd choice in November.
You have also classified the 3 primaries where there were a pair of Democrats or a pair of Republicans as being utterly meaningless. But in fact, these 3 elections have been transformed into races where all voters of the district elect their representatives. Under a Pick a Party system, there was a possibility of a perverse outcome in the primary, because of selective cross-over participation, and the general election would have been utterly meaningless.
And while it is true that 72% of primaries in 2008 will likely have no effect on the outcome (though there are the possibility of write-in candidates, plus momentum effects and perception of candidates), the equivalent percentage in 2006 was 82%. Moreover, in every single race in 2006 there was only a contested primary for one party. This meant that the primary was subject to selective cross-over voting, where a voter may have picked their party based solely on the ability to have a choice, or to influence the choice of who was elected.
Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as the “True Democratic Party”, or the “Progressive Dem. Party”, or the “Cut Taxes G.O.P. Party”, or the “No Gas Taxes (R) Party”. I would like my party to be called by its proper name. If I were a Republican, I would not like my party being called the “No Gas Taxes (R) Party” on a state-funded ballot.
Re: #10
Richard Winger and I have agreed to a convention that such candidates would be counted as Republican or Democrats. Even if your definition were used, there are 223 candidates who designated their preference as “Democratic” or “Republican” on their filing, not 207 as Richard contends.
Note that heretofore, candidates have been called “D” or “R” or “DEM” or “REP” on the state-funded ballot. The Grange initiative specified that the Secretary of State could provide suitable abbreviations for a candidate’s preference (which replaced similar language with regard to the party a candidate was the nominee of, or seeking the nomination of).
That almost cost the State of Washington in the litigation since voters may not be able to discern the difference between “R” meaning “is the nominee of the Republican Party” and “R” meaning “the candidate prefers the Republican Party.”
The current format more clearly demonstrates that it is an expression of personal preferance by the candidate rather than an official government or party designation.