On March 18, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Washington state Top-Two Initiative passed by the voters of Washington state in 2004. The vote was 7-2. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the decision. Justices Antonin and Anthony Kennedy dissented. The Court said nothing about the points raised by the Washington Libertarian Party, which were that this type of primary in effect provides a November ballot with only Democrats and Republicans on the ballot, except that footnote eleven says the Court did not consider the Libertarian arguments because the lower courts had not ruled on them either (the lower courts didn’t rule on them either because the lower courts were invalidating the law for other reasons, so they said it wasn’t necessary to consider the Libertarian points).
The majority decision says parties are free to file a new as-applied challenge after the system has been used once. UPDATE: here is a link to the opinion.
Bummer! I hope this does not become the model for all states. If it does there will be no more alternative candidates.
Did the Supreme Court just mandate a two-party system?
Looking at it from a different perspective, i.e. 103 of the 203 Pennsylvania Representative in the State Assembly seats will only have one major party candidate on the General Election ballot this year, can this decision get independent/minor party candidates on the primary ballot as an “At Least Two” Primary? Or is Pennsylvania the only “one-party-with-two-names” state?
One of the best days for REAL Democracy ever.
Democracy NOW.
Proportional Representation for all legislative body elections.
Total Votes / Total Seats = EQUAL votes needed for each seat winner.
NONPARTISAN elections for all elected executive offices and all judges using Approval Voting – vote for 1 or more, highest win.
NO MORON primaries are needed.
Abolish all monarchial vetoes — to END monarch-tyrant Presidents, Governors, Mayors, etc.
Scalia’s dissent is interesting and funny:
It is no mystery what is going on here. There is no state
interest behind this law except the Washington Legisla-
ture’s dislike for bright-colors partisanship, and its desire
to blunt the ability of political parties with noncentrist
views to endorse and advocate their own candidates.
and
If we must speak in terms of soup, Washington’s law is like a law that encourages Oscar the Grouch (Sesame Street’s famed bad-taste resident of a garbage can) to state a “preference†for Campbell’s at every point of sale, while barring the soup
company from disavowing his endorsement, or indeed
using its name at all, in those same crucial locations.
I live in WA, this does suck.
This is interesting. We shall see how this plays out.
The facial stuff in the opinion is more MORON judicial idiocy.
The New Age Supreme MORONS fail to note the facial secession stuff in 1860-1861.
Sorry — NO time back then for any *as applied* test case in the Supremes.
Result – about 620,000 dead Americans in 1861-1865.
Fucking bullshit. Bullshit.
This effectively kills third parties in my state.
Well, another ruling devoid of logic. Basically the Court just said political parties can be denied their nominee on the general election ballot, which denies them their First Amendment Free Association Rights as decided under Tashjian to determine their own candidates and nominees. They just moved it out of the parties and into the general uninformed public, and that’s just wrong.
Anybody got a link to the ruling?
This was attempted in California a few years ago but fortunately it did not pass.
Could minor parties and independents do petitions for ballot access after the primaries are over in order to ensure that they are on the November ballot?
As a Washington resident, I suppose I won’t be voting any more in the general election since only major party candidates will be on the ballot in most cases. The irony is that the major parties don’t like this system – the people supported and voted for it. I don’t think they will like what they will get, or maybe that’s wishful thinking.
The Libertarian brief really didn’t raise any unique points of particular significance.
Candidates who prefer the Libertarian party will have the same opportunity as candidates who prefer the Democratic or Republican parties to advance to the November ballot.
With regard to the timing of congressional elections, ‘Foster v. Love’ was decided against Louisiana because in 80% of congressional races, Louisiana held _no_ election in November. The problem wasn’t that Louisiana was holding its runoff on the day designated by Congresss – but that they were not holding an election at all in 4 of 5 cases.
2 USC 8 provides for the case when an election held on the date set by 2 USC 7 fails to determine a winner. Washington will decide which of two candidates is elected on the 1st Tuesday after the 1st Monday in November.
It is beyond silly to argue that the Top 2 primary introduces a new qualification to become a representative. James Madison was arguing about having a property requirement for election to Congress, that would reduce the “number” of persons capable of being elected. They might as well argue that any election process is ultimately flawed since only “one” person proves capable of being elected.
In ‘US Term Limits v. Thornton’, Arkansas had attempted to impose a term-limit qualification via the back door of requiring long-serving representatives to run as write-in candidates. It wasn’t about ballot access, but rather an attempt to use ballot access to impose a qualification.
But in Washington, all candidates run on the same primary ballot. In fact, it could be argued that conventional electoral systems introduce a qualification of support from pre-defined subgroups of the electorate, rather than election by the whole electorate as contemplated under Article II and the 17th Amendment.
I don’t see how Washington will run afoul of ‘Burdick v Takashi’ as long as there is some provision for write-in votes in the primary. Either write-in candidates can pre-file with their preferred party preference; or if they finish in the top 2, they can declare their party preference for the general election. I think some States do something similar for write-in candidates for President, either having them file an elector slate, or providing an elector slate in the case that they receive a popular vote majority.
Washington like Hawaii, has a relatively late primary that it is reasonably proximate to the general election. ‘Burdick v. Takashi’ wasn’t about a lot of different ways to get on the ballot, but whether there were adequate routes for those who didn’t want to run as a partisan, or even decide to run until relatively late in the election cycle.
Most of the rest of the Libertarian brief is predicated on a belief that there _must_ be reasonable opportunity for a plethora of factions, candidates, and parties to gain access to what they refer to as the “November general election ballot”. What the Washington state system in fact does do is to provide a reasonable opportunity for a plethora of factions, candidates, and parties to put forward their ideas and candidacies to the _whole_ electorate who identify two persons that should receive further consideration by the _whole_ electorate. It matters nothing that this
happens in September rather than November.
That the Libertarians have been fighting so long to open up systems designed to limit elections to 1 or 2 parties, they are seeking simply to be Yet Another Political Party trying to convert a monopoly or duopoly into a triopoly.
Michael Seebeck:
What is the difference between the “electorate” (ie US citizens 18 or older, without regard to race, sex, payment of a poll tax, literacy, or any other qualification except conviction of a felony, treason, or severe mental impairment) and “general uninformed public”?
I think this is a good day for democracy. I think this will be good for independent candidates, and contrary to many people’s opinion a good day for minor parties. the minor parties are at a super disadvantage under the current primary system because they are not included (really when was the last heated green party primary battle). Now everyone is in the primary process (its one big ballot). The minor party/independent has just as good a chance of landing in the top two of blanket primary as winning a general election under normal system.
Do I understand correctly that there is a runoff (“general election”) EVEN when a candidate in the first round receives a majority?
If so, that just seems wrong. It’s like double jeopardy for a winning candidate.
They should just remove the partisan labels and call it what it really is, an ELECTION with a run-off.
No doubt, the Democratic/GOP party machines in other states will now try implementing this anti-democratic law as well. It is the perfect law for deeply entrenched political machines.
There now will be MAJOR struggles for power in any current de facto 1 party gerrymander areas — i.e. urban Donkey and rural Elephant areas.
I.E. — a chance for RATIONAL candidates versus the nonstop extremist communist Donkey and fascist Elephant candidates in such gerrymander districts.
Next steps — legislative P.R. and executive / judicial Approval Voting.
Abolish primaries.
Link –
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07slipopinion.html
WA case NOT yet listed.
Well, I’m scratching my head on this one, because Washington is a unique state with highly contrasting voting demographics.
This article offers an interesting reflection on the potential ramifications:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_scotus_primary_lawsuit_optional.html
The cases are 06-713, Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, and 06-730, Washington et al. v. Washington State Republican Party.
http://www.theolympian.com/breakingnews/story/392255.html
After Supreme Court ruling, Top 2 primary OK’d for August
The top 2 stuff ranks up there with the 15th and 19th Amendments in helping END the rule of EVIL monarchs / oligarchs.
Will the gerrymander MONSTERS strike back ??? See the Star Wars movies.
To Andy, The Washington law does not provide for political parties. It provides for individual candidates to file for office, and on that filing to indicate a preference for a political party, or independent status. That preference or independent status will be shown on the ballot. If two independent candidates receive the most votes in the primary, they will be on the general election ballot.
To Arthur DiBianca, if a candidate gets a majority, there is still a general election between the top 2 (unless the 2nd placed candidate receives less than 1% of the vote). The primary election does determine ballot order. There may be more voters in the general election or the voters may be more focused on the merits of the two candidates, so I don’t really think it constitutes double jeopardy. If one candidate has an overwhelming majority, there is little harm in a do-over.
The system has been used in Nebraska for legislative elections for decades, albeit with no party labels. In 2006, 24 senators elected. One was unopposed. There were 7 two-way primaries that were repeated in the general election, all with the same winner, though one closed from a 53.2% majority to a 50.07% majority,
There were two multi-candidate races where a candidate had an overwhelming majority, and repeated that in the general election.
There were 6 multi-way races where there were two dominant, but non-majority candidates. The primary leader won 4 of these, and the primary runnerup won 2.
There were 5 multi-way races where there were more than 2 dominant candidates (in 2, the top 2 together didn’t even have a majority). Two were won by the primary winner, 3 by the primary runnerup.
There were 3 3-way races where the winner had a narrow majority. In two of these, the primary winner went on to win in the general.
In one, the primary runnerup won. This might be the type of election that could be considered “double jeopardy”. But on the other hand, the primary had been a 50.1% to 43.3% win, while the general was a thumping 59.0% to 41.0% reversal.
Not only does this kill third parties as Mike Gillis pointed out, it can hurt second parties. In strongly Democratic or Republican districts, there could easily be two Democrats or two Republicans on the November ballot.
In other districts, there could be two Republicans on the November ballot if there are two strong Republican candidates in the “primary” and the Democratic field is more divided, or if Republican turnout in the “primary” is heavier.
This really appears to be a helpful decision for independent non-affiliated voters.
billvanallen
Maybe some people will list their party preference as “Republican Democrat” or “Democratic Republican.” The sky is the limit on choice of a label. There will be a lot of creativity.
The Libertarian argument only pertains to congressional elections. A federal law says they are in November. Limiting access to “the” federal congressional ballot to only candidates who got, on the average, 30%, in the first round, may still be vulnerable to challenge.
How does this help independent voters if they can’t vote for independent candidates in the general election?
Those who say that independent and third party candidates have the same opportunity in the primary as candidates of the old parties neglect that primary elections are much different than general elections. The election where the actual decision is made, the general election, will always get the bulk of the attention. Alternative parties will not prosper if they can only access the primary ballot.
Nor will the old party that cannot get on the general election ballot. This system will create one-party fiefdoms in our politically-segregated living patterns. The Democrats will dominate Seattle and other parts of western Washington, and the Repblicans will wither there. The same will happen for Republicans in the east.
The red-blue partisan dynamic will thus be strengthened as parties dominate or disintegrate in various counties. One party rule is not good for anybody. I predict that the voters will see that this system is not doing what they wanted and will repeal it in 10 years.
If you want to break the power of the major parties, you need more parties, as almost every other democracy in the world has, or you need a true non-partisan system. Top Two only increases party monopoly further.
The Libertarian argument regarding November congressional elections was based on ‘Foster v. Love’. In Louisiana, NO election was being held in about 80% of congressional races. Since Louisiana didn’t hold many other elections in even years (it holds statewide and legislative races in odd years), the polling places might not have even been open. Louisiana law literally says that a candidate is elected if they receive a majority in the 1st election.
So far, the Supreme Court has not taken up a case based on the “election” where there is only one candidate on the ballot, or where the election is in effect between one candidate, and the winner was effectively decided months before.
But if they ever do, it will be a lot of other states that will be in trouble before Washington.
I-872 info —
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/guide/explanatory.aspx?n=872&c=1
——
http://www.i872.org/blanket_primary.php
Full legal text via link at bottom left.
——–
http://www.i872.org/faq.php
FAQ
Long live REAL Democracy — NOT the nonstop EVIL minority rule in the U.S.A. since 4 July 1776 due to gerrymanders and plurality nominations / elections of left / right extremists.
Dean,
It helps independent voters, since it lets them participate in the elections where the candidates are chosen.
Years ago when candidates in the South were for all practical purposes chosen in the Democrat primary, voting in the primary was several times higher than the general election, even when there was a presidential race.
Your concerns are akin to saying that if a football player goes out for the basketball team, his cleats will ruin the court, he will run with the ball and tackle the opponents, and the coach will look on with chagrin as he celebrates his “touchdown” as he runs off the end of the court.
Candidates, parties, the press and voters will adapt. Alternative parties do not prosper simply because their name appears on the general election ballot, especially when there best showing is when there is only one major party candidate.
Single parties already dominate parts of Washington. In 2006, 1/3 of state house races had only one candidate. In another 1/3 the winner had 60%+ of the vote. If there were not 2 representatives per district it might have been worse.
Does it really matter if a Republican runs in 7th place in the primary and is eliminated, or if he is the unanimous choice of his party, and then receives 13% of the vote in November?
“What is the difference between the “electorate†(ie US citizens 18 or older, without regard to race, sex, payment of a poll tax, literacy, or any other qualification except conviction of a felony, treason, or severe mental impairment) and “general uninformed publicâ€?”
Mainly how you spell it. Most voters are generally ignorant and stupid, which is why we get the mess we have. They can be 18 or older, any race, gender, poll-tax-free, literate, non-felon, and mentally competent. But most have no freaking clue about their represenatatives, what they stand for, what they’re done, who funds them and the agendas behind that funding–IOW, when it comes to a repsonsible vote on elected officals, they aren’t fulfilling that responsbility. A lot of voters, roughly 60%, do what I call zombie-voting, meaning they see the party label and vote that whether the name attached to it is Bambi or Hitler. Of the other 40%, 35% of them still have no clue and vote on emotion devoid of much logic, and the other 5% are the informed electorate, and they tend to vote rationally.
Sorry, but IMNSHO, if a voter doesn’t know who or what they are voting on, they shouldn’t vote.
To comment on the reference above to the Thorton case, in that one SCOTUS held explicitly that teh requirements for election to Congress are enumerated and limited to those in the Constitution, and that states may not impose other qualifications. That included term limits, district residencies (although few if any state SoS actually follow that!), and could easily be applied here to this case since it denies candidates a legitimate party spot on the general election ballot. The primary has always been a party runoff, not a general election runoff, nor should it be changed into a general election runoff. Sorry, the only way this benefits third parties is if they abandon the primary system altoghether, select their candidates at convention, then sue to get on because they don;t use the primary system. Such an effort would not be cost-effective or likely successful, even with the law on their side.
If I’m correct in understanding that every candidate will run in the same primary with the top two squaring off in the general election, than I really can’t see how this hurts the smaller parties. In the general election with two major party candidates, the third parties normally get a minuscule amount of the vote anyway. All your really doing is having the actual election moved up to the primary day, with the confirmation of that election now happening in the general election. In fact, the smaller parties may even get a bigger share of the vote (not much bigger, but still bigger) since the number of major party supporters in a primary is usually less than what it is in a general election. The third party supporters, however, usually are very dedicated and go out to vote for their candidate in any election. Therefore, their participation percentage of the overall vote in the primary should be higher than what it would be in a normal general election. And in the end, can’t you still do a write in vote?
We know top-two hurts minor parties because of the Louisiana experience. Louisiana used it 1975 to the present for state office, and no minor party candidate ever placed first or second (unless there were only two candidates in the race).
The blanket primary data from Washington and California also show this. Even Audie Bock, Green who was actually elected to the Calif. legislature in 1999, could not have won under top-two. She came in a distant 3rd in the first round. Under California rules at the time, she still got into the run-off which she won.
On the other hand, Louisiana elected two independents to its legislature last fall.
The election of Audie Bock in 1999 was a fluke – and it is pretty pathetic testimony to the efficacy of an election system if two candidates are able to command a combined 85% of the vote and neither is elected.
And you don’t know that she would have come in a distant 3rd had the election been a Top 2 election. Persons who favored her election may have crossed over to vote in the Democratic primary. Remember that the strongest evidence against the blanket primary in ‘Jones’ was in the Assembly race in a district where the Republican and Democratic nominees were unopposed, while there was a contest for the Libertarian nomination that drew more votes in the primary than the eventual nominee received in the general election.
Since it was a special election, there was little point to voting simply to support Bock’s unopposed nomination. And if you did show up, and you had a choice between voting in the 3-way Democratic primary, or the 1-way Green primary, which are you going to do?
Michael Seebeck,
Under a conventional electoral system, a representative or senator has to first either win a primary for his party’s nomination; petition as an independent (often foregoing the support of party members); or win as a write-in.
Remember that in ‘US Term Limits’, Arkansas did not absolutely forbid term-limited representatives from running for re-election, they simply required them to run as write-in candidates. But it is so difficult to win as write-in, that the SCOTUS ruled that Arkansas was effectively introducing an additional qualification.
Now consider the qualifications for being a US representative (US Constitution Article I, Section II and 14th Amendment, Section 3):
I. Chosen by the people …;
II. 25+ YO;
III. 7+ years a citizen;
IV. Inhabitant of state at time of election;
V. Participating in insurrection or rebellion …
Obviously number I is the most important.
So under ‘US Term Limits’, why isn’t first requiring a representative to win the nomination of a party in a primary, or to petition by non-party members an additional qualification?
It certainly seems like a greater qualification than first having the whole People choose two persons, and then choosing among those two.
Steve Z,
It could help 3rd party candidates who are viewed as spoilers or a wasted vote in the general election. It might also increase participation by voters who consider themselves as independents. Even if they are permitted to vote in one or the other partisan primary, they might stay home out of some sense of preserving their neutrality or a role as arbiter between the nominations made by the two parties.
I suspect, especially given the Chief Justice’s concurring opinion, that the Washington state system will be challenged after it has been used once, and it will be ruled that the parties have the right to control use of their name.
But that could simply lead to a system where a party must give permission for a candidate to express a “preference” for a party. It would be up to each party whether the right to indicate preference were given to a formal nominee or simply to all candidates who were considered to be acceptable to the party.
Most parties will reactively restrict permission to a single “nominee”, and will use some closed internal nomination process (they certainly won’t try to have any type of primary). They may try to prevent those who seek their nomination but are rejected, from seeking election as an independent. But that won’t survive a 1st Amendment challenge since the “nominations” would be totally private matters.
The major party candidates would become more orthodox, but have less popular support, which would provide more opportunities for independents. It may even happen in some cases where a party incumbent is de-selected. Under a party primary system, he probably could win re-nomination. Under a party insider system, he can run as an independent and appeal directly to the voters.
My computer went out Monday PM, and I’m just now learning of the “top two” ruling. I’ve followed the controversy surrounding Washington state’s election system since 2001. And most of my relatives live in Louisiana, the only other state with a “top two” system.
This ruling confirms what I’ve said all along about the “top two,” although my confidence was a bit shaken by the Supreme Court’s oral argument. This ruling illustrates once again the impossibility of predicting what SCOTUS will rule based on what transpires at oral argument.
My personal view is that the “top two” is fine for local and judicial elections, but it’s a TERRIBLE idea for state and congressional elections. (BTW: I’m not clear on whether Washington intends to list its congressional candidates on its August 2008 “top two” ballot; if it does, it will run afoul of Foster v. Love.) Nevertheless, I’ve said all along that the “top two” is constitutional.
The “top two” takes away the parties’ ability to perform their basic function of officially nominating candidates. Furthermore, the national parties get involved in state and congressional races, and there have been instances in Louisiana of the national party and the state party backing opposing candidates in the SAME ELECTION. That ain’t the way it’s supposed to work!!
Prior the the U. S. district judge’s ruling in 2005, the Democrats and Republicans in Washington state had begun a caucus/convention process to ENDORSE candidates. They’ll presumably resort to that process now that party primaries are being eliminated. It’ll be interesting to see whether the Dems and Republicans require candidates seeking their endorsement to pledge not to run in the election if they fail to win the endorsement.
You can put forth your grandiose theories about how the “top two” will “help” independent and small-party candidates. But the fact is that the “top two” makes it nearly impossible for small-party and independent candidates to get elected.
If a small party is unable to present its message in the final, deciding election, the party loses its main reason for existing.
When the final choice is between two candidates from the same party, not only is that party split, but the other parties’ faithful voters are effectively disenfranchised.
Why should the voters be limited to two choices in the final, deciding election? In a partisan system, each qualified party has the right to nominate one candidate per office on the general election ballot. And there is no limit on the number of independents who can run. In my state of Mississippi, e.g., we had FIVE candidates for governor in the November 2003 general election.
I predict that the “top two” initiative will have a tough time getting passed in Oregon, since the two major parties are stronger there than in Washington state.
I’ll be interested to read Scalia’s opinion in the Washington state case. It’s interesting that he dissented, given what he wrote about the “top two” (“nonpartisan blanket primary”) in California Democratic Party v. Jones.
Nominations for PUBLIC offices is PUBLIC business by ALL Electors — NOT just party hack extremist Electors in party hack caucuses, primaries and conventions.
The quicker that ALL caucuses, primaries and conventions are sent to the political history junkyard the better (along with monarchy, oligarchy, slavery, etc.).
ONLY O-N-E general election is needed.
Legislative – 100 percent proportional representation (with vote transfers).
Executive-Judicial – Approval Voting — vote for 1 or more, highest win.
Long Live REAL Democracy — to END the EVIL rule by EVIL monarchs / oligarchs for the last 6,000 plus years.
Demo Rep: The “top two” eliminates all methods of state-mandated nomination, including the party primary, which is the most democratic means of nomination.
Political parties, however, still have the First Amendment right to ENDORSE candidates. (In fact, in the “top two,” a party could conduct a primary, but the party would have to finance it. And other candidate(s) from the same party would be able to run in the ensuing election.)
Do you want to send the First Amendment to the “political history junkyard”?
Click here for an essay that was written during the 2004 “top two” initiative campaigns in California and Washington state.
To Mr. Rankin
I-872 (part 9) makes mention of filing fees or nominating petitions for getting on the top 2 primary ballots.
Looks democratic to me.
Democracy and even the First Amendment will survive very nicely by NOT having extremist party hacks of both major and minor parties choose the candidates who get on general election ballots BUT having ALL the voters choose the top 2 candidates who do get on the general election ballots.
The party hack leaders of both the major and minor parties can condemn or endorse whomever they want — BUT might even help some candidates to be condemned by party hack leaders (a badge of honor) and hurt some candidates to be endorsed by party hack leaders (a badge of dishonor).
Having the top 2 primary will wipe out the useless party hack regimes even quicker — a process going on since the official primaries started circa 1890 — about 118 years ago.
Any update for I-872 — i.e. which RCW section numbers were given to each part of I-872 ?
Next step — wipe out minority rule gerrymanders (another thing to be sent to the political history junkyard) via proportional representation to get REAL indirect Democracy.
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/
has a press release link about the top 2 primary case.
Why doesn’t Washington, just move from “top two” to non-partisan IRV?
One point that none of you have raised thus far…
In a blanket “top two” primary system, political parties have a vested interest in establishing de facto nominees before the “primary.” That is, the more candidates of a particular party are on the ballot for a slot, the more likely that they will split their party’s vote and thus miss the general election entirely.
In order to avoid this, party leadership will lean heavily on candidates to get them to drop out before the primary vote in favor of one candidate chosen (in a smoky back room, as it were) by the party leadership… with no input from the voters whatever.
“Top Two” works, in the long term, to strip choice from the voter and to encourage corruption among political parties.
Did the WA top 2 primary law come *just in time* to save Western Civilization from a Roman Republic type collapse ?
—-
http://www.sacbee.com/111/v-print/story/796281.html
Dan Walters: Court ruling offers hope to dysfunctional California politics
—-
ALL State legislature regimes and the U.S.A. Congress regime are currently dysfunctional party hack DICTATORSHIPS — a tyrant gang boss in control of each house.
Remedy – Proportional Representation
——-
To Mr. Overstreet 41 — Get real.
The party hack *leaders* (tyrant bosses) have tried to rig closed party hack primaries since 1890 by bribing / threatening certain candidates in *their* parties NOT to run in such party hack closed primaries.
INDEPENDENT V-O-T-E-R-S will now take control in top 2 primaries and hopefully totally blow away the EVIL leftwing / rightwing party hack bosses with their EVIL leftwing / rightwing extremist control freak agendas.
There will be no shortage of *independent* candidates in top 2 primaries having total contempt for the party hack tyrant bosses (and their EVIL backroom secret deals).
Demo Rep says: “I-872 (part 9) makes mention of filing fees or nominating petitions for getting on the top 2 primary ballots.”
“Looks democratic to me.”
The party primary is the most democratic method of nomination.
As the US Supreme Court has said: “Representative democracy… is unimaginable without the ability of citizens to band together in promoting among the electorate candidates who espouse their political views.”
You certainly have the right to be an independent, Demo Rep. But you DON’T have the right to force everyone else to be an independent, which is what the “top two” essentially does. Many people want to be involved in political parties, a basic function of which is nominating candidates. Some people even want to be “party hacks”!!
Have you ever voted in a party primary, Demo Rep? If so, you’re a hypocrite, since you’ve helped an EVIL political party nominate its candidates. Since you hate parties, you should demonstrate your feelings by only voting in the general election.
The “top two” is certainly not a new idea. The voters of California wisely rejected it in 1915 and again in 2004, and North Dakota voters defeated it in 1925. In my state of Mississippi, the legislature passed the “top two” five different times, 1966-1979. Thank God it has never been implemented here!!
Kris makes good points. Another thing is that the “top two” requires a candidate, in order to be elected, to conduct and finance TWO general election compaigns, since ALL voters in the jurisdiction are eligible to vote in both rounds. This discourages candidates from running. Recently in Louisiana, two former governors have “tested the waters” and opted not to run. If LA had had party primaries, they likely WOULD have run, and the voters would have had more choices.
States began requiring parties to hold primaries, Demo Rep, in order to eliminate the boss-controlled nominating conventions and let grassroots voters participate directly in choosing party candidates.
To Mr. Rankin especially
The after 1890 party hack primaries only raised the minority rule math — a plurality of the party hack voters versus the old tyrant party hack bosses before 1890 picking candidates.
Result — the elected leftwing folks and rightwing folks having NO discussions — just robotic party hack votes in legislative bodies — with DICTATOR party hack *leaders* in current legislative bodies.
The top 2 primary will likely have major effects only in gerrymander districts with current party hack winners getting circa 60 percent of more.
——–
There is NO need for ANY party hack caucuses, primaries and conventions.
EQUAL nominating petitions to get directly on the [general] election ballots (to show preliminary Elector – voter support).
100 percent P.R. for legislative body elections.
Total Votes / Total Seats = EQUAL votes needed for each legislative seat winner (using rank order lists and vote transfers). ALL voters get represented.
Approval Voting for executive/judicial offices.
Political Science has advanced way beyond Stone Age gerrymander areas, plurality nominations and plurality elections by party hacks [subgroups of ALL Electors – voters].
Demo Rep says, “There is NO need for ANY party hack caucuses, primaries and conventions.”
The 2 major parties in WA state will conduct a caucus/convention process to endorse candidates– since the “top two” has eliminated party primaries. Thus, far fewer people will get to choose the parties’ candidates. Of course, those EVIL “party hacks” wanted to keep party primaries.
You have some pretty strange ideas. No wonder you don’t have the stones to put your name on your writings.
I am honored by Mr. Rankin.
Sam Adams in 1775 and John Brown in 1859 had strange ideas according to business- as- usual folks (especially the party hacks back then).
Waiting for the August top 2 primary in WA to wipe out the power of the party hacks with INDEPENDENT voters picking the top 2 candidates (regardless of any party hack pre-primary caucuses / conventions)— at least one of which hopefully will NOT be a party hack leftwing / rightwing fanatic in each gerrymander district.
Sorry — a W-A-R for Democracy has been going on for a LONG time — to destroy the EVIL power of EVIL party hacks (arrogant pushy powermad Stone Age monarchs / oligarchs) in ALL governments.
You haven’t said, Demo Rep, whether you’ve ever voted in a party primary. I suspect that you have, which means you’re a hypocrite.
Isn’t it strange that in every single democracy, there are political parties? (Iraq, the size of California, has some 75 parties.)
Maybe you’re happy having only 2 choices per office (other than prez) on the November ballot. Personally, I like the multiple choices afforded by a system in which each party can have a candidate on the general election ballot, and ALL independent candidates are listed on that ballot as well.
The “top two,” of course, makes it nearly impossible for small party candidates and independents to get elected. I’m sure you don’t mind destroying the small parties, Demo Rep, but it’s astonishing that someone who says he’s a proud independent would relish the destruction of independent candidates.
Speaking of the Stone Age: what you’re advocating, Demo Rep, is a no-party system— true antiquity!!
I’m not surprised that a nutjob like John Brown is one of your heroes. It must have been “evil party hacks” who hanged him, so be careful, D-R, or the “hacks” may nail you too.
Darryl W. Perry (#19): They should just remove the partisan labels and call it what it really is, an ELECTION with a run-off.
Ironically, had Washington done this, the law would probably not have wound up in the federal courts at all.
Mr. Rankin 53
Are some folks totally brain dead ???
P.R. for ALL legislative body elections.
Total Votes / Total Seats = EQUAL votes needed for each seat winner.
Some party hacks and some independents may even be elected.
Bob Richard says, “Ironically, had Washington [removed party labels from the ballots], the law would probably not have wound up in the federal courts at all.”
That would not have stopped the political parties from filing suit against the “top two,” since they wanted to maintain party primaries, which limited the general election ballot to one candidate per party.
A party can endorse a candidate in the “top two,” of course but (1) the ballot is not limited to one candidate per party, and (2) a party has no assurance of having its candidate in the final election.
Why should voters be limited to two choices in the final, deciding election?
I favor third parties because I think it takes a party to challenge the two old ones, though at the moment, they aren’t having a lot of success at it. I’d be fine with doing away with primaries and have one election only – if it allows multiple candidates and is decided by IRV.
Allowing only two candidates to move on to the general election provides only the most minimal of choice.
It is true that in one-party locales (I lived in DC once) the primary gets all the interest. But that is no more fair to the supporters of the smaller party in that context. In a real democracy, all voters should have a reasonable chance to vote for a candidate they like in the election that decides the winner. If there are enough voters to support the existence of a party, then they should have a choice in the final election.
so I’m not defending party structures so much as that you should not need to have 30-40% of the electorate to have a choice on the ballot. The vast majority of democracies, 80% I think, have proportional representation, and most have multi-party systems.
Mr. Rankin asks –
Why should voters be limited to two choices in the final, deciding election?
—
Obvious answer — to likely get a majority winner — aka Democracy (if NO write-ins).
Next step for legislative body elections —
Total Votes / Total Seats = EQUAL votes needed for each seat winner.
So you think guaranteeing that the winner gets a majority is more important than giving the voters greater choice?
Do you know, D-R, how many states require a majority to win (1) a party primary, or (2) a general election?
Do you know what percentage of the popular vote Abraham Lincoln got when he was elected president in 1860?
The Top Two system is an end run around 2 Constitutional Amendments foundational to political freedom: the First, “Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” and the Fourteenth, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”
As a citizen I have the right to assemble with others of like mind to make my concerns heard in the government, and joining a political party in order to elect representatives is a valid exercise of that right. A state cannot take that right from me. And yet the Top Two system initiative in WA forbids a party’s members to elect representatives to stand in the election that fills the offices. I do not believe that can be implemented while respecting the Constitution. I do not believe it serves the democratic principle.
I think people are being bamboozled into giving up their freedoms while being distracted from solving the problems they perceive. They see that two parties dominate elections, and feel that their concerns are not adequately addressed by either party. That is reasonable, but to assume that the problem is simply that the major parties are monopolizing the ballot is unreasonable. The proffered solution is tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Our government institutions are structured to entrench the power of a majority party. If the opposition is fractured they have little hope of gaining power. That political reality reduces a third party to spoiler actions. Rigging the ballot against organized parties will not address the problem. Entrenched power can work around such roadblocks, but nascent political movements will be hobbled. This system does not serve the best interests of democratic government.
Mr. Rankin 59 asks –
Do you know, D-R, how many states require a majority to win (1) a party primary, or (2) a general election?
Do you know what percentage of the popular vote Abraham Lincoln got when he was elected president in 1860?
——–
D.R. — Voters will have lots more choices in top 2 primaries — i.e. lots more INDEPENDENT candidates — so sad for party hack extremists.
About 10 southern States have top 2 runoff PRIMARIES now — due to having de facto 1 party regimes from 1860 to circa 1965.
See FEC website for runoff primary dates in 2008.
LA had a Dec 2006 *election* in about 2-3 gerrymander districts for U.S.A. Rep.
NOT sure about other gerrymander State regimes regarding top 2 runoff GENERAL elections.
Once again for any MORONS who are brain dead ignorant — lots and lots of local regimes have top 2N NONPARTISAN primaries and manage to survive (taxing and spending lots of local regime cash — i.e. providing actual goods and services used by lots of People — voters and nonvoters — local police, fire, trash collection, public schools).
Mr. Lincoln got 39.8 percent of the popular vote in 1860.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860
Result – about 620,000 DEAD Americans in 1861-1865 a result of such minority rule election.
Perhaps the Supremes noted such deaths indirectly in writing (to redeem themselves from their infamous Dred Stott opinion in 1857) —
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
Top 2 opinion — Slip opinion page 10.
The flaw in this argument is that, unlike the California primary, the I–872 primary does not, by its terms, choose parties’ nominees. The essence of nomination—the choice of a party representative—does not occur under I–872. The law never refers to the candidates as nominees of any party, nor does it treat them as such. To the contrary, the election regulations specifically provide that the primary “does not serve to determine the nominees of a political party but serves to winnow the number of candidates to a final list of two for the general election.†Wash. Admin. Code §434–262–012. The top two candidates from the primary election proceed to the general election regardless of their party preferences. Whether parties nominate their own candidates outside the state-run primary is simply irrelevant. In fact, parties may now nominate candidates by whatever mechanism they choose because I–872 repealed Washington’s prior regulations governing party nominations. [footnote] 7
———
[footnote] 7 It is true that parties may no longer indicate their nominees on the ballot, but that is unexceptionable: The First Amendment does not give political parties a right to have their nominees designated as such on the ballot. See Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U. S. 351, 362–363 (1997) (“We are unpersuaded, however, by the party’s contention that it has a right to use the ballot itself to send a particularized message, to its candidate and to the voters, about the nature of its support for the candidateâ€). Parties do not gain such a right simply because the State affords candidates the opportunity to indicate their party preference on the ballot. “Ballots serve primarily to elect candidates, not as forums for political expression.†Id., at 363.
****
Very bad luck in footnote 7 for all EVIL extremist poor suffering party hacks from Hell [who have NO constitutional right to pick extremist party hack candidates to get on general election ballots] in getting the Supremes to overrule the WA top 2 primary opinion.
What if the top 2 primary had existed in ALL States in 1860 for U.S.A. President ???
INDEPENDENT candidates AND voters will now show up in much greater numbers in top 2 primaries in WA State — regardless of Mr. Bickford’s 60 fears — and very likely send the party hacks to the political history junkyard.
I see you’ve done some homework, D-R. 11 states have runoff primaries, including Oklahoma, and, for the time being, Kentucky for the office of governor. One of the 11 is Louisiana, which does not have party primaries for state and local offices.
Georgia is the only state that has party primaries AND runoff general elections. Louisiana and now Washington have general elections with runoffs– despite their being called “primaries.”
In a system of party primaries, ALL independents are guaranteed a place on the general election ballot, and that’s the only race they have to run. In the “top two,” in contrast, independents are on the first round ballot with all the other candidates; if lightning strikes and an independent makes the runoff, he then has to conduct a SECOND general election campaign.
Under this circumstance, D-R, it seems to me that FEWER independents will run. In fact, the second round will almost always feature Democrats and/or Republicans. You can forget about indepedents and small party candidates reaching the second round.
I’m afraid you’re going to be terribly disappointed, D-R, in the way that your vaunted “top two” works.
I don’t think he will be disappointed at all in the way the “top two” works. Buried in his language is the clear sense that what he wants to eliminate both from our elections and representation is all “difference,” although he labels “difference” with name calling to present the social good of “encouraging tolerance in a public difference of and discourse of ideas” as an unspeakable evil.
Political evil does not come from systems that encourage acceptance and expression of our differences, but from the success of those who are intolerant of our differences, afraid of different ideas, and fearful of our full expression of differences. Political evil comes first from justifying exclusion, leading to alienation and then to violence as power seeks its perfection even without any resistance. Efforts that direct intolerance to the exclusion of “fringe” ideas in favor of “centrist” comity and ideas are not somehow magically immune to that rule, but are themselves inherently Orwellian, and only become the more so as they begin to succeed.
The “top two” is not the first step we have taken in that direction, but it does move us another step closer to implementing the enforced faux comity in enforced group think that willingly enables itself in the unrestrained exercise of powers when it should not… the more easily for having eliminated any restraint or conscience along with all voice of dissent or resistance.
Democracy requires the opposite, of course, a level of tolerance, and an awareness and acceptance of differences and others ideas. The opposite of tolerance, in which some (parties, people, ideas) are excluded from consideration, from participation, and are prevented from speaking much less from being heard, that is the definition of intolerance. It drives an inevitable result.
With control achieved, intolerance can posture as popular by the combined power of self definition and the power of exclusion, and that level of “comity” being achieved may in fact BE popular as long as and to the degree that most people are misled about how it exists. Still, finding comfort and confidence in the inherent ability of those already in power to suppress and contain dissent when given more… enables only a false breadth and depth of popularity, one that confers no real advantage, while it enables and then requires incompetence. It is pure myth that the optimal government is that which is best able to maintain its popularity, as if all our problems would be solved if only we ensured the government were more popular and faced less dissent?
Difference, when excluded as he advocates in fact, gives the result he claims to fear most… the one centrist aggregate inherently becomes the one party state, a driven self defined “centrist” monstrosity that cannot resist the drift that always leads to ever more egregious political excess, and then violence, either while imposing itself in suppression of still unconvinced minorities as they become more isolated, or, in parodies of the French and Russian revolutions, as factions in the “centrist” monolith develop, it fractures, and then ever more violently moves to execute the most recently excluded political minority.
Make no mistake. The PURPOSE behind “top two” is to knowingly suppress the development of any and all ideological alternatives to the present one party Demopublican governing majority… the one party system of entrenched elected power that cannot be ousted, and that respects no power of law, people, party, ideas, or causes other than access, control, money and perpetual expansion of its own power. That party of entrenched power in Washington State now has the tools to ensure the present corporate-socialist institutional oligarchy continues to dominate our state government by eliminating any ballot access that might result in any alternative winning a single voice, no matter how egregious the excesses.
Norm Dicks sincerely thanks you.
Note, the battle waged here was between the party of entrenched powers and the “hack extremists” who, in both major and all other parties, were and are the only potential sources of any resistance to the self serving entrenched interests who ARE in control. Parties “enforcing ideological orthodoxy” is another way to say… parties vetting candidates to ensure they are honest about the ideas they claim to hold and that they actually intend to present and represent those ideas in office… where that diversity of “extreme” ideas may be the only source of ideas… and our only hope of success or survival. The new result prevents any risk of having to confront dissent, or new ideas, or any risk of having to make real choices.
Particularly here in Washington the result will be to embolden power in its pursuit of self interest in direct opposition to the will of the people, while ensuring that it will do so with renewed intent and purpose to GOVERN us ever more directly by force, rather then with the purpose to help ensure our freedoms and protect our individual rights.
But hey… how ’bout that nice new baseball stadium?
We the people will not benefit from having a government composed by election made, from fewer offered choices, among a “diversity by lack of definition” of more voices that are all “independently the same”. That system will result in decline in the quality of those seeking office… ensuring the other predictions of history will repeat.