Washington state held a “top-two” primary on August 19, at which all voters received the same ballots. Each ballot listed all candidates, with party labels worded “Prefers (such-and-such) Party.”
The Constitution Party candidates for Secretary of State, and for Auditor, each polled over 6%. If this had been the November general election, such showings would have entitled the Constitution Party to become a qualified party, since the law defines “party” to be a group that polled 5% for any statewide race. However, it doesn’t count, since this was just a primary. Furthermore, despite their good showings, the Constitution Party candidates won’t have their names printed on the November ballot, since they didn’t place first or second.
For Secretary of State, Constitution Party member Marilyn Montgomery polled 88,728 votes, or 6.46%. For Auditor, Constitution Party member Glenn Freeman polled 94,148 votes, or 6.89%.
So, Richard, this apparently means that no party can become a qualified party in Washington State unless they are in the top two for a statewide race in a primary election, since after that, with only two on the ballot, getting 5% in a statewide race would be easy.
Washington State has become a two-candidate Communist Party State.
Which means that the voters in Washington State will have fewer choices in their elections than the people often did in the old USSR.
Except that in a presidential race, a minor party would expect to be on in November. “Top-two” doesn’t apply to presidential elections. So a minor party can still hope to meet the definition, if it can get 5% for president in November. The last time a minor party polled 5% for president in Washington state was 1996, when the Reform Party did it.
“Top-two” applies to EVERY WA election except Pres?
Yup.
As a Washingtonian, I can honestly say that it sucks. Badly.
The objective of the Top 2 Primary System is to destroy traditional political parties. It would be clearer if they had a non-partisan general election and required a runoff between the top two candidates (if no candidate received a majority of the votes). I think it is a decent system for local races, particularly in areas that are heavily dominated by a single party.
100 Years ago non-partisan races were a great reform idea, with the technological ability to rapidly tabulate preferential voting and complex proportional systems (proportional is easy when people vote for the party, complex when they vote for candidates and can split tickets or withhold support from some of their party’s candidates.)
Anyone who thinks that non-partisan races aren’t partisan clearly has never worked on or around one.
So essentially only the Presidential race counts for making a party qualified?
It seems to me that WA should change its rules so that the top-two primary allows parties to become qualified, because other than that issue, a top-two primary is not a bad idea.
The concept of a major or minor party is pretty meaningless in Washington. Quite likely, Sam Reed will present legislation that will clean up the remaining distinction.
“Sam Reed will present legislation that will clean up the remaining distinction.”
Hah! Reed is all abt excluding the non-majors. The top two system would be so exclusionary if we had registration by party as an option.
Hopefully the CP will be on the ball and use this info in a lawsuit against the state system.
# Mike Gillis Says:
As a Washingtonian, I can honestly say that it sucks. Badly.>>
Yup. Badly – Rachel
<>
No – any statewide general election race counts for major party status.
And guy – we would SOOOO like to change our rules. We are about 8 years into the mess . . . and it’s not done. http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/pdf/2006/History_of_Washington_State_Primary_Systems.pdf Lawsuits are ongoing – this November will be the first time that people actually see the results of this mess.
There will be no choice. Many districts will have 2 Dems or 2 Reps. One district in Seattle will have 1 Dem and 1 Lib (Ruth Bennett), but that district is so blue that no one even bothers to run. It’s a Dem district, no matter what.
# Jim Riley Says:
<>
Not true. Minor party = petitions for Presidential nomination. Where were you when I was begging for petitioners?
# Deran Says:
<>
If the CP is actually planning to do something, they should be in contact with us.
Sorry about the badly wrong attempt to quote . . .
I’m Rachel – Libertarian Party. LPWA.com1@gmail.com if anyone wants to know.
re #10
I did not say that the distinction between major and minor parties was totally meaningless, but rather that it was pretty meaningless.
The actual definition in law provides that a party that receives between 5% and 10% of the vote in an election for a statewide office may forgo major party status. If I am not mistaken, this was added because the Libertarian Party did not actually want to be a “major” party.
The main distinction for major parties are(was) (1) selection of nominees in a primary; (2) holding of a presidential preference primary; and (3) electing precinct committee officers at the primary.
(1) This distinction no longer exists, since no party nominates candidates.
(2) The Democratic Party ignores the results of the presidential preference primary; and it is contrary to Washington practice to have to declare your politicial faith in order to vote, and the procedure that the state has adopted is messy and disliked by voters.
So instead make the presidential primary totally open. Candidates file as individuals and may indicate a party preference. Filing fee is $1 per 1000 votes cast in preceding presidential election (or petition with that many signatures). Fee is refunded if candidate receives 1% of vote in primary.
Any candidate who gets 1% of the vote goes on the November ballot. They may then designate their electors and vice presidential candidate. Any candidate, successful or not, may transfer their votes to another candidate which may have the effect of qualifying that candidate. If the candidate had received 1% of the vote, this would be a withdrawal of their own candidacy.
(3) Election of PCO at the primary. It really didn’t make sense under the blanket primary, and even less so under Top 2 to be voting on PCOs at the primary. And there is no real state purpose in dictating party organization at such a low level.
So instead, require a party that wishes to be recognized to hold conventions. This could include state and county conventions, with an option for LD-county conventions and/or local conventions, where a local convention would consist of one or more election precincts.
If 1/10 of 1% of the turnout at the previous presidential election participates in the conventions, the party is recognized for the next 4 years. Also permit voters to enroll in a party by mail.
If a district is so one-party dominated that both candidates are from the same party, then under Pick a Party –
The representative of the People would be chosen by the most partisan voters and people willing to game the system by selecting a primary based on being allowed to vote.
Now everyone can at least vote for which candidate of the dominant party represents them.
If the current statutes remain unchanged after this year’s election, will the state be forced to conduct separate elections for precinct committee officers for the Republican Party and the G.O.P. Party?
Re #14. The 5% standard for being designated a “major political party” only applies to nominees of a party. Dino Rossi was not nominated by a political party (at least in any sense recognized by Washington law).