The Washington Secretary of State’s bill to fix certain problems with “top-two” failed to make enough progress in the State Senate, and it is now too late for the bill, SB 5681, to pass. The bill tried to set a limit on the party names that candidates may “prefer” (such party preferences are printed on primary and general election ballots). The bill said the party had to either be a qualified political party (one which met the vote test in the last election), or a group that submitted 100 signatures that election year. Under existing law, a candidate can “prefer” any group that pops into his or her head, which is why one candidate last year said he preferred the Salmon Yoga Party, and many candidates prefered the “GOP Party”.
Also, the bill changed the vote test from 5% for any statewide nominee, to 1% for president. Since parties no longer have nominees (except for president), and since the existing vote test applies in every even-numbered year, this means that the Republicans and Democrats will also fail to be qualified parties after the November 2010 election, since none of their nominees will have polled 5% in November 2010, since they won’t have any nominees in November 2010. However, a similar bill will probably pass in 2010. Thanks to Linde Knighton for the news.
Your use of “qualified political party” is misleading.
NO party would be qualified to nominate a candidate for any office other than President or Vice President. Except as related to presidential elections, the only difference between major and minor parties is that major parties would elect their precinct officers at the time of the general election.
Yes,
The “Grand Old Party” Party.
How would the major parties prevent non-members from voting in their elections for precinct officers?
How about having NONPARTISAN candidates for Prez in WA State — to be determined in the top 2 primary ???
Why should the EVIL party hacks in elitist party hack caucuses, primaries and conventions determine who are Prez candidates ???
#3
(1) The same way they do now.
(2) Add it in on their lawsuit; and have Washington sign on to a consent decree letting the parties organize however they want to.
OR
(3) Require that officers of any parties, including those of minor parties be chosen at conventions. This could also resolve conflicts over control of minor parties that have to requalify every 2 years.
Nonpartisan ballot listings are a must. Otherwise, it’s just an attempt to keep 3rd parties from throwing an election. The state should let a candidate skip the runoff if s/he wins an absolute majority in the primary- the idea of a top-2 primary is to require a majority to win, rather than a plurality.
#6 Washington allows write-in candidates in both the primary and the general election.
Nebraska uses non-partisan Top 2 elections for their legislature, and candidates with a majority in the primary do not always win in the general election.
The idea of a Top-2 primary is to winnow the number of candidates.
Louisiana uses the “top two”– popularly called the “open primary”– for its state and local elections. Write-ins are not permitted, and when one candidate gets 50%-plus in the first round, there is no runoff.
Washington state definitely “winnows the field”– as far as it can possibly be winnowed (write-ins, of course, almost never get elected).
#8 In 1994, Linda Smith was elected to Congress from Washington after successfully campaigning as a write-in candidate in the Republican (blanket) primary receive about 29% of the total ballots cast. I believe one of the declared Republican candidates had withdrawn informally but remained on the ballot.
In Washington, a declared write-in candidate may express a party preference, which will be shown on the general election ballot if they finish among the Top 2.
One of the changes in SB 5681 would increase the threshold for qualification for the Top 2, from 1% to 2%. There were several races where there was only a single candidate in the race where casual write-ins (no formal declaration) were more than 1% of the vote, and probably should have been examined to determine if any single person had received enough votes to advance to the general election ballot.
In oral arguments in Foster v. Love the lawyer for Love indicated that he would have been satisfied with being able to cast a write-in ballot on election day.
I said “almost never.”
I remember Linda Smith well. I wish she had stayed in the House instead of taking on Sen. Patty Murray in ’98.
In most cases, if a candidate has a credible chance of winning, they will be on the ballot in the first place. It may take special circumstances, such as a ballot candidate dropping out or being ensnared in a scandal, a well informed electorate, and relative ease to cast a write-in ballot.
It’s a lot easier to cast a write-in vote on a paper ballot. And if they are mail-in, then voters may take more time to fill in their ballot.
The 1994 House election would have been 2nd on the ballot after the US Senate race, and Smith had a very strong effort in Clark County (Vancouver) where there is only a single congressional district. You get into a large metropolitan area, and voters are not going to know who their congressman is, or that there is an organized write-in. For a local race, you would probably have to be in a small county, where people might have an awareness of a particular officeholder.