Because Washington state uses a top-two system, this year’s Treasurer race happens to have only two Republicans on the November ballot, Duane Davidson and Michael Waite. In the August primary, the three Democrats split up the Democratic vote, so that the two Republicans placed first and second.
Now, a Democrat has entered the race as a declared write-in. He is Eric Miller, and he is actively campaigning. Washington state (unlike California) permits write-in votes in November for top-two offices. However, so far, the media in Washington state has given him little publicity. Washington state doesn’t release write-in results unless the write-in candidate gets at least 1% of the total vote cast in that office.
The stupidity of top two.
I love it when efforts to cheat by the Republicrats come back and bite them on the ass. Sometimes I just LOVE karma!
That is not accurate.
Washington only requires that the total number of write-in votes be reported. The write-in votes are only tabulated for individual candidates if it appears that the total of undervotes, overvotes, and write-in votes could changes the outcome of the result of that stage (i.e. who qualifies for the general election; or is elected in a general election.
See RCW 29A.60.021
What you are thinking of is the provision that requires one percent of the vote to qualify for the general election, even if a candidate is in the top 2. See RCW 29A.36.170
Washington ballots have an oval to be marked if a voter wishes to cast a write-in vote. It is not mandatory to mark the oval, since voter intent might be determined by other markings on the ballot. But at least initially, it can be presumed that a ballot without the write-in oval marked is not a write-in vote.
If an election is close enough that the number of undervotes, overvotes, and write-in votes could change the outcome, then they are examined.
An overvote might be a vote for a candidate and a write-in vote for the same candidate, in which case it is a valid vote.
An undervote might be a write-in vote without the oval filled in.
And a write-in vote might be a write-in vote for an actual person.
Washington does not require write-in declarations. Read RCW 29A.60.021(1) carefully. That provides that a write-in vote for a sore loser does not count. RCW 29A.24.311 prevents a sore loser from filing a declaration for write-in vote.
A declaration of write-in candidacy does provide certain presumptions about a write-in vote. It does not require an indication of what office is being sought by “Miller”. This probably dates to the time when write-in votes were not marked adjacent to the office. For instance, on iron behemoths, there was a paper roll that was separate from the levers; and on punch card ballots, the name was written on the ballot (since you couldn’t write on the template that had names of the other candidates.
Since Washington ballots are scanned paper ballots, it may be clear which office the vote is for. If I write “Winger” next to the Treasurer position, it is at least clear which office is being sought, but it might not be clear which Winger I am voting for.
In a primary, if there is only one candidate on the ballot, a voter might skip that race. This creates the situation where an undeclared candidate “might” have have received 1% of the vote and finished second. Those are the situations where the undervotes have to be scrutinized more carefully. This might not be as expensive as it appears. Presumably scanners capture a full image of the ballot, rather than only analyzing and interpreting the marks. It would trivial to check the write-in space for marks.
What Richard Winger does not recognize is that there was considerable cross-over support for the two Republican candidates. One of the Democrats was a legislator who jumped in at the last minute, and did not appear to have any qualifications to be treasurer, but siphoned off votes from the other Democrats.
Eric Miller appears to be stressing his party hack qualifications. His most relevant qualification appears to be that he used to be an executive for a chain of payday lenders.
If California wanted to permit write-in voting in the general election, it should do the following:
(1) Don’t permit sore losers. The California Constitution says that the Top 2 should advance to the general election. This implies that those not in the Top 2 should not advance. But it is silent on late entrants.
(2) Permit election by plurality if the two advancers from the primary collectively receive 80% of the vote; or if the leader receives at least 40% of the vote and is 5% ahead of the second-place candidate. If neither condition holds, there would be a runoff between the Top 2.
(3) Require a demonstration of a modicum of support for write-in candidates.
(4) Move the primary to September.
(5) Permit election by majority in the primary.
once again liberal bias that does not concern themselves with what is in the best interest of the people in general, but in their own personal interest at the expense of the general public, is what leads to inane comments like “the stupidity of the top 2”??
Democrats have had plenty of opportunity to improve the country and have failed miserably, so why complain when the republicans are trying to make Your life better???
You deserve the corruption the Dems have in store for you!