In the November 2, 2010 election in Washington state, incumbent Democrat Jean Berkey was ousted in the primary, and in November, her seat went to Democrat Nick Harper. Berkey has always been perceived as a centrist Democrat, while Harper was perceived to be a “left” Democrat. This was a surprising outcome. Berkey had been so popular in 2006, no one had run against her, in either the primary or the general election.
Harper’s supporters exploited the Washington state “top-two” system to defeat Berkey. The trial lawyers association, the state labor council, and the Washington State Federation of State Employees, all contributed heavily to the primary campaign of Republican Rod Rieger. These groups did not support Rieger; they were gaming the system, and it worked. The primary results were: incumbent Berkey 6,591 votes; Harper 7,193 votes; Rieger 6,713 votes. Because Berkey did not place first or second, she was eliminated from the general election. At the general election, Harper easily defeated Rieger, 22,089 to 14,892. See this newspaper story for more details.
California newspapers, most of whom supported the top-two ballot question in June 2010, repeatedly asserted that a top-two system eliminates “extremists” and empowers “centrists.” But, in this Washington state example, the opposite happened. Thanks to Rob Richie for the link.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Ballot Access News » Blog Archive » Washington State Top-Two System Was Used in 2010 to Oust a Centrist Democrat in Favor of a Left Democrat -- Topsy.com
P.R. and App.V. — next steps to get rid of ALL primaries.
How much gaming in the old party hack primaries in CA by the left/right extremist gangs ???
Berkey was officially nominated by the 38th District Democrats. The trial attorneys and public employee unions – groups that dominate Olympia – stole the voice of the local party people.
The strategy against Berkey was effective, look for more of it in the future.
Although I am very much against the “top-two” system, I do not think that the scenario mentioned above is a good example of why it is a bad system. In my opinion, the strategy of putting resources behind a candidate that one does not approve of in order to “game the system” is neither ethical nor moral – and also it could very well have backfired on the people engaging in it. They were just very lucky that they got what they wanted.
Of course, I appreciate that Rob Richie and Richard Winger brought this situation to our attention. This sort of plotting could happen again; however, I do not think that the results of such efforts will always turn out the way that the people behind them desire. I believe that, more often than not, they will fail.
To Krist Novoselic (#3):
Regarding “nominations” by leadership bodies of political parties under “top-two” systems, I think that they are of rather limited significance. Below is a comment that I posted on a previous page:
17.Phil Sawyer Says:
February 18th, 2011 at 5:27 am
To Jim Riley (#15):
While the Peace and Freedom Party of California does, indeed, place a high value on the views and activities of grass roots activists in the Party, and that is a good thing; I consider myself to be in the reformist, more moderate wing of the Party and I place an even higher value on the beliefs of the registered Party voters as expressed in the primary elections. It is my contention that we, as elected or appointed leaders of the Party, need to always be trying to represent the Party membership as a whole – as best we can and still be true to our own individual convictions.
Philippe L. Sawyer, Member:
Sacramento County Central Committee
Peace and Freedom Party of California
“The truth is out there.”
The government workers unions were big opponents of Proposition 14. The three leading opponents in voter’s pamphlet were California State Firefighters’ Association, California School Employees Association, and United Nurses Associations of California / Union of Health Care Professionals. It was the Oregon teachers union who did the sleaze mailer against the Open Primary in that state. Mona Fields is (or was) the Vice President of the California Federation of Teachers.
The unions can be more effective in Democratic primaries because the party itself stays out of primaries, and unions can organize their members to vote. Less active voters then go along in the general election.
In the Senate race in Washington, various independent groups dumped $250,000 in opposition to Berkey and about $100,000 in favor of Harper. There was about $20,000 independent spending by business interests for Berkey. Berkey and Harper each spent about $100,000 on their own campaigns. Reiger spent a bit less than $1000.
Near the end of the primary campaign, Moxie Media who had been spending most of the independent money for Berkey, hatched a scheme to funnel some money towards Reiger and against Berkey. These were in the form of mailers and robocalls targeted towards Republican-leaning voters. The robocall script was along the lines of “Hi, I’m Emma your neighbor and life-long Republican, but I have occasionally voted for Democrats. One of these was Jean Berkey, and she turned out to be one of the most liberal tax amd spenders ever, that’s why I’m voting for Rod Reiger.”
Total spending was $9000, with half attributed to opposition to Berkey and half supporting Reiger (in Washington it appears that if you run an ad that says, “4 legs good, 2 legs bad”, you split the cost between supporting the 4-legs candidate, and opposing the 2-legs campaign).
What is controversial, and is the subject of SR 8601, and a lawsuit by the Washington AG, is how the money was hidden. Two new PACs were created in the name of an underling at Moxie Media. One of them, Cut Taxes PAC, actually expended the money on the mailers and robocalls. It was to receive all of its contributions from the other PAC, Conservative PAC.
The Conservative PAC was to receive its funding the 2nd Defense PAC which had a balance that had been contributed much earlier by the trial lawyers association (Forward PAC), the state labor council (DIME PAC), and the Washington State Federation of State Employees, and others. This PAC was separate from two others that was spending hundreds of $1000s on the pro-Harper anti-Berkey campaign. Moxie Media was related to about 40 different PACs in 2010.
Moxie solicited contributions from the 2nd Defense PAC contributors for the pro-Reiger/anti-Berkey scheme, with the understanding that the true funding source would be obscured and delayed in reporting. Those who agreed to contribute to the scheme were actively consulted as to the content of the messages.
The disclosure forms for the Cut Taxes PAC and Conservative PAC were filed late. The WFSE sent a check to the Conservative PAC fulfilling their earlier pledge, but this was returned.
I don’t think the WFSE, WSLC, or trial lawyers technically ever made a contribution to the pro-Reiger/anti-Berkey scheme. The Stop Taxes PAC had no money, so Moxie Media had to write off the spending as a bad debt. Of course Moxie Media was being paid for its efforts on the pro-Harper/anti-Berkey campaign.
The staff at the Washington Public Disclosure Commission negotiated a $30,000 fine for Moxie Media, which the commission rejected, and turned it over to the Washington AG. In Washington, there is apparently a procedure where a private citizen can prosecute a claim, and if they succeed, the state has to pay their legal costs. Jean Berkey had filed under such a procedure, but the AG decided to file suit, which pre-empted her. She is seeking to intervene in the case, and would probably seek to have the primary overturned if she is successful.
In the two representative races in LD 38, there was a single Democrat and a single Republican running in the primary. LD 38 was a 60% Obama district in 2008. The Republican representative candidates ran 2200 votes ahead of Reiger (whose PDC disclosure said he was a Republican, but whose declaration of candidacy said that he preferred the Conservative Party. In the general election, Reiger ran about 2% behind the candidates who actually ran as Republicans.
So 2200 voters who would vote R rather than D if that was the only identification on the ballot voted for Berkey or Harper, and presumably most of those would have voted for Berkey rather than Harper.
Harper only received 35% of the vote, so his advancement to the general election would not have been certain. The Pro-Reiger/Anti-Berkey effort was directed at peeling some votes from Berkey.
If the primary had been a pick-a-party primary, most of those 2200 voters would have likely voted in the Republican primary. The leftwing groups would have been content with the $350,000 they dumped into the Harper-Berkey campaign, knowing that they would easily win the election, and would not have bothered with the $9,000 last-minute effort on Reiger’s behalf.
#4 In the Washington 38 senate race, left-wing special interest groups spent $250,000 opposing Democrat Berkey, and $100,000 supporting Democrat Harper. The two candidate campaigns spent around $100,000 each.
The Republican candidate (who ran as a Conservative candidate) spent less than $1,000.
The effort targeted at Republican voters was $9000, and was as much anti-Berkey as pro-Reiger. Since Reiger ran 2200 votes behind the Republican candidates in the two representative races (Washington senators and representatives run from the same legislative districts), the purpose was to peel some votes from Berkey so she would not qualify for the general election, and the special interest groups would have to spend a lot more money. Because Republicans would be free to vote for either Democrat, the appeal used in primary would not have been as effective.
#5 One difference is that in California, the endorsements are published in the sample ballot distributed with the Voter’s Pamphlet.
It would also let the party spend money on behalf of primary candidates. I don’t think the Democratic party committee in that Washington district raised any money in 2010, so the endorsement would have been a party meeting and may not have received any notice whatsoever.
More party hack government or less party hack government.
NO such thing as a *centrist* — since 1929 especially.
P.R. and App.V.
How many Hitler and Stalin clones have been and will be elected in top 2 / IRV regimes ???
i.e. the alleged centrist / middle LOSING candidates in 3rd, 4th, etc. lower places ???
Thus — is top 2 a time delayed IRV SCHEME ??? — part 1 the top 2 primary — part 2 the general election. Duh.
P.R. and App.V. — regardless of armies of math MORONS.
To Jim Riley (#8):
If that is the case, I have no problem with those provisions. As a matter of fact, they could be quite helpful. After all, that is what we officials (elected or appointed) are there for: to assist in the growth of the Party and to help lead the direction of the Party. With that being said, though, one needs to recognize that if at least one of the primary candidates is well known, then the influence of the Party officials will most likely be considerably less. In addition, I want to say that I think that one of the most significant marks of a true leader is his or her ability to really listen to the opinions of the people he or she is attempting to lead.
Divided Majority math – gaming stuff — 2 gangs A and B
E extremist
M *moderate*
26 AE
25 AM
49 B
100
The B voters are NOT able to vote also for the lesser of the group A evils (as perceived by the B voters).
Note same math if the party hacks were in a regular primary before top 2.
A voters would nominate AE and B voters would nominate B.
P.R. and App.V.
The government employees unions were NOT big opponents of Prop. 14. They signed the ballot pamphlet argument against it (better arguments were submitted by others, by the Secretary of State went with the government employee union arguments), but they did very little else.
What’s wrong with ‘extremists’? If it is what the majority of the voters want to be represented by, so be it.
#14 — Any survivors of the Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Hirohito, Mao, etc. regimes on this list — or the relatives of the folks killed or injured during such regimes ???
For math MORONS — Election systems MATTER.
More on #12 Divided majorities and gaming stuff
Only a few voters are needed for problems to show up —
3-A1
2-A2
4-B
9
P.R. and App.V. — pending advanced head to head math.
There can be some gaming stuff even with a mere 5 voters
2-C1
1-C2
—
2 D – do the 2 D voters find choice C2 better than choice C1 ???
and even with 3 voters
1-E
1-F
1 independent magic person — not wanting to be a candidate.
Is E or F the lesser evil of the 2 choices ???
NO ON 14 PROTECT VOTER CHOICE. SPONSORED BY TEACHERS, SCHOOL EMPLOYEES, CONSUMER ATTORNEY AND LABOR ORGANIZATIONSS
California School Employees Association $50,000
AFSCME $50,000
California Teachers Association $50,000
Working Families Issues Committee $40,000
Consumer’s Attorney Issues PAC $46,000
Communications Workers of America $5,000
California Association of Psychiatric Technicians $2500
The only other NO group that reported any contributions was one organized by Jeff Denham, and which received its $50,000 contribution from Denham’s senate campaign.
#13, In your original article, you claimed that the WFSE, WSLC, and the trial lawyers contributed “heavily” to Rod Reiger’s campaign. What do you characterize as “heavy”.
Remember that they and other independent groups spent $350,000 for and against the Democratic candidates.
#18, that is chicken feed compared to the money contributed by big business interests and Governor Schwarzenegger in support of Prop. 14.
How many BIG money special interest gangs LOSE in proposal votes in CA and other States ???
#20 YES ON 14 – CALIFORNIANS FOR AN OPEN PRIMARY WITH MAJOR FUNDING FROM GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER’S CALIFORNIA DREAM TEAM, A BALLOT MEASURE COMMITTEE
Had about $5.2 million in contributions.
# 22 What price to have a REAL Democracy in every nation-state ???
See the millions dead and enslaved due to ANTI-Democracy monarchy / oligarchy regimes in recorded world history.
Pingback: More Lies About Top Two Choke Point Primaries Helping Moderates