Slog - Comments on Washington State's Primary Election Debate Hits U.S. Supreme Court

Comment by Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:55:16 -0800

Um. Josh. If a court strikes down a law (or proposition), a higher court may *reverse* the lower court (or *affirm* it) and *reinstate* the law. But courts never, ever *"enact"* propositions.

Get your terminology straight. For god's sakes, there are tons of homo lawyers (like me for instance), who'd be happy to help.

Comment by Gitai

Gitai — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:09:54 -0800

Fuck the parties. Just put the top two up regardless of party.

Comment by NaFun

NaFun — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:14:14 -0800

Why are they talking about the rights of political parties? "Oh, but someone might declare their affiliation for the wrong party, and then what are the parties gonna do?!?!" Who the fuck cares?

But then, I was a third-party candidate way back in the day...

Comment by Yeah for Reality!!!

Yeah for Reality!!! — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:22:12 -0800

Thank you Jonathan, I love it when the Stranger staff gets kicked down by a real life lawyer..... HA HA Josh!!!

Comment by Bob

Bob — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:34:53 -0800

Whom do elected officials serve - their party or their constituents? It should be the latter, and the top-two primary would do a better job of ensuring that. Otherwise, the parties pick: a) whoever has the best chance of getting elected, and b) whoever will dole out the most patronage to the party. Neither serves citizens, or encourages responsible stewardship in public.

Go Rob McKenna!

Comment by Mahtli69

Mahtli69 — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:35:56 -0800

Why are you boring us with this election and voters' rights stuff? Haven't you heard? K-Fed is getting the kids! C'mon, report the news!

Comment by Bob

Bob — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:36:13 -0800

Sorry, I meant to say "responsible stewardship in government."

Comment by Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:44:24 -0800

Actually @4, I was just trying to be helpful. The Stranger does a pretty good job. Far better than the crap city paper that I'm stuck with in Baltimore.

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:57:49 -0800

See, and I thought the more important news was that religious organizations can't force their employees not to have health coverage that includes abortion, birth control, or unmarried pregnancy.

Sill me, guess that doesn't matter.

Comment by ulm

ulm — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:16:50 -0800

uh, i dont understand the whole "political party�s right to determine who its candidates are". so why have a primary at all? just to help them make up their minds? and if the primary is for them, then they should foot the bill.

Comment by Frequent Voter

Frequent Voter — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:28:03 -0800

Couple things to keep in mind -- First, drawing political district lines has been turned over to the two major parties, and their goal is as many single-party districts as possible, whether its the County Council, the Legislature, or the Congress.

Under Top Two, there will be many districts where voters will be faced either with two Democrats or two Republicans. If you are with the opposite party in one of those districts, who the Hell do you vote for? This system elevates party monopoly to a new level.

Oh, and forget minority parties. Third party candidates will almost always get wiped out in the August primary, thereby denying the public an opportunity to hear their message.

Sorry, but whatever knocks you want to take against Pick A Party, the Top Two system is clearly worse.

Comment by wile_e_quixote

wile_e_quixote — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:34:10 -0800

I think that we should just eliminate party affiliation from the ballots. Let's require that all candidates for public office be required to submit signatures totaling five percent of the registered voters in the district they are running for (which would be five percent statewide for such offices as US senator, governor, AG, etc) said signatures not being collected by paid signature gatherers. Once the candidates have submitted the required signatures they're on the ballot. Want to sign a petition for more than one candidate? Knock yourself out.

The elections could then be based upon instant run-off voting. Admittedly there are problems where IRV results in candidates who aren't Condorcet winners, but Hell, it would at least inject some choice into the current system which is owned by the two major parties and which seeks to disenfranchise those who don't comply with the party line.

Comment by Cleve

Cleve — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:34:09 -0800

The right of the political party is actually the right of the individual -- you or me -- to associate for political purposes with like minded folks.

If you don't like being part of a party don't be... and maybe don't even vote for someone who is in a party....if that's your thing. Or start your own party. The non-partisan party. Whatever.

What you should not be able to do is to crash someone else's party uninvited or take away other people's rights to form a party.

Comment by Lee Gibson

Lee Gibson — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:14:53 -0800

"What you should not be able to do is to crash someone else's party uninvited or take away other people's rights to form a party. "

You should be allowed to form whatever party you wish. That party should most emphatically NOT control the election process.

I don't know if this top two thing is worth a damn, but it can't be much worse than the two-party hegemony. The very notion that political parties (or corporations or anything other than sentient meaty fleshlings) has Constitutional rights makes me want to vomit.