I recall reading the June 2008 Grange News, and a comment of a proponent of I-872 - the law that I'm testing with my candidacy. He said, " Why, if you are a political party, would you not want to know what kind of candidate the majority of voters want?"
Krist Novoselic rockin' the Grange. Novoselic is a regular contributor to the Daily Weekly.
And this says a lot about the intention of proponents of the prefers party concept. They want to take away the ability of nominating candidates from parties - or any group for that matter - and open it up to everyone.
This is a noble intention but the problem is they've opened it up too much. Now, I can run as a prefers Grange Party candidate when this private group doesn't even run candidates!
The law I'm testing with my candidacy is an example of a do-goody state program run amok!!! It's a socialist apparatus that's sputtering as a result of its legal complexities.Liberty grants us the freedom to fail. When we fail, we get up, dust ourselves off and try again. (It's how a business ought to work too and why I think my socialist analogy fits.)
It should be up to individuals, or a group thereof, to figure out what kind of candidate the majority of voters want. If a party nominates loser candidates - that's their fault!
The Democratic and Republican parties in our state also hold a lot of blame for the Grange Party mess. Instead of looking for innovative ways to open up the process, they opted for another state program. The Pick-A-Party Primary, with exclusive party sections on the ballot, amounted to socialized nominations. The major parties thought they could hitch a ride with the state to enjoy publicly funded and administered nominations.
Washington voters resented this and over 59 percent said yes to the Top Two system.
However, there was no discussion about a Grange Party - that was left to lawyers. Now we're stuck with this parsing of words, "Prefers Grange party".
The Republicans and Democrats need to open up nominations. Democrats in Charlottesville have done this with an unassembled caucus. There should be no state interest in controlling this inclusive, community based system of standing candidates for office.
Any political party can do this. And it's so simple - let parties nominate. They have the freedom to try and should have the freedom to fail without state interference.