Electoral Methods Are Under The Microscope
Posted Feb. 19 at 9:52 am by Krist Novoselic
NOT REALLY!! Novoselic in San Francisco China Town 2.18.08
The major party presidential nominations are big news. But, in Washington state, the focus has not only been on who we nominate, but how we nominate.
Our system for nominations, both public and private has been under scrutiny. People are questioning the role of the state in relation to the internal functions of the major parties, which are private political associations. And it should be no surprise that the discussion is revealing widespread discontent among Washington voters.
The climate of discontent is fertile grounds for a non-partisan election proposal. The presidential primary is only stoking the coals.
Because Democrats will allocate no delegates from the primary, and Republicans only half, many people are claiming voter disenfranchisement. They’re mad because their primary vote wont count. What voters often don't understand is that they’re not electing a candidate to a public office. The major party candidates are only participating in the internal function of private organizations: the Republican and Democratic parties. It just so happens that the state is funding and administering this function. If a voter doesn't like the rules of any organization, including the Democrats or Republicans, they need not associate with them.
It’s been reported a quarter of primary ballots in our state have been disqualified because voters didn’t check the party oath box on the envelope. Many voters are weary to check the oath box and don’t want to pledge allegiance to a private organization. Some don’t want to get on a party’s mailing list. Also, the major political parties are perceived as villains and the oath box is seen as subjugation.
Voters can and will decide to disassociate themselves from the major parties. That doesn’t mean they’ll stop attending Democratic potlucks or Republican bar-b-cues, (who really goes to those anyway?). Voters will disassociate by zapping party affiliation off the ballot with a non-partisan blanket primary.
The presidential primary is the first event in a triptych driving consensus toward a non-partisan system for our state and local elections.
The second event will be a US Supreme Court ruling this spring. It’s widely anticipated the court will uphold all of the lower rulings and I-872 will be declared unconstitutional once and for all. This will trigger widespread calls for non-partisan elections as a solution to our voting malaise.
And finally, this August Pick-A-Party ballots will arrive at voters homes. Exclusive party section ballots antagonize most Washington voters. These ballots alone are more powerful than any political mass mailing. They will be a priceless advertisement for the non-partisan election movement.
I-26, an initiative proposing non-partisan top-two ballots for King County elections is already collecting signatures for the November ballot. Opponents will make reasoned arguments about the importance of party labels to voters on down ballot races. Or that political association is important to our democratic system or blah, blah, blah.
I-26 will likely pass only because voters don’t want exclusive Pick-A-Party sections or party oaths on their ballots. It’s that simple! After King County falls to non-partisan the movement will spread toward state legislature elections themselves.
It’s not that Washington voters want a non-partisan system, they just don’t want the partisan system we have now.
Pierce County voters cast off the Pick-A-Party primary for a partisan version of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). The system provides the important informational cue of party affiliation next to a candidates name while at the same time offer the wide open choices voters want.
Political association is a fundamental component to a functioning democracy. Partisan Ranked Choice Voting elections are a lifeline to this notion. With all the attention on how we conduct elections, RCV deserves to be considered a viable alternative.
Comments
Krist
i am almost ready to give up on the idea that we actually even have fair and clean elections...but...
Thanks for taking the time to use your position to affect positive change!
I always keep up with what you do as you have politically inspired moi for a long time...
Au revoir
Posted Feb. 19 at 2:11 pm by CbazyIt is interesting how reporters, columnists, and many readers it would appear, seem to ignore one fundamental aspect of the presidential primaries and caucuses: each party is selecting their party nominee to be their presidential candidate. We are not electing anyone yet – that happens in November’s General Election.
Each party has the right to select their party nominee in the manner of their choosing. Why is it OK for the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, and all other political parties to choose their candidates at their national party conventions, but the Democratic and Republican parties must open their nomination process up to people that are not in their party or willing to join?
Independent voters have made a choice to not affiliate themselves with one political party or another, yet with that choice comes the simple fact they may be excluded from having a say in who is nominated by each party. That isn’t disenfranchisement, that’s just living with the choice they have made.
Posted Feb. 19 at 2:37 pm by Daniel KI think it is important to have "partisan" elections so voters know what the platform, leanings, and agenda of a candidate are based on their affiliations with a major or minor party corporation.
However, with this state's (WA) election rules (and for that matter the rest of the states in the union) there are many problems with the election system that aren't conducive to serving the voters or fair elections.
The problems are:
Rules for Major parties are different than for minor parties (these should be uniform to ensure fair competition of ideas)
Parties should not depend on the state/taxpayers to choose their standard bearers for general elections and furthermore the state should not be forcing citizens to declare party affiliations (secret ballot?) Let parties conduct their own "market research" on their own dimes.
It is time for voters to assert their rights over the rights of entities that political candidates use to try to market themselves to their communities.
http://www.libertytreefdr.org/event.php?event_id=94
We need more competition in the elections cycle not less (more ideas, solutions, people with ability to effect change). This can only be realized if the actual system of election rules change.
This is why Ranked Choice voting (Instant Runoff Voting) is a good start to helping fix the elections mess that we have on our hands currently.
One election the general election where all voters are included and not asked to declare affiliations. Voters simply Rank their choices of candidates that resonate with their feelings of what direction our government needs to be going in with its policies.
visit www.irvwa.org or www.fairvote.org to learn more about this type of election system.
We will need to address the major / minor party rule as well very soon. These need to be uniform.
We also need to revisit the notion that money equals free speech.
Posted Feb. 20 at 1:48 am by Taryn G.Hey Krist I like your ideas.
How did the Flipper gig go, clearly you got to San Francisco.
Posted Feb. 20 at 10:10 am by CharlieHey Krist I like your ideas.
How did the Flipper gig go, clearly you got to San Francisco.
Posted Feb. 20 at 10:10 am by CharlieHello Krist!
Your ideas are interesting.
Thanks for taking the time to write about potential positive changes like these.
If I only I lived in Washington state...
Posted Feb. 20 at 6:49 pm by GillianHey Krist, I like your views and I think you need more credit for all the work you do for Nirvana fans putiing together DVDs etc.
At least you've got the fans in mind rather than your own pocket unlike somebody else.
Posted Feb. 21 at 8:52 am by CurtisHey Krist, I like your blog but whats happened to murkyslough?
Posted Feb. 21 at 10:43 am by KellyHey Krist, hope your Flipper gig went well
Posted Feb. 22 at 9:41 am by JennyDo you think one day we might be able to get rid of the whole dog and pony show and have each person run under their own name?
Posted Feb. 22 at 8:46 pm by Glenn THey Krist, hows it going?
Posted Feb. 23 at 2:38 pm by NeilHey Krist, I've read all of your blog so far, its hard to get my head around the issues and details of the electoral system, living in the UK, but I'll keep trying.
Wondered if you've seen this news story,
http://www.harpmagazine.com/news/detail.cfm?article=12287
What do you think? It's probably a joke but it would be interesting to see the public reaction to him and if he'd actually get a few votes.
Posted Feb. 24 at 6:17 am by M28Ahhhh, you deleted my previous comment. Okay, okay, I'll talk big politics. I believe that we should have a partisan voting style, but we need to rearrange it. (for example: Type A party, Type B party, Type C party, Type D party, etc) That way, we'd have more diversity within our parties, and more choices in electing presidents, instead of just the two basic Republican and Democratic parties.
Posted Feb. 25 at 10:01 pm by Dustin DeanKrist,
I agree that the Honorable Dave Grohl would make an excellent Commander-in-Chief - plus the weekly presidential address could use a little Foo Fighter music.
However, I have questions whether George McGovern can make it to the White House. True, there is a lot of excitement connected with his campaign. True, he has youth vote all charged-up. Also true, he has a visionary plan for the uncertain future before us. But recently, the focus has switched from the war - sure fire ammo for the Democrats - to a troubling economy, which gives the Republicans a more level field to play on. And while the 'sleeping giant' may have awakened, is it sober? When it comes down it, those with something to lose, those with children, are going to go for the safest bet. Is that safe bet George McGovern?
Posted Feb. 29 at 5:21 pm by milos jefferson III