As voters ponder their Nov. 2 election ballots — whether in anticipation and preparation or in reflection after voting — it’s instructive to remember what brought us to this place on the political timeline.
It was the top two primary, which, in the view of most people of all political persuasions, is the finest way to advance two candidates in each race to the general election.
Unlike most other states, political party affiliation doesn’t matter in our primary and, as we’ve often pointed out, leaders of both political parties hate it but voters love it. What, after all, could be more democratic than advancing the two best candidates, based solely on the voters’ opinions?
As it happens, in each of 13 partisan races on various Clark County ballots this year, a Republican is facing a Democrat. These include one race for the U.S. Senate and one for the U.S. House, five legislative showdowns and six county races. The irony could not be more clear: Even the party leaders themselves — the only ones who hate the top two primary — couldn’t have engineered a better outcome to serve their own best interests. Up and down the ballots, Republicans vs. Democrats.
In 2008, there were 14 partisan races on local ballots, none with two candidates from the same party. That’s 27 races in two years, all with candidates from each party. And even if there were a local race with two Democrats or two Republicans, as we’ve asked before, so what? How could listening to the people ever be a bad idea?
Here are some news items from across the state, courtesy of the secretary of state’s office, with research provided by Patrick McDonald of that office:
In 123 legislative races this year, 10 have candidates from the same party, two in the state Senate and eight in the House.
Incumbents in 25 of those races (five in the Senate and 20 in the House) have drawn no opponents. (These include Republican state Rep. Ed Orcutt of Kalama. Also in Clark County’s partisan races, beyond the legislative battles, Republican County Auditor Greg Kimsey is running unopposed.)
None of the nine congressional races in the state involves finalists of the same party.
One of the top two primary’s many advantages is that it allows a district that heavily leans toward one party to favor that particular party in the general election. For example, the 8th Legislative District (southeast of Tacoma) and the 31st Legislative District (parts of the Tri-Cities and extending northwest) each has a Republican incumbent facing a Republican challenger. As we say, no problem there. Voters said back in August they wanted it that way.
Another advantage pertains to the basic function of a primary. Now it’s a winnowing process, one that makes sure the top two vote-getters advance to the fall finals. Before the top two primary was created by voters passing the “People’s Choice Initiative” in 2004, the primary served as a party nominating process.
Nothing terribly wrong with that. And party leaders make a fairly good point when they preach about their right to declare their own finalists. But here is the blunt challenge to party leaders who keep yearning for the good ol’ days, back when primaries were party nominating processes: Pay for it. Why should taxpayers have to pay for your functions? When this challenge is brought up, the typical party leader will respond with a gulp and something akin to, “So how ’bout them Seahawks?”
