Clark County spent the midterm election demonstrating that, overall, we are nearly equally divided between Republicans and Democrats. Sure, there are political divisions between the more liberal enclave of Vancouver and the more conservative areas outside the city. But add it all together and we teeter somewhere atop the fence.
Take the most prominent races on last week’s ballot: Representative from Washington’s 3rd Congressional District, and Clark County chair.
In the congressional race between Republican incumbent Jaime Herrera Beutler and Democratic challenger Carolyn Long, 51.0 percent of local voters favored Long through Thursday’s count. That wasn’t enough to overcome Herrera Beutler’s advantage in each of the district’s seven other counties, where she pulled 60 percent of the vote.
All of which was nearly as interesting as the contest for county chair. Through Thursday, Republican Eileen Quiring had a lead of 1,057 votes out of more than 173,000 cast. Regardless of the final outcome, it has been an impressive showing by Democrat Eric Holt, a political newcomer going against a sitting council member who had a big advantage in name recognition.
The county chair race also highlights one of the more interesting aspects of digging into election results. About 7,000 voters turned in ballots but did not cast a vote for county chair. That’s 3.88 percent — a fairly small rate compared with most races, but enough to theoretically swing the election.
Undervotes point out the extent to which we cling to our political tribes in casting votes. In the county council race between Julie Olson and Elisabeth Veneman, 17 percent of voters declined to choose either candidate. Looking into our crystal ball, we will surmise that this is largely because both contenders were Republicans, and a certain segment of the population would rather vote for nobody than support a Republican.
Never mind that Olson has been a thoughtful, reasonable councilor and that she clearly was the better-qualified candidate.
The guess here is that tribalism also played a role in the undervote for county treasurer, where Alishia Topper won with 69 percent of the vote. In that race, where neither candidate expressed a party preference (but Topper has run as a Democrat in the past), 16 percent of voters declined to make a choice. If Topper and Robert Hinds had placed an R or a D next to their names, that likely would have attracted and repelled similar numbers of voters and resulted in more votes being cast.
A world without parties
All of which brings up the question: What if we did not identify any candidates by party affiliation? Yes, there are differences between the parties, but there also are differences within the parties. A Republican who can draw broad support in Washington’s 3rd District is likely to be much different from a Republican in, say, Iowa’s 4th District. You know, just to randomly choose a district.
Political parties are entrenched as far as branding and fund-raising and messaging, so moving beyond them will not happen in the foreseeable future. But such tribalism appears outdated.
Not all that long ago, party affiliation played an important role in helping voters identify candidates and understand their political philosophy. But they are no longer necessary for that purpose. Websites and social media allow candidates to directly interact with the electorate; electronic media outlets provide instant accountability when a candidate or official spouts a falsehood; voters have copious information at their fingertips that goes well beyond party affiliation.
Naturally, that calls for some work on the part of voters. Learning about candidates beyond talking points requires a bit of research, but such information is now at our fingertips.
In the end, declining to vote in a race is preferable to casting an uninformed vote. But these days, fortunately, there is no excuse for being uninformed.
Morning Briefing Newsletter
Get a rundown of the latest local and regional news every Mon-Fri morning.
