Not every deserting soldier gets the Watada treatment
Science / Environment »Cascadia: cradle of the environmental movement
Media »Seattle talk radio is in decline, says a blogger keeping score
Health / Medicine »Challenges and insight: two high-profile female politicians with Down syndrome babies
UW Huskies »Why four UW women's basketball recruits are leaving after a season
Microsoft »Microsoft's sales pitch on Madison Avenue: Search advertising is overrated
Seattle-area cellular magnates were key in the Clearwire deal with Sprint
Microsoft »Microsoft's CEO is 'all hat, no cattle' and the Yahoo pursuit was 'amateur hour'
It's not over until Hillary Clinton's cash runs out
Psst! Wanna see the Viaduct disappear?
Washington's million-dollar university president
The city's own series of tubes
A city of scolds
(20 comments)
Greg Nickels' rebel yell
(19 comments)
As long as we're beating up on the mayor today ...
(9 comments)
Washington's million-dollar university president
(8 comments)
Mods versus snobs
(7 comments)
Psst! Wanna see the Viaduct disappear?
(6 comments)
It's not over until Hillary Clinton's cash runs out
(6 comments)
The city's own series of tubes
(5 comments)
Seattle is not 'all about beer'
(3 comments)
Seattle is a ghost town for ghost bikes?
(2 comments)
Washington's nominating process for partisan political office has a long, tortuous history — and it just got a little longer. Last week's Supreme Court decision upholding Initiative 872, which established a "top-two" or "Louisiana-style" primary to replace the blanket primary declared unconstitutional in 2003, gives the Evergreen state its third distinct system in the space of five years.
David Brewster points out that one benefit of this method, in which the top two vote-getters advance to the general election — regardless of party affiliation — may be less-secure seats for incumbents, and a move toward the political center. But challengers and their fans aren't the only ones celebrating. There's now some buzz in the instant-runoff voting (IRV) community about this being an opportunity to extend their success beyond Pierce County, which will be holding the first IRV race in the state this November.
In IRV, voters rank candidates in order of preference and no separate primary is required. Proponents say that this ensures winners have the support of a majority, not merely a plurality, and that it would eliminate the phenomena of spoilers, wasted votes, and having to choose the "lesser of two evils." Rob Richie, executive director of FairVote, thinks there is a "powerful case" to be made that IRV "in one high-turnout November election is better than...a relatively low-turnout summer election followed by a higher-turnout choice among two candidates who might not even be particularly representative of the views of the district/state's voters."
It remains to be seen, however, whether Washington voters are ready to ditch primaries altogether. Given that the beloved blanket primary isn't coming back, will "top two" satisfy their desire to zigzag across the aisle? Or could the Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians — who banded together to sink the blanket primary and unsuccessfully challenge the new system — decide that at least under IRV their candidates are certain to appear on the November ballot? After all, "top two" will likely result in Republicans being absent from the fall ballot in Seattle, Democrats likewise in Wenatchee, and Libertarians, Greens, and the rest of them nowhere at all.
Report a violationPosted by: animalal on Mar 28, 2008 8:47 PM