I grew up with a family of coal miners in Southern Indiana/Northern Kentucky. They wouldnt even think of voting any other way but Democrat regardless of the candidate. I was the first of my family to attend college and with education I can tell you now that I know of none in my close family that associate themselves with any party, preferring instead to vote Independent and for the best Candidate.

How did democracy prevail in the Washington primaries? Votes were cast, but that's not all there is to democracy. Political parties are a key component to democracy. Any voting process that makes parties meaningless is undemocratic.

As to the idea of 'voting for the best candidate' — just what does that mean? Vote for someone who mouths platitudes in a way that you find most consoling? You ditch parties and you don't have a system that provides much more than that.

Nice article Krist. I am definitely a neo-phite on local politics and probably represent a typical Washington voter. My question: how do we change this system if it appears not to be working?
Thanks
Duff

Ed Whitson's comment about political parties being a key component to democracy indicates that he doesn't understand democracy (or more likely is choosing not to understand.) Once upon a time parties were a convenience of democracy, allowing remote voters without access to a candidate's positions to understand those positions via party association. There were more parties and less media communication, so parties were specific and helpful.

Today, the two remaining juggernaut parties are supplanting the democratic process. They exist purely as fund-raising entities who have turned elections into football games between Ds and Rs, and they no longer accurately represent candidates' views for the simple reason that you have to be one or the other with no room for nuance. Media penetration to the voters is well-suited today to exposing voters to candidates' positions, so a party affiliation means very little.

Allowing us to vote on a candidate rather than a party is democracy. Anyone saying otherwise is fund-raising.

Parties provide a source of new candidates. Parties create and promote policies. Parties implement the legislative process. These are some of the reasons political parties became so important to American democracy so early in this country's history. Parties are useful, practical, and democratic.

Today's parties are, indeed, often problamtic and can serve as a hindrence to a fuller democracy. They are still essential to our democratic system. Most people do not follow politics at the local, state, and even federal level. They are not stupid; instead, there is just so much information to consume. Do YOU know how each candidate for the state legislature stands on all issues? Media penetration will never be sufficient for people to fully understand politics, policies, and all the policy choices before them.

Parties are an essential way for people to participate in politics. Allowing us to vote on a candidate only without any role for parties is undemocratic. Anyone saying otherwise either hasn't given this much thought or just wants to sneak in their own slate of 'good candidates' past the electorate.

I absolutely agree with Ed Whitson that, "Political parties are a key component to democracy.", and my article argues for them. However saying, "Any voting process that makes parties meaningless is undemocratic." is wrong when considering non-partisan elections. Non-partisan elections are indeed democratic. As far as platitudes go, the impression held by an individual voter of a candidate is personal. Agree with them or not - it is the voters right to express that impression on the public ballot.

CMC is correct regarding the function of a political party as a soft money conduit. But a party need not be a mere convenience of information. We need to make make political association stronger in the sense of amplifying the collective voice of the common citizen. Duff - we can do this with comprehensive election reform as I've expressing in previous columns. But first off, the courts need to invalidate the Top-Two primary.

Nonpartisan elections are very common at the local level. Most people know very little about the candidates or issues in these local elections. Without any cues from the parties, voters often don't know who/what they are voting on. Consequently, voter turnout is very low when local elections are held by themselves.

Lack of knowledge on the candidates, low voter turnout — doesn't sound verydemocratic to me.

Freedom of association lost or better yet misrepresented!

Political parties be them major or minor are a place for people to learn about how the election process works, have access to resources such as "walking maps" for doorbelling campaigns, have access to voter analysis done by party geeks (I tend to be a geek who finds much power in database information). Parties also serve as a way to consolidate consensus of a slate of objectives / goals (planks that make up the party's platform—what they stand on) to be worked upon by a group if the group gets someone elected to a place at the table in the halls of power.

Platforms of parties used to mean something...they are basically these groupings of objectives and goals that are called planks arrived at through a process by the group once again. The notion is a group of like minded/aligned folks put together the ideas for what the party will try to get done if elected.

I'm not a big fan of how the rules had been working before which make it hard for minor parties and independents to compete in election cycles. Also, minor parties and independents typically don't have as many resources available to them to run a campaign that can win public attention and get the most votes.

The problem with Top-Two the way it is set up is that it didn't make an allowance or give proper respect to the folks that are actually given the endorsement of their party. Furthermore, it is not truth in advertising to leave this out in the voter pamphlet or on a ballot. If a candidate is the endorsed candidate of a party for any position it should be clear to voters as such...perhaps the voter pamphlet and ballot would state instead for them (Official endorsed democrat or republican etc.).

Another thing about the Top-Two that is just silly to me is that it essentially behaves like the first round of an Instant Runoff where you are asked to pick your favorite only in this instance you only get one choice. Then you spend more money on a general election to decide between the 2 top vote getters.

Why not just go the full distance in the first place and use a Ranked Choice Voting system instead. See www.irvwa.org or www.fairvote.org for more info.

Using one general election with Ranked Choice Voting would save 13 million dollars each election cycle (just call the secretary of state office and ask them that is where I got my numbers over 2 years ago). We would have a majority winner and with the little change of allowing parties to state in voter pamphlet and on the ballot just who is the "official nominee or endorsed" candidate you could have our system fixed up fine...then we could work on some more other important election reforms.

Respectfully,
Taryn G.

Just one more snipet for you on electoral reforms we could be working on if/when we get this state's election process settled.

It is imperative that we resolve and move forward...yet I understand the hesitancy to keep debating the current election method. Please help to move to a Ranked Choice Voting system...we will be the first state in our Nation and an example of how to begin to fix what is not working.

Voter's
Bill of Rights

Here is that link...I hope it comes through this time.

http://www.globalexchange.org/getInvolved/petition_voter_bill_of_rights.php

~Taryn G.

I LOVE YOU KRIST

Why do the wipers rule? I cannot get enough. Love you man.