Rating Top Two, and the Candidates for Secretary of State
Posted Aug. 5 at 9:09 am by Krist Novoselic
Vote Novoselic for PCO!!!
I just received my ballot and voters’ information pamphlet for Washington’s primary election on August 19th. I like all of the choices in the primary and I’m glad we moved away from the old system with the party sections on the ballots. Like local non-partisan elections, the top two vote getters in every race will advance to the general election. With the new system, you can really vote your conscience because if your first choice doesn’t get in the Top Two, you get a second choice in November.
I don’t have a problem with a Top Two runoff. My concern is with the association issues of the new system. On the ballot itself, the partisan designation beside the candidates’ name is only the party they prefer. The voters’ pamphlet states: "A candidate’s preference does not imply that the candidate is nominated or endorsed by the party, or that the party approves of or associates with that candidate." In other words - buyer beware! What is the value of a party designation on a ballot when the state claims it might not really represent any association? It’s worthless, which leads me to say that if an actual party nomination is so bad that it cannot appear on the ballot, why don’t we have a non-partisan system and dispense with the partisan charade!
The voters’ pamphlet can come in handy as voters have a closer look at the candidates in their own words. The office of Secretary of State is on the ballot. This position is for the top election official in Washington. Let’s look at the four candidates.
As the guide says, Mark Greene prefers Party of Commons Party. And we find that he’s actually the chair of this party so we can assume there is an actual association - no matter how terrible the supporters of the new Top Two system think that is.
Greene comes out swinging for the Top Two and praises it as egalitarian. Quite the contrary, the Top Two actually preserves an elitist system. In the United States, political contributions are considered free speech. Business groups, trade associations or wealthy individuals can spend all kinds of money on campaign contributions, lobbyists and public relations. On the other hand, a group of like-minded citizens (political party) may not be able to give a dime to a candidate but they could give time and energy. After the group goes through all of the effort to build an organization, The State then permits absolutely anyone to take that groups’ name for use on the public ballot. The Top Two primary dilutes the collective voice of common people, while speech in the form of big money special interests remains mostly untouched.
Marilyn Montgomery prefers the Constitution Party. The party is a growing group of religious conservatives who have left the GOP coalition. Montgomery mentions the 2004 general election. This was where the governor's race became one of the closest in U.S. history. Republican Dino Rossi lost the election by a hair and people are still sore. Montgomery taps into these lingering feelings by promising an end to, in her words, "election fiasco."
I think Washington election officials did pretty well in 2004. There were three recounts - the last one done manually! The super-close election put the whole system under a magnifying glass. Under such scrutiny, you’ll see all of the warts, cracks, and blemishes. Even after the recounts, the election was contested in Chelan Superior Court and the judge upheld the results.
Jason Osgood prefers the Democratic Party. Osgood comes out sneering in the first paragraph by deriding the incumbent Secretary of State, Sam Reed, as a lifelong bureaucrat.
Osgood invokes Ohio and Florida - states synonymous with botched elections. The mention of Florida conjures Katherine Harris, Secretary of State during the controversial 2000 presidential election. Secretary Reed in no Katherine Harris. Reed presided over Washington’s 2004 gubernatorial election with a high level of integrity and even grace! Christine Gregoire is the legitimate governor of Washington, just as the courts have ruled.
Osgood paints Reed as some kind of boss who employs cronies to carry out his nefarious intentions. That’s just sensational malarkey! I’ve had good experience with Sec. Reed’s staff. Washington has a State Elections Panel that holds public hearings regarding voting infrastructure. Election security activists, like other citizens, can testify at these hearings. How is this not transparent and open?
While not perfect - no human endeavor is - Washington voters can trust our elections. And it’s disappointing that Montgomery and Osgood can only throw cheap shots at the incumbent.
I disagree with Sec. Reed on the association aspect of the new Top-Two election, but it’s not up to him, the State Attorney General, or the Washington State Grange to make this right. Regardless of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the law last May, it’s still up to the courts.
I’m voting for Sam Reed and I hope you considering doing the same. With his two terms, Reed has proven himself as a capable administrator and straight up public servant. Let’s stay with someone who’d doing a good job.
Krist Novoselic's column runs every Tuesday on the Daily Weekly.
Comments
I just like the fact that the election was so close. Nothing is as important as getting out and voting.
Posted Aug. 5 at 11:19 am by MikeIs one really supposed to take seriously anything written by someone who tells one "you can really vote your conscious"?
The "top two" system sucks toxic waste through a straw: it represents a complete failure to understand the native genius of the American political system, not to speak of trampling on the basic rights of political parties and their members. But Trampling on Basic Rights is the event in which the current Supreme Court could go to the Olympics.
Posted Aug. 5 at 1:24 pm by Eric WalkerTo Mr. Walker:
f you're saying the Top-Two is a lackluster system - I agree with you. (I've written criticisms of this type of election in prior posts). Also I should have said that I don't have a problem with the Primary part of a Top Two runoff.
You should take seriously the aspect of voting your conscious in the first round of a Run Off election. That's the nature of a majoritarian system - the last place vote getters are eliminated in each round of voting until there is a 50 percent plus 1 winner. In public elections, after the first round - or primary - the majority needs to coalesce around the two remaining candidates in the general. Of course, some folks won't have a second choice if the remaining candidates are unacceptable, but those are the rules and participating is also not mandatory.
Posted Aug. 5 at 6:07 pm by Krist Novoselicsoliders are ordered by these politicians , i just hope the new president will make soliders in Iraq back home soon.
check out www.uniformedcupid.com,here are some one who really carry out their "committment" !
Posted Aug. 5 at 6:40 pm by rachelsoliders are ordered by these politicians , i just hope the new president will make soliders in Iraq back home soon.
go to uniformedcupid**c om,here are some one who really carry out their "committment" !
Posted Aug. 5 at 6:42 pm by rachelChristine Gregoire may or may not be a legitimate governor but I seem to recall something about a delay in mailing military ballots tainting her victory.
Posted Aug. 5 at 6:51 pm by BuzzDude,
The right word is "conscience."
Johnny
Posted Aug. 5 at 6:59 pm by Johnny RhodesWhoops! - I know the difference between the two words - look at the name of my blog. Plus this piece went past an editor - who should have caught the typo!!!!!!! In my comment above I should have also written runoff instead of Run Off, and I left the "I" out of If in the very first word - that's what happens (to me sometimes) with writing a quick reply. I'm going to fix the piece and let this comment be notice of the change. I'll be back in a week, I'm going off line to enjoy this lovely August in Washington State.
Thanks.
Posted Aug. 5 at 8:25 pm by Krist NovoselicKrist,
I have to say, this is a VERY disappointing post. Sam Reed is a long time Republican operative who has shown indifference to concerns about honest elections. Jason Osgood is a citizen activist (just like you) who has devoted enormous amounts of his time and energy working for a truly functioning American democracy (also just like you). It blows my mind that you wouldn't be 100% behind Osgood.
I'm glad that you've had positive experiences with Reed's staff. Of course they are not evil or bad people. But Reed is NOT interested in any real election reform - IRV (like you prioritize), paper ballots (like Osgood prioritizes), or anything else. You have 100X more in common - personally and politically - with Jason Osgood than you do with Sam Reed.
I'm not sure it makes any sense to argue about whether the decisions of the SOS have been transparent. If you believe the process has given you all the information you need then it's been transparent enough for you. Many others have been left with unanswered questions many times. And of course, with electronic voting machines, the ELECTION process itself cannot honestly be described as transparent, and that's really the point Osgood has been making. That may not be a priority to you. And that's fine. You are pushing other important reforms.
Those of us who understand that our democratic system is fundamentally broken need to stick together. If we split ourselves apart quibbling over details then the status quo wins.
PLEASE reconsider your choice in the Secretary of State's race. And think about coming together with people - like Jason Osgood - who may have slightly different ideas about repairing the system, but who share your fundamental concerns. Maybe if all of us put our heads together we could find common solutions. And Sam Reed is not going to be of any help - I promise you that.
Posted Aug. 6 at 1:53 pm by Jeff UpthegroveThank you Jeff Upthegrove for your thoughtful comment.
I was disappointed with the Voters’ Guide. With all of the SOS candidates, there was no mention of a solution for uncontested or uncompetitive elections. And there was no mention of alternative election methods like IRV. No mention from anyone about the Top-Two primary being a wrecking ball against basic political association.
I do make election security a priority. I’m against DRE machines. And this issue is largely moot in Washington as most voters use paper mail-in ballots. Also, paper ballot counting machines need to use open-source software. If issues of fraud in vote counting did emerge, I would support a full prosecution. But there’s usually no smoking gun or evidence strong enough to get authorities to investigate. This isn’t a conspiracy, it’s just that the charges don’t hold up.
Reed is not a Republican - he only prefers the Republican Party - remember the new rules? Reed cannot walk through a GOP convention without people making jeering comments behind his back. He’s hardly some kind of “operative”. And Reed is super strong after the Supreme Court upheld I-872 facially. Never mind the tyranny of the majority and a lousy ruling; as his Guide statement says, “Sam kept fighting for your right to vote without being restricted to a party”. Most voters see him as slaying the Pick-A-Party primary; an election system despised by most Washingtonians.
Change will not come from Olympia. It needs to come up from the ground. If people want more election security, or comprehensive voting methods they’re going to get it. But this kind of movement takes time. I’m not against anyone - I just know what I read in the Voters Guide. With Reed, I know what I’m going to get.
Posted Aug. 6 at 10:08 pm by Krist NovoselicKrist - On the face of it I like the IRV, but personally, I prefer the concept of a delayed run-off. Why? The minority candidates and parties have more clout if they have time to brandish the weight of their supporters.
It works in other countries so one can't say it can't work here. Let the first round act much like the top two does now, but for the general. One week later, if a candidate didn't win 50% of the vote, we vote again for the top two. In round one people can freely vote for their favorite. In round two, the top candidates will be lobbying for the support of the candidates that didn't make it. IRV doesn't offer that possibility.
That said, Reed's secretive use of bar codes on my ballot pisses me off, and his top two primary stance is killing minority parties and candidates. He's loopy to believe that the top two system will bring out more voters in the primary. I can't see that happening when the outcomes are foregone conclusions in most races.
Jason Osgood is about as apolitical about election issues as anyone I've met. What matters first and foremost is election integrity and the sanctity of the secret ballot. His expertise in computer systems is hugely important in this day and age. Reed cannot touch Osgood on his knowledge of the systems we're all reliant on. I want a guy who "knows" this stuff, not one who has to rely on other experts for advice.
Reed may be a good bureaucrat, but we need someone better, and Osgood has the skills, and the temperament to shine.
Posted Aug. 6 at 10:59 pm by Daniel KKrist, I am not from Seattle, nor am I the correct age to vote. I just wanted to wish you luck.
My father is a Precinct Committeeman and a hard-working union man. So from birth I have been interested in politics. And now I've reached the age of teen angst and have become a hardcore Nirvana fan; unlike everyone else at my midwestern, snobby Catholic school. And upon my youtube surfing the thing that I loved most in all the interviews was the political views that you voiced.
So I just wanted to thank you for voicing your opinion and pursuing further your political career. It gives proof to my generation that you can rock and be politically aware at the same time.
Go Barack '08!
Oh and also, because of you I make all my friends walk up escalators in the mall. "The epitome of human laziness." haha.
Rock On Krist! And again Good Luck!!
Posted Aug. 14 at 3:23 pm by HillaryI'd vote for you, but only if you fix the link to your Murky Slough podcast URL:
http://murkyslough.com/Murky%20Slough/Podcast/rss.xml
The one on your site is a bad link.
Posted Aug. 17 at 8:25 pm by TiffanyHI ALL! wanna date sexy and hot girls? i am pretty sure that i am just the one you want :-) i think i am special coz i am a girl in uniform.... iam just here wanna know some guys who respect girls in uniform. u can check out here ** seekinguniform.c0m ** find me catch me!
Posted Aug. 27 at 4:29 am by alina