The Grange Party Debacle Pt. 1
I am officially running for office, and under the laws of the State of Washington, the ballot will say: Krist Novoselic Prefers Grange Party.
Krist Novoselic is a regular contributor to the Daily Weekly.
Of course, there is no such thing as a Grange Party. I filed for the office of Wahkiakum County clerk because I want to draw attention to a serious issue with our state's election laws and party labels on ballots.
Do you rely on a party label next to a candidate's name on the ballot to help you vote? I do. And now some voters might be attracted to my candidacy only because of the goodwill generated from the Grange's name next to mine on the ballot.
They could think, "I don't know who this Novoselic is, but I know the Grange gave money to that family whose house caught on fire, and they granted a scholarship to my nephew that helped him travel to his college - I'm going to vote Grange Party."
Grangers want to do community work and not have candidates on the ballot. But who cares what Grange members think? Washington State sure doesn't! Any candidate can drag the Grange, American Legion, Rotary or any other private association on a ballot regardless of how the members of a group feel about it.
On the ballot I have the right to say I prefer the Grange Party. But the Grange can't refute my claim where it matters most - on the same ballot. Sure, the Grange can buy advertising, give interviews and try to rebut me in other media, but the only place a voter is guaranteed to see my claim is on the ballot!
What I'm doing used to be illegal in the United States, until last year when the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion that the prefers party concept, on its face, passed constitutional muster. Thankfully, this system is back in court and judges are looking at it as applied.
Were our laws regarding private association so bad that we needed to change them this radically?
There are very complicated legal arguments with why I can claim to be a Grange Party candidate on the ballot. The State offers a disclaimer that says a candidate might not really be representing a party; they only prefer that party. This is pure legalese, cooked up by lawyers who are trying to skirt associational issues in court by parsing the word prefers.
So a voter sees a party label on the ballot and the state says it might not mean that it's a real label. HUH? This is confusing.
I've got a lot more to say about this and my candidacy. I'll be keeping a running blog so check back soon.
10 comment(s)
Big Guy, the Heretic says:
Krist,
Aren't you a member of a grange?
And, apparently, you prefer the Grange Party - and if there is such a thing - they can choose whether they publicly endorse you. Or, they can state that they don't endorse any candidate. Or, they can set your house on fire and send you off to college.
Or they can state that there is no Grange Party for this Novoselic person to 'prefer.'
As far as goodwill goes, it's unlikely that the good grange reputation will take someone very far. Most city folk don't even know what a grange is or where to get themselves one...
I can call myself a member of the Democratic Party with no apparent disambiguation - yet what the Democrats are and what they stand for varies greatly from one member to another.
Yes, it is more confusion than having to pick one of two or three choices. But when pushed to the limits, perhaps the voters will surprise everyone.
I guess what I'm saying is that I see problems with this new structure but I don't clearly see the problem.
Posted On: Friday, Jun. 5 2009 @ 12:46AM
Shaun Diamonds says:
Always good to hear you are active in pursuing issues you believe in, best of luck from the UK Mr N.
By the way some of your old interviews on youtube are hilarious!
Posted On: Friday, Jun. 5 2009 @ 3:57AM
You don't care anyway says:
Are you kidding? If you want to run for office, just do it, stop talking about this nonsense. I know you don't want to be part of that, so why keep trying to pretend? I know you don't want to be part of a political game that will make your heart rotten, so why can't you just drop it and start doing something that can actually take you somewhere? C'mon Krist, you're a smart person, a lot lot more than average, start focusing on something concrete instead of this political crap.
Posted On: Friday, Jun. 5 2009 @ 5:23AM
Carrie says:
I completely agree with your views about the broken election system and am very glad you are drawing attention to these issues that are pervasive throughout the US (even in Indiana where I am). No matter what party you belong to, as an American, you have to believe in fair elections.
I work with the League of Women Voters (www.lwv.org) who support election reform. LWV is a nonpartisan organization and election reform is a nonpartisan issue.
So, I say, vote Grange Party!
Posted On: Friday, Jun. 5 2009 @ 8:54AM
Kelly Haughton says:
The right of free association is violated by the Top 2 law. Organizations of all stripes should be allowed to determine who can use their name on the ballot.
The Democrats should be able to prevent Dino Rossi or Mike the Mover from running as Democrats.
Pierce County's Ranked Choice Voting law gives the parties the right to determine which candidates can use their name on the ballot.
This recognition of this fundamental First Amendment right is important in defending our Constitution and liberty. The Top 2 should be repealed for this reason.
Posted On: Friday, Jun. 5 2009 @ 9:05AM
Washington Resident says:
What are your positions on issues that you will be dealing with as County Clerk?
What will you do for the county if elected?
Or is this just about making a point? In which case, what happens if you win?
Posted On: Friday, Jun. 5 2009 @ 2:53PM
Edward says:
Krist if you change the first letter of your name to C and continuously proclaim "The Bill of Rights" you will infiltrate easily.
Posted On: Saturday, Jun. 6 2009 @ 6:58PM
wyatt says:
im overly computered lately withal all this social network krap but i did read the sunday oregonian..good article
Posted On: Monday, Jun. 8 2009 @ 12:38AM
molly says:
How many people will be voting for you because they know who you are and not because you actually stand for anything? For everyone who follows your view point and supports it and lives in your county, there will be others who live in your county and go "Hey, I know that dude. He played bass for Nirvana and liked the music. I will vote for him." Then not check out what you actually stand for. Just like people voted for Hillary for the sheer fact she is a woman and cared for nothing else about what she stood for.
Posted On: Tuesday, Jun. 9 2009 @ 9:23AM
dlw says:
But the problem you're focusing on here isn't "top two" per se, but really the rules for labeling candidates during the primary.
One could argue this is a matter of additional rules that undercut the otherwise enhanced intra-party discipline from a "top two" primary.
As for the freedom of association, the right to vote has never entailed the right to vote for one's first choice in a given election. IMHO, strategic voting is a fact of life, right alongside the rational ignorance of many voters. They can be mitigated, but not eradicated. For as long as we use winner-takes-all elections, there will tend to be two major parties. And because of information asymmetries and the way campaign promises do get violated, there'll be brand effects from the institutional clout of the two major parties, so the use of "top two" primaries for some single-member elections doesn't take away that much.
My pov is compromise: more choices for more local elections, better quality choices for less local elections. It might be wise to focus on replacing "top two" in WA for more local elections. Then, maybe third parties could become more like the Grange party most of the time and specialize in contesting only local elections, otherwise voting strategically.
Posted On: Tuesday, Jun. 30 2009 @ 5:37PM