Dumb Ideas in Washington State

Here's something I think is dumb: Washington State's "open" primary.

What's wrong with people? Why do they think that people should be allowed to vote in the primary elections of parties to which they do not belong? The system Washington has now is nothing more than a no-parties election with an automatic run-off. Now, to pick their candidates, parties are going to have to hold pre-primary primaries! Or maybe we'll just go back to smoke filled back rooms and not give the rank and file any say at all!

Here's a thought - I don't live in Washington, but if people think they should be allowed to vote in other parties' elections, then I think it's unfair that I don't get to vote in Washington's elections. How about that?

Here's the evolution of representative government:

1) A group of people living in chaos decides to pick one from among themselves to be the leader. To be fair, they nominate people, have a vote where everyone picks one of those people, and the person with the most votes is the leader. Great.

2) Some people end up losing the elections in this system. This isn't fair enough. So the group decides that the two candidates that get the most votes should have a foot race. The winner of the race will be the leader. They call this a "run-off". Later, this is changed to a second vote, and the leader is the one that gets the most votes of the two. But they call this a "run-off".

3) Like-minded sub-groups in the community realize that they stand a better chance of getting their ideas implemented if they band together. They realize that if they all try out to get elected then they split up votes among themselves, each one getting fewer. But if they organize, and select just one candidate from among their numbers, than that candidate will stand a better chance of being selected as leader, on the strength of those ideas the sub-group shares.

4) To pick the best individual to represent the like-minded group in the vote, the group tries various methods. The fairest way seems to be having a vote among themselves. But what to call these votes? Ogg, from cave 67 suggests "primaries" and the name sticks. The Pro-Fire party picks their one best candidate, and that candidate gets all the pro-fire votes trouncing all the anti-fire candidates, who remained disorganized and split up their votes. Civilization moves on.

5) Fast forward to 2008. Some ya-hoos think this is "unfair" somehow and create laws forcing everyone to go back to step two.

5-a) Near future: parties have to pick their candidates by other methods, and come up with a new name for their "pre-primary" primaries. Some parties like this new system since it allows them to pick candidate by secret processes not over-seen be state and local governments. Whether that is good, or that is bad is something reasonable people can disagree about, but there it is...