I truly cannot understand why people protest the primary system - assuming they understand that the parties have no obligation to accept the input of non-members in determining how the parties are run.

The Republican and Democratic parties are not "democracies" - they are private organizations that are free to determine how they do their business, using whatever rules or guidelines their membership decides.

The people of Washington - through their elected representatives - enacted this primary system in 1988 to provide an alternative to the caucus system. But - as the courts have affirmed - the parties are free to manage their internal business or choose their leaders in whatever way they please. Non-party members have no more right to tell the Democrats or Republicans how to choose their candidates or create their platforms than the Southern Baptist Convention has a right to tell the Catholic church how to choose the next Pope.

There is a simple solution for citizens who dislike the idea of subsidizing party primaries. Get together and lobby the legislature to do away with the primary system entirely. Or do it by citizen initiative.

Again, the parties cannot be forced to have non-members determine who their leaders will be, who creates their platform, or who manages any other party business.

I'd be curious to know if the people griping about the current situation are members of any private organizations - clubs, schools, fraternities, leagues, churches, etc. And if so, would they be OK having someone who isn't part of their organization determine how it is run?

I don't presume to think that, as a Catholic, I have any business telling the local synagogue who they should should have as a Rabbi. Or should I have any say in who should be the next head of the Teamsters. Or the the next director of NARAL. I don't belong to those groups. Why should an "independent" think he or she has the right to determine who the Democrats or Republicans should choose to lead their organizations?

Either join the clubs or start your own. Then you'll have a "say" in what happens.

Dear People Offended By Party Selection:

No one is forcing you to help either party select a nominee. That's what a primary is; it's a selection process. If you don't belong to the party, you don't get to help the party choose a nominee. This isn't rocket science.

Sincerely,

People Who Understand Civics

As I wrote a couple of days ago:

The Libertarian Party will be choosing their presidential candidate at their national convention in May in Denver.

The Green Party will be choosing their presidential candidate at their national convention in July in Chicago.

The Constitution Party will be choosing their presidential candidate at their national convention in April in Kansas City.

The Prohibition Party have already chosen their presidential candidate - at their national convention last September in Indianapolis.

And the Socialist Party have already chosen their presidential candidate at their national convention last October in St. Louis.

So why are the Democratic and Republican parties being held to a different standard?

At the end of the day, we're picking a party's presidential nominee, not yet voting for the presidential candidates which we'll do in the general election. Parties should be allowed to determine how they wish to make their selection, and we will get to choose who we want to support, or not, in the general election.

To those who would tell me and people like me to "get over it":

The political parties have indeed stripped us of part of our right to vote. They did so by convincing the Supreme Court that their right to assemble and their right to free speech, both in this case at public expense, are of greater concern than the public's suffrage.

I am not going to get over it so long as I have to pay for a primary where I have to sign an oath to a party or not be able to vote for all the candidates on the same ballot.

We should not have to pay for our primaries if they are to be run in such a fashion; we have been royally snookered by both major parties. If they want to impose these onerous restrictions, then they, and the people that check those boxes, should pay for the privilege.

Chad Johnson - The Democratic party didn't want this primary, or the expense. Blame Sam Reed, the Secretary of State for that.

The Democrats held their caucus and it will be paid for directly by contributions and donations to the party.

Dear people who understand civics,

Perhaps you missed the chapter on taxes, budgets, and the public good. If "No one is forcing [me] to help either party select a nominee." why, then, am I forced to pay for it? I can think of many more worthy things we could do with the $5-10 million us tax payers are forces to pay for these private party selection processes. But since the elections actually don't count for much, perhaps us taxpayers should also buy the wine and cheese for caucus parties too.

Sincerely,
People who REALLY understand civics

I understand and support the right to free association for political parties. That being said, I think they would be wise to use the primary to apportion their delegates to their nominating conventions. The caucuses can still be used to select the delegates and create the platform and such. My logic being that making the process inclusive and accessible should be the goals of the party organizations. No matter how hard a local volunteer chapter of either party works, they're not going to be able to publicize a caucus and accommodate voters as well as our professional public elections administrations. But of course they are free to ignore my advice at their own peril. Just as we are free to vote for independents, non-partisans, and minor party candidates.

I think the Democrats got this little party rolling back in March of 2002 with DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF WASHINGTON v REED (W.D. WASH. 2002), The 9th District Court of Appeals found that the blanket primary was unconstitutional . The State (Reed) moved for reconsideration with the 9th and they were denied, Then the State petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review in 2003.

In 2004 the Grange filed initiative 872 proposing the "top two" without any limitation to party affilliation. The U.S. Supreme Court denies the request to review DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF WASHINGTON V REED. The Washington State Legislature passed a two part bill, Part 1 provided for a "top Two" and Part 2 the "Montana Style Primary" in case Part 1 was struck down. In April of 2004 Governor Gary Locke (D) vetoes the "Top Two" approach and the Montana-Style pick-a-party primary takes effect.

The primary gets over 14,000 complaints to the Secretary of States Office over the pick-a-party. Initiative 872 passes by almost 60%. The
Republicans then Challenge 872 in Court and are joined by the Washington State Democrats and the Libertarian Party as Plaintiffs.

Finally in July 2005 the Federal Court issued it's opinion in WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY et al. v. LOGAN. et al. That the Top Two primary viol;ated the First Amendment, They struck down 872 in it's entirety and specifically stated that Washington will return to the pick-a-party primary originally sought by the Democrats in 2002 in DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF WASHINGTON v REED.

Democrats are responsible for this situation. Daniel K is wrong.

The nominating process question is one that unites the left and right like nothing else; we get it, while others don't.

Bottom, bottom, bottom line: If you want to participate in a party's nominating process, join the party. Otherwise, please (respectfully said, of course) MYOB.

That being said, those who complain that the public is forced to foot the bill for party functions (primaries) have a point to which there's a simple answer: abolish primaries altogether.

Aside from the odd judicial election or ballot measure, take the entire nomination process out of the public domain and put it back in the hands of the political parties where it belongs.

Let the Dems and GOP do their respective thing with resulting general election candidates put before voters who then can make a decision.

To call a primary an "election" is misleading; no one gets elected to anything, they get nominated to stand for election.

What about this is so complex??? Perhaps Postman you could play a few more of your voice mail messages in search of an answer?

The Piper

airfoil:
Well written and exactly correct! This should be published on the front page of all local papers!

PO writes: "Perhaps you missed the chapter on taxes, budgets, and the public good. If "No one is forcing [me] to help either party select a nominee." why, then, am I forced to pay for it?"

You are "forced" to pay for it because your fellow citizens have mandated it through your elected representatives. It is the law. We are all "forced" to pay for a lot of things we don't like or agree with in our system.

It is our responsibility as citizens to elect people who will represent us on issues that we find important - and not reelect those who aren't providing such representation.

I agree that the political parties should bear the costs of their candidate selection processes. I've contacted my legislative representatives and made my view known. I encourage you to do the same.

While Turbine's summary of RECENT legal developments is essntially correct, he doesn't go back far enough in history.

The fact is, we have a Primary because the people of this State demanded it via an Initiative in 1988.

So to those who keep asking, "Why don't the legislators listen to us?" the answer is, "They did. You asked for this, you got it."

Just because the voters pass an Initiative doesn't make it necessarily logical, right or constitutional. That's one of the reasons the courts exist - to make sure that laws passed (either by the Legislature or the voters) do not violate the Constitution.

Not one of the commenters, starting with "airfoil," appears to know that -- unlike the previous elections -- this year's presidential primary election does not allow "unaffiliated" voters to cast votes which can be separately tabulated and reported.

How can they miss it? The reason so many people are angry this year is that they have had something taken away from them -- the chance to cast a vote which will be counted and reported for whatever influence it may have on the national primary season.

When you take that chance away, you make it a "party affair". No wonder people gripe about paying for it.

This has nothing to do with court decisions or constitutional rights of political parties. The law didn't require the parties to assign delegates based on the primary election -- not even based on the votes of their own members in the election.

It is merely a way to "kill" the primary in this state -- and it is apparently the "Democratic" Party that wants to kill it. They seem to have the ability to be embarrassed at their refusal to use the election results, and they want to remove that source of embarrassment.

Why should a voter that is not willing to even call themselves a Democrat feel they have a right to pick our nominee? Its as if I showed up at an American Medical Association meeting and demand to pick their director. If you won't join you don't get a say.

BobM raises a point - however I'm not sure it makes any material difference. Those voters who are complaining do not seem to be particularly interested in merely participating in a publicly financed opinion poll. They are truly irritated that there unwillingness to become members of the parties, should still entitle them to have a say in the parties nominating processes.

And nothing is precluding them from voting the existing ballot without marking the affiliation. What is the essential difference between that and checking an "unaffiliated" box? If you were able to mark a ballot "unaffiliated" which the parties would ignore, or simply not check a party box and have them ignore your vote, there is no real difference.

Either way, your "vote" would not be used to choose a nominee.

“jb” asks: “Why should a voter that is not willing to even call themselves a Democrat feel they have a right to pick our nominee?”

You are missing the point.

“Unaffiliated” voters participate in primaries in many other states and thereby have an influence on the national campaign.

“Unaffiliated” voters had been allowed to participate in the WA primary, but not now.

It has absolutely nothing to do with your party’s “right to pick [your] nominee.”

It has everything to do with giving the others a voice in the process.

“airfoil” says: “Those voters who are complaining do not seem to be particularly interested in merely participating in a publicly financed opinion poll.”

Perhaps so for some of them, but the people who understand our system of laws are simply angry that their right to participate at all has been taken away.

Your party can continue to ignore the election results, including the votes cast by people who identify themselves as Democrats.

The GOP can continue to follow the opinions of their voters by assigning a portion of their delegates based on the primary election votes of their members.

The point is that the “independents” no longer have a chance to cast votes as “independents.”

Those “independent” votes can only influence the parties to the extent the parties allow, but please let it enter your conscious thoughts for just a moment that those votes can have a national impact simply by being counted and reported.

When those votes cannot be cast and counted, they can have no influence on the parties or public opinion.

I figure that’s the reason the law was changed – to eliminate the voices of people who don’t declare a party affiliation.

Primaries and caucuses are for THE PARTIES to select THIER nominees. Independants i.e. "people who vote for the person not the issues" really don't have any business in this process since they aren't sure where they stand anyways! If you want open primaries, why bother with a general election? Why not just settle the matter here? Bottom line, primaries are wasteful. All states need CAUCUSES ONLY on a rotating basis, paid for by volunteer donations!!!

Mr. Pelz,

I have voted since McGovern, for only democratic candidates. So for 12 years of
the 36+ years I have been voting, a democrat that I voted for was actually
elected president. Like most democrats, I do not discourage easily. After our
state democratic party made the decision this year to disenfranchise so many
elderly and others, who for whatever reason, could not attend a caucus, I ask
that you please remove my name, Daniel M. Fink from the rolls of democratic
supporters and contributors. I do not wish to receive ANY correspondence from
the state or national Democratic Party. I will not be voting for any democratic
candidate in the future. My absentee primary ballot that I mailed in will not be
counted, making me equal to what? A felon? An illegal alien? My vote in the
November general election will not be for a democrat, as it is obvious now, you
are running the party of games. Please do not reply to this email as I have read
enough of your arrogant dribble in the daily's.

Dan F.
Fifth generation Washingtonian
US Citizen

I would suggest that Independents unwilling to abide by Democratic party or Republican party nomination rules create their own party and select their own nominee, or attend one of the other third party conventions.

As for caucus vs. primary. I'd prefer a primary so that more can people can vote.

There is a legal (& moral) way to have your Presidential vote count w/o declaring your party, at least for a

small number of voters in King County.

On Tuesday, if you walk-in, you can sign in the pollbook as intending to vote for the Ballot Measure only, not checking either the D or R boxes. Supposedly, that means you should only be able to fill in the oval for the school district (or whatever is on your ballot) measure but, in reality, as soon as you are issued a ballot (meaning it is in your hands), the election officials have no control over it & should not even lay eyes on it. (They are not supposed to be able to see you vote.) You can then vote for a presidential candidate of either party and put it in the counting machine. It is only at the pollbook that the party choice is recorded, not on the ballot itself, so the machine will count the vote for the candidate. The ballots given out are exactly the same whether given to D, R or Ballot Measure Only signees, so neither the ballot nor the counter can "know" how you signed in.

If you were to sign in as an R, or a D, you would be swearing that party's oath. But if you sign in as Ballot Measure Only, you are only swearing the usual oath stating you are the registered voter named in the book.

I believe this will also work in Seattle etc. where there is no other measure on the ballot. There will still be that option in the pollbook,as the books are common to all of the county. It will just be more obvious that that is what one is doing. The poll worker will remind the voter that there is no ballot measure and may say that the voter "can't" vote for President. But they cannot deny the voter that ballot (it is actually not uncommon for someone to want to cast a blank ballot, in order to keep their voting record intact), and they cannot take it away from the voter after issuing, even if the voter is seen marking on it. However, I'm not 100% positive that the counting machine will not just automatically count it as a blank ballot in any precinct that doesn't have a ballot measure. But I think not: you will be told that "you must" cast a blank ballot, rather than "it will count" as blank.

I am not going to debate open/closed primary/caucus, but I do think it is a unfair that only a small number of voters state-wide have this chance to vote "independent". And it is a shame that King County Elections has their hands tied so that they cannot even offer this as an option. They have to stick to the script. So please, go gentle on the pollworkers.

I'd use the word ditto, if I wasn't afraid someone would call me a Limbaugh supporter....