Washington State Levels the Playing Field for Moderates
Supreme Court Upholds Washington’s ‘Open’ Primary
The Supreme court voted 7 to 2 to allow Washington to go forward with its new electoral structure, under which the top two vote-getters in the open primary advance to the general election, regardless of party. That means two Democrats or two Republicans could end up facing each other in November in a gubernatorial or congressional contest, with the other party left on the outside looking in.
Both the state Democratic party and the state GOP strongly opposed the new system, arguing that it deprived them of the right to pick their own nominees as they see fit.
It seems to me that this novel approach increases the chances that a moderate not locked into party allegiance can move forward in elections. The only requirement is to be persuasive.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
5 Responses to “Washington State Levels the Playing Field for Moderates”
Maybe I don't understand the consequences correctly, but I fail to see the progress in this.
If the two on the ballot are from the same party, why would members of the unrepresented party even bother to vote? To assume that one of the two would be a moderate is a huge assumption, a shot in a complete dark. Their differencces could well be in terms of name recognition, party connections or a host of other trivial differences.
To me, progress signifies more inclusiveness.
How is this more inclusive?
I think you're right about this. But Domajot is also right: it will only work if people vote in primaries.
To me this opens up an opportunity for the least partisan of the candidates to move ahead. Certainly it is no guarantee and moderates do have to vote in the primary but it is a small incremental advance to allow those with a more moderate temperament to reach the general election. Previously the only two to reach the general election would be one from each party.
Actually, it's more fuel for Superdestroyer's one-party-USA (Democratic) catastrophe in a number of states.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/19/supreme…
Paul,
I'm not saying you are wrong. I just don't see that the ends this is aiming for neccssarily, logicallyl follow the methodology.
I'm a bit afreaid of unforseen consequences., like the Domocrats' well intended reforms leading to caucuses superdelegates, and the current disarray.
I put more hope in eliminating gerrymandered districts and public financing of elections.
We'll see what happens. At any rate, one state forging a change is a handy test tube for the nation.