Slashdot Mirror
Democrat Certified Winner in WA Governor Race
Washington's secretary of state certified the result of the hand recount (the third count) in the governor's race, reversing the first two results -- which Republican Dino Rossi had won -- and making Democrat Christine Gregoire the election's second governor-elect, by 129 votes out of 2.9 million. The inauguration is January 12. Predictably, the two sides have switched arguments, too, with the Democrats saying Rossi should concede and the Republicans saying they have a duty to make sure the will of the people is followed. The next step may be an election contest, which could take months, and result in a court awarding the victory to a candidate, nullifying the entire election, or sending the matter to the legislature. Rossi is calling for the legislature to pass a special law calling for a new election, which would bypass a contest procedure.
Don't worry, the Republicans will be sure to find some way to keep this going. All it takes is one registered voter to contest the election, but they have to present some sort of evidence or the court will throw them out. Watch as the Republicans pull a rabbit out of their hat...er, excuse me, a memory card with 200 Republican votes on it.
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
...they should have to pick two new candidates. Clearly neither of these two have sufficient support. Why bother running another deadlocked election?
Which makes it clear that neither side cares about the will of the people, as long as they win.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Problem with a runoff now, people will be voting based on the actions of either party during this long and arduous recount process. I don't live in WA, so I don't have any knowledge of the situation. Has either party been acting outside what normal people would consider normal bounds?
So it seems fair that the republicans dispute two of their own....
From SoundPolitics.com
Been spending more time analyzing the newly posted precinct canvass of the King County manual recount, and the differences with the canvass of the machine recount.
The story seems to be that at every opportunity where new ballots were somehow introduced into the mix, Gregoire benefited disproportionately.
As mentioned in an earlier post, 266 ballots seemed to disappear, while 325 magically materialized. Again, these are not just a matter of reinterpration of marks on paper, these are entire sheets of paper that either vanished or appeared out of thin air. Christine Gregoire added a net 47 new votes to her total, Dino Rossi lost a net 12 from his.
Dig deeper.
There were 238 precincts that found new ballots, 291 precincts that lost ballots, and 2087 precincts where the ballot count didn't change from the machine count.
In the precincts where the ballot count didn't change, new votes were added to/subtracted from the candidates counts by reinterpreting the undervotes and overvotes. In these precincts, Rossi gained +23 and lost -27; Gregoire gained +47 and lost -36. (1 was a Rossi that flipped to Gregoire) Out of the under/over-votes reawarded to a candidate, Gregoire won 68%, significantly more than her 59% share of the vote in King County overall. Of the candidate votes that were reinterpreted to be under/overvotes, Gregoire lost only 58%, slightly less than her share of the vote.
In the precincts that discovered new ballots, but didn't change the number of under/overvotes, Gregoire won 131 (69%) of the 200 newly added ballots. In the precincts where ballots vanished, but the number of under/overvotes did not change, Gregoire lost 108 (58%) of the disappeared ballots.
When ballots disappeared, they disappeared proportionally from both candidates. When ballots appeared, they appeared disproportionally for Gregoire.
Oddly enough!
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
As a Republican I root for the elephant's, but I am not about to go turning over flaming cars and seceding from the union if a Democrat gets in office.
What ever happened to "reasoned" debate? A legitimate difference of opinion? At the risk of sounding like we should all just get along, there is merit to the idea that if we, the left and the right, are working for the betterment of the people... then no one loses.
Of course, as long as government suckles at the teat of corrupt corporate influence peddlers, as well as letting the dog get wagged by the tail of the marginally disenfranchised then we will have partisan bickering that lowers us all.
Whoa, better step down from this soap box... it gives me such a head rush...
...But I digress. TREMBLE PUNY HUMANS!ONE DAY MY SPECIES WILL DESTROY YOU ALL!
Some people are sick of hearing about this on t.v., and won't want a run-off vote.
If we were to have a run-off vote, it's like saying that the first election was botched, that we messed up and didn't fix it. That when we went out to vote, our vote didn't count, cause now we have to re-vote.
If we were to have something like Instant Runoff Voting, would it make a different when the other 2.2585% votes get transferred to the remaining candidates? Would the margin between the top two be big enough to have a clear winner?
If we have a re-vote, who should pay for it? Should we really make the taxpayers pay for it?
I would think the hand recount would make a clear winner, with a Democrat, Republican, and neutral party, looking over each ballot. Or was there voter fraud somehow?
Anyone have any ideas on solutions to make sure this doesn't happen again?
3,500 more votes than voters in King County.
And it happens to be an overwhelming Democrat County.
Interesting.
Thursday, December 30, 2004 Last updated 5:30 p.m. PT
GOP urges King County to explain 3,500-vote discrepancy
By ELIZABETH M. GILLESPIE
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
SEATTLE -- The day after King County released a list of nearly 900,000 voters who cast ballots Nov. 2, Republicans prodded election officials to explain why the list appeared to have about 3,500 fewer names than the number of votes that were actually tallied.
More
And it happens to be an overwhelming Democrat County. Interesting.
There is nothing particularly interesting or surprising about this. The fact of the matter is that if Rossi still wants to stay in the race, then he needs to make a compelling argument that will convince either the judiciary or the legislature that fraud occured. And he's hired 500 lawyers to help make his case.
Republicans and Democrats have both monitored the elections, sniffing out any sign of fraud. None has materialized thus far. And the vote was monitored and certified by Secretary of State Sam Reed, a Republican.
To paraphrase every Republican for the last four years:
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
The problem with a top two primary is that although we get to vote on the person, not the party, each party has a right to be represented in the general election.
And if by some weird happening, two Democrats or two Republicans went onto the general election for a given race, I'm a bit curious about campaign money and issues like that.
Also, for the primary, what prevents vote splitting? Hypothetically speaking, let's say 15 Democrats run for a given race. If we use the plurality system, they may as well have a worse chance at advancing than a total of 3 Republicans running.
I agree. An earlier primary. Sending out absentee ballots earlier. Perhaps requiring a postmark date on ballots one week earlier, except for those in the military (as things may come up.)
New idea: Blank absentee ballots. Military people would receive blank absentee ballots, without the candidates written on them. Then there's be a bubble thing (like standardized testing uses) to fill in the name of the candidates. That way, they could receive the blank ballot months in advance, and fill it out when they know whom they wish to vote for, and mail it in.
E-voting is a good idea, provided we do have a paper trail.
What about i-voting? Internet voting. Where we could log on to a secure server, vote, and be done with it? Of course, I don't know how we would set up a paper trail for that. Perhaps having the ability to print out a receipt, and mail that in?
For as much as I'd like to see Dino win, I gotta say that I'm really glad that we don't have Ron Sims running our state. This guy is about as liberal as they get, so having Chris Gregoire run the state doesn't seem all that bad. I agree with the previous post that the politicians don't really care as long as they win, which is why there are so many citizen initiatives on every ballot that we have here. The voters have already pushed down taxes several times and when the liberal judges of our fair state overturned the ballot initiatives then the legislature saw the light and passed their own version of the same laws. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not too worried about it right now.
If you don't want crime to pay, let the government run it.
Republicans and Democrats have both monitored the elections, sniffing out any sign of fraud. None has materialized thus far.
Republicans sniffed and found 3,500 more votes than voters in an overwhelmingly Democrat county.
That's a compelling argument that there was fraud.
Sound Politics is the place to go if you want to learn more about the election.
My Weblog
Interesting. It seems King county has 3,500 more votes cast than registered voters who voted.
m l
http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/003322.ht
Declining to sign the affidavit of a voter isn't exactly the same thing as having an election worker not properly verify ones signiture is it? Well Rossi thinks it is. And, as has already been noted in the news, many of the smaller counties did, as part of their recounts, exactly what the republicans sued to keep king county from doing.
Rossi's view is thus: For the good of the state, a candidate should conceed if they if their opponent leads them by at least 42 votes, unless their opponent is a democrat, even if that person is leading them by a margin which is not only 3 times greater, but one which stataticians would have more confidence in. That's hypocrisy. Gregiore has always said the system should run it's course. And it will. Even the Republican observers have commented that they haven't found the widespread incompetence and malfesence nessecary to stand a chance of invalidating the election. Thus Rossi's plea for a new election on the grounds that they're just more fun.
There's just a small part of the republican party in washington, and they're willing to do all the things they decry, and profess to abhore. It's fine to do whatever you can get away with integrity be damned, it's the new American way, and it doesn't know party lines. But if through some delusional sense of fairness you think that the people should be precluded from calling them on their bullshit, and everyone who goes along with it, you've had enough, and you shouldn't be driving.
If 42 votes with a higher margin of error is good enough for the republicans, 129 with tighter tolerances should be better. (Nice to see you invoking the "ad populum" argument I've seen you decry previously though.) But I'll tell you what, if the Republicans want to pay for all the costs of the new election and holding the old government over, and any costs associated with a much accelerated establishment of the new kids on the block. Hell, I'm all for it. Because when it comes to King county, all the red counties will be obviated again. We don't vote by the acre, get past it, or give up. Enjoy the final few weeks of futility, it should be quite the emasculating spectical.
And on the absentee ballots.... King county sent them out in plenty of time. I'd already voted two weeks before the election, I'm a procrastinator and enjoying my first year in the new house. They send those out in big bunches, and the county isn't responsible for delivery.
I tell you what though, Sam Reed did a magnificent job, especially considering the amount of stress he much have been under. His calm, professionalism, and dare I say love of government, was exactly what the process needed. To bad there isn't a little more of it. He deserves all the accolades that might come his way.
If the results of the hand recount overturn the election the state is obligated to pay for it, not because Gregiore (hateful shrew that she is) compels them, but because the law does. It's the proper result of a proper election, afterall.
And again. If you can't sign the freaking affidavit on your absentee ballot, you didn't submit a vote, you mailed the county your garbage. Contrast this with the Republican claim that votes that should have been counted, but weren't because of what amounts to a clerical error on the part of election workers shouldn't be recounted, because of what the meaning of "recount" is. Their premiss for denying votes, to both democrats and republicans incidentally, was ENTIRELY semantic. I think we've all had to deal with institutionalized unfairness, but rarely have I seen it publicly championed.
The way to motivate people is to make them believe that THEY are under attack from the "enemy". Or that they are in danger from the "enemy". Or their families, values, etc.But the politicians aren't out for the betterment of the people. They are out to get power and to keep power.There is that, also.
Although I'd look at it differently. I see it as people fighting to get the power so they are the ones getting the corporate attentions.
Politics is now about getting power and holding power. The easiest way to do that is fear and hate. The worst way is through rational discussion and mutual respect.
Among other things, that didn't include people who wrote in votes. In an election with 2.8 million votes, do you really have a hard time believing that there are a couple of thousand stoners covered in bong resin who voted for Mike Hunt?
Move along. This isn't the conspiracy you're looking for.
Yeah, the Democrats cry when they're losing and there are votes that weren't counted that might give them a win.
Yeah, the Republicans are demanding that every vote should be counted now that might give them a win.
!!!BUT!!!
NEITHER side demands that "every vote be counted" when their side is winning. Then it is all about the other side being a "gracious loser" and such.
And that tells you that neither party is interested in counting all the votes, just enough so that they win.
It's all about winning. Not Democracy.
So your little jabs at the Democrats ring a little hollow. Instead, why don't you look at why the Republicans haven't been advocating improvements in the voting process?
The next step may be an election contest, which could take months
Why should it take months? Isn't it just battle clubs and a cage? Or maybe I mean, shouldn't it be?
Do you agree with this idea?
Hold one election.
Use Instant Runoff Voting.
It is being suggested that each (major?) political party nominate a candidate of their choice, and on the ballot, it would receive an "*" by it.
There would be multiple people from each major political party.
Example...
Candidate 1 Democrat
Candidate 2 Democrat *
Candidate 3 Democrat
Candidate 4 Democrat
Candidate 1 Republican *
Candidate 2 Republican
Candidate 1 Libertarian
Candidate 2 Libertarian *
Candidate 1 Green
Candidate 1 Constitution
The star indicates the party, the members of that organization, i.e. the party, has voted on who to officially nominate, but that doesn't stop others calling themselves Democrats, Republicans, etc from running. Then we implement Instant Runoff Voting, to find the one that 50% supposedly agree with.
To make matters worse, they're intentionally working to keep ballots from servicemen and women on active duty from being counted. And it seems there's more than the 129 vote margin out there being surpressed.
This Marine in particular is pissed about his vote not being counted.
Democrats scream their mantra of "count every vote"...until it looks like it will cost them an election.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
The only democratic outcome of the 2004 election is to organize new elections. If the Ukraine can do it, the US should be able to do the democratically right thing too. Of course the legal context and its current implementation is deeply flawed so that needs to be fixed as well. Three recounts and three different outcomes is unacceptable. Obviously sombody has trouble counting or someone is manipulating rather than counting the results.
It's unbelievable that two times in a row, the US gets a president whose election victory is all but certain. I'm not saying Bush didn't win. I'm just saying that it is pretty hard too establish that he won (and with how many votes) given the many legitimate (amd not so legitimate complaints) about the voting procedure, the way of counting votes, etc.
IMHO Bush should fix democracy in his own country before spreading it to the rest of the world.
Jilles
To make matters worse, they're intentionally working to keep ballots from servicemen and women
[Dana Carvy's George H. W. Bush voice] If you're in the military, and your vote is illegally cast after the election is over, your vote is...counted. If you're a minority and there's an error on your ballot, you vote is...not counted.[/DCGHWBV]
Nevermind that the GOP is so very concerned about voter fraud, as long as your a minority and are likely to vote democratic. Democrats might have committed shenanigans as well, but you shouldn't throw stones in a glass house buddy.
I live in North Dakota, which has a Republican govenor and the state legislature is solidly Republican. And yet our entire congressional representation is Democratic.
Paperless audit trails.
Talking about delivering the election for the Republicans.
Diebold being sued by California.
And so forth.
Just because you don't like the FACTS does not mean that they aren't FACTS.
The Republicans are NOT pushing for better methods of voting.
"Sam Reed", eh? Maybe you'd like to look at this story http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0405/S0016
I know, it must really suck when your heros are found to be even more dirty than their opponents.
This just in, possible fraud in Washington's King County.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
I didn't say Diebold voting machines were used. But Diebold and the Republicans have a lot of reports of things like paperless audit trails.
Here's the fact that you cannot seem to accept: He has been feted as a guest at President Bush's Texas ranch, joining a cadre of "Pioneers and Rangers" who have pledged to raise more than $100,000 for the Bush reelection campaign. Most memorably, O'Dell last fall penned a letter pledging his commitment "to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President." http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004 /03/03_200.html
Again, because you do not like the facts, does not mean that they aren't facts.
Ummm, "Diebold" is a company. A company cannot say anything because it is not a person.
The people who own and run the company can make statements.
The owner of Diebold says that he's going to deliver Ohio's votes for Bush and Ohio uses Diebold machines. Claiming it is a lie does not alter the FACTS.
Because I gave a clear example of Sam Reed blocking attempts to fix problems. Here is a good quote: "Today's hearing will decide a motion to dismiss, filed by Sam Reed's office. Of interest: Reed has asked the judge to deem the formal report by California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley to be inadmissable hearsay, and in a more bizarre response, seeks to have Diebold's own "release notes" -- the document which lists changes made in the software -- to be deemed inadmissable."
So, requesting that Diebold's own paperwork be deemed inadmissable shows that Reed is trying to fix the voting issues?
Awww, so now you want to play the victim? Get over it.
Allegations are not all that are required. But the fact that he wanted Diebold's own paperwork ruled inadmissable does show that he was not interested in fixing the problem (which you claimed he was).
It is about how the votes are counted.
It's about how the machines count the votes.
It's about how the companies providing the machines support and certify their machines.
I can provide clear examples of Reed fighting against fixing the problems.
All you can provide are your claims that he is trying to fix the problems.
I have provided clear examples of Republicans fighting against fixing other problems.
All you have is your claim that since you said Reed was tring to fix the problems, you don't have to provide any other examples.
The facts are that the Republicans have fought to prevent the problems from being fixed. Which is why we have paperless audit trails and machines that have code added to
Why is it that it was the Democrat counties that always seem to have these "anomolies" in voting?
Happened in King County here, happened in 2000 in Palm Beach County in Florida.
What's the deal? Are they just manufacturing votes, or are they just honestly that stupid that they can't count everything correctly in the first place?
I think it's the first. They just kept counting and "finding" votes until they won.... Same thing they tried in Florida in 2000.
The 129 votes is within the noise of human error. Do yet another recount, and the votes may shift in favor of the other candidate.
Personally, I support the candidate who has the guts to stand up to the Taiwanese community and to deal sternly with China.
I think that somehow we need to raise the bar for winner of any election so a win is as unvcontoversial as possilbe.
Let say that to wina an election you have to have 51% of the casted votes (or whatever percentage that ensures we are not dealing with minuscule margins of error).
If neither candidate wins with this minimum percentage, then a secondary body (ideally formed of elected people, i.e. local congress) elects the winner. AT least that way it is easy to count all votes.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You want to restrict this to a sub-group in one state in one election. Not going to happen.
The Republicans have done nothing to improve the voting process. In FACT, the Republicans have happily endoresed the Diebold machines that don't even have a paper audit trail.
So, you can get all bent out of shape about the Democrats in Washington state, but all that shows is that it is all about partisan politics with you.
You are unhappy because your team lost.
NOT because of irregularities in the voting process, but just because your team lost.
NOT because the Democrats are behaving a certain way, but just because your team lost.
NOT because of anything other than your team losing.
You are behaving the same way that the Democrats did when it looked like they were losing. Because it is all about your team losing. Nothing else. No matter how you want to try and spin it.
Have fun in your victimhood.Yep. Typical Republican response. Just what I'd expect from you.
So you deny that Reed tried to get Diebold's own paperwork ruled inadmissable?
Well, that looks like you are the one lying because he did.Now you're trying semantic games to get out of it.
So, in your world, it is only the "company" speaking when the owners/executives say something that they say is actual company policy...
But when the owners/executives say something, but don't say it is actual company policy, then it isn't the "company" saying it.
The company is the owners/executives. Adding on the phrase "official company statement" does not change anything, except in your mind.Since you have been completely unable to provide a single substantiated instance where he did push to fix such problems, then the current count stands at:
Reed push to fix 0
Reed push to block 1It does show what I said. And it is the only example given so far about Reed's activities.
Because you do not want to believe the FACTS does not make them false (as you keep claiming with your "liar" comments).
All it does is show your partisan blindness and petty party loyalty.
You're mad because your team lost when they looked like they would win and the other team has, officially, been awarded the prize.
Instead of dealing with the problem of the voting system, you're going to whine about losing and call anyone who presents a fact you don't like, a "liar". Great. I hope that works for you.
For my part, I don't have time to deal with some fool who can't even present a single substantiation for his fantasies that he's swallowed, hook, line and sinker from his Republican demagogues.
Plurality voting suffers from th spoiler effect, which introduces inaccuracy amounting to about a 7% error on average, when it occurs, reaching as high as 23% in some U.S. elections.
Instant Runoff Voting has even been shown to produce the Condorcet winner more often in practice than the Condorcet method, because Condorcet voting be manipulated by strategic voting (i.e., marking whichever of the top-two candidates you do not want to win dead last after people you like even less.) These references explain why in detail:
John J. Bartholdi III, James B. Orlin, "Single transferable vote resists strategic voting," Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 8, p. 341-354, 1991
John R. Chamberlin, "An investigation into the relative manipulability of four voting systems," Behavioral Science, vol. 30, p. 195-203, 1985
Hannu Nurmi, "Comparing Voting Systems," D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, 1987.
Sam Merrill, "Making Multicandidate Elections More Democratic," Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1988. (Calls IRV 'Hare')
you find it in some way unusual that the list of most, but not all, of the people who voted contains fewer names than the actual number of ballots cast?
I'm pretty sure that they go over this in 7th grade math.... Or I could just blame it on the idiot journalists. Or their editors.
The problem is that neither party wants 100% verifiable results.
If there is always a measure of uncertainty, the losing party can always claim that the other party cheated.
And nothing stirs up the partisans like an allegation that the other side "stole" the election.
Remove the uncertainty and you remove a partisan tactic.Yep. And both sides want that option (and the option to claim the other side is cheating).
Has anyone ever wondered why there isn't a Federal department that tests and certifies voting machines?
I found all of the problems interesting, both then and now. Of course, I usually vote libertarian, further marking me as an oddity.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
The problem with how we had it in the last September primary is this...
The political parties don't really have a formal membership. This creates problems when they want their "members" to vote for a candidate to go onto the general election.
One solution that is unlikely, and would create more problems, is for each political party organization to hold their own primaries, with the winner going onto the general election.
The political parties don't really have a formal membership.
This is a problem that state of Washington already found a way to deal with, years ago. Ever participate in the caucus? By participating in one, you are stating that you -- for that time -- identify with that party in some way, and you promise not to participate in the caucus of any other party for that election cycle.
That system was just carried over to the new primary system. It's not perfect inasmuch as there is, as you say, no formal membership (except for the people who actively participate in the party as officials of it, as I do). But that's never been a problem for the caucuses, that I can see. It's a reasonable compromise.
One solution that is unlikely, and would create more problems, is for each political party organization to hold their own primaries, with the winner going onto the general election.
That is essentially what we had in September, except that the counties ran them. That's really a distinction without a difference, I think (except in that the parties don't pay for them, of course, which isn't all that important to what we're discussing here).
What I hope happens next is that there is either a lawsuit from the parties, or the parties just go ahead and pick their candidates at convention instead of in the primary.
Since people strongly disliked the last September primary, and since I-872 in my opinion is illegal, what do you propose?
what do you propose?
I've stated it clearly several times, including in one of the posts you responded to, two replies ago. I've been unequivocal in my support for the party (closed) primary system and the normal (not top 2) general election.
That many people strongly disliked it is a given, but beside the point, since the other options are undemocratic or unconstitutional. And as I firmly believe the overwhelming majority of strong dislike was based on ignorance (such as, thinking a primary is a pre-election instead of a method for a party to choose its candidates), I am even less inclined to take that into consideration.
Do you know the laws/requirements on how to get in the primary, whether for a major party, minor party, or as an independent?
There are no independents in the primary system we just went through (that's the point: it is only for the parties [well, and nonpartisan races]). The only "third party" in it is the Libertarians, and I think it has something to do with how well the party did in previous elections, whether it qualifies.
Every other party gets no primary, and has to select their candidates outside the primary process (which is what I hope the major parties now will do, too).
I'm still a bit confused on how everyone gets into the elections. Like the qualifications for persons/parties for the general election, and how the primary figures into that.
But yes, I hope you're right about the outside primary thing. I'd rather see the party organization elect from within their own parties.
Another idea, and it's a bad one probably, would be to do this. Have it the same way we did last September, but allow each person to vote under each party for each race. So if there are three major political parties and 20 races, that's 60 votes.
I'm still a bit confused on how everyone gets into the elections. Like the qualifications for persons/parties for the general election, and how the primary figures into that.
It's simple. To get on the general election ballot, you get a certain number of signatures. That's (essentially) it. The party serves as a means to get those signatures, and the primary is a method parties use to determine which of multiple candidates gets to use those signatures.
So the Democrats get signatures enough to put an unnamed candidate for governor on the ballot. They hold a primary election for their members to tell them which of the two, Gregoire or Sims, they should endorse. The winner, Gregoire, gets the endorsement and gets the signatures to be on the general election ballot.
Another idea, and it's a bad one probably, would be to do this. Have it the same way we did last September, but allow each person to vote under each party for each race. So if there are three major political parties and 20 races, that's 60 votes.
Why should I, as a Republican, have any say in who the Democrats decided to give their endorsement to?
In the last September primary, where we could only vote under one party for each race, what prevents malicious voting?
Since the primary is how Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians choose their candidate to go onto the general election, what prevents others from malicious voting? Like a Green, Reform-er?, or some other party who shouldn't be voting in other people's parties.
Membership in one of the two major political parties doesn't preclude membership in the other, at least here in California. That county registrars require a single affiliation is an anachronism.
Is it different in Washington?
The fact is that both of the major political parties have a great deal of power, and nobody should be excluded from membership in either or both.
What kind of ignorant behavoir is this!?
In the last September primary, where we could only vote under one party for each race, what prevents malicious voting?
What prevents it under *any* system? Even if we have party registration, I can register for the Democratic party and then vote for Sims in the democratic primary, hurting Gregoire and the Democrats. It's a given.
If we allowed each voter to have one vote under each party for each race in the primary, wouldn't we end up with compromises on candidates?