The Seattle Times today editorializes in favor of I-872. This is the initiative that would give us a “top two” primary instead of the closed primary we recently had, or the open primary that was truck down by the courts. This initiative probably falls into the “be careful what you wish for” category of initiatives.

I heard a woman proponent of I-872 on John Carlson's radio show a week or so ago. Because I was in the middle of my commute home, and was more focused on dealing with construction on the side of the road, I did not closely follow the details of her arguments. Nonetheless, the general tenor of her comments was that “the people” should decide the candidates rather than the parties.

My initial reaction to this was opposition. I believe that the courts were right when they stated that the parties have the right to say who their candidate is. If a party wants to nominate an unqualified bozo that’s their prerogative - indeed the Democrats seem to have done just that for their Senate nominee this year. The voters can decide in the general election if they want the person to be their elected official.

The proponents of I-872 would probably argue that the general public has the "right" to nominate anyone they want. This is ludicrous. First off there are numerous legal restrictions on who can serve in various offices. For example, the United States Constitution states that a member of the House of Representatives must be at least 25 years old. Sorry, the general public has no “right” to elect a 20 year old to Congress. Period. Other restrictions are common. Many jurisdictions (admittedly not all) require various professional qualifications for office – a law degree for elected prosecutors and medical degrees for elected coroners for example.

What these proponents really mean to say is that the public has the right to choose the standard bearers for the political parties. No it doesn't - the courts have made that clear. What the public can do, obviously, is screen out the candidates in order to have a clear two-person choice in the general election. It remains to be seen if this is wise.

As I listened to the I-872 proponent, however, it struck me that, if successful, this initiative would result in the opposite of what she wanted. "The Public" would have less input on party nominees - not more.

Imagine, for instance, if I-872 was in effect in 1996. In the primary that year, the 6 Democratic nominees collectively won 52% of the vote and the 8 Republican nominees collectively won 48% of the Primary vote. Under I-872 the gubernatorial nominees who progressed to the general election would have been Democrat Gary Locke (then King County Executive) and Democrat Norm Rice (then Mayor of Seattle).

In effect, the Republicans would have been forced off the general election ballot because they had too many evenly matched candidates in the primary. Had that happened, you can be sure the Republicans would have reacted to this by nominating all their future candidates before the primary – probably at their state convention. The party would have gone into the primary with the one anointed candidate. Ultimately the Democrats would have to reciprocate or face being forced off a general election ballot themselves. I doubt that choosing nominees at state conventions is what the proponents of I-872 have in mind - but it is the most likely result.

I-872 proponents may argue that, despite the parties’ conventions, any and all persons may be placed on the primary ballot. This is true but it ignores the fact that a candidate with the active opposition of their party would have little chance in a primary and, if successful, would almost certainly be dead meat in the general election. Quite simply, nominees need the grass root support that only the party faithful can provide.

Remember also that the parties would have the legal right to prohibit those they didn’t nominate from using the party label. A maverick candidate could still run, he just would be legally barred (as a result of a lawsuit probably) from claiming they were affiliated with any particular party.

Maybe 1-872 isn’t such a bad thing then. The unintended consequence would be party conventions (and therefore the political parties) increasing in importance. The parties would have the nominees in place well in advance of the "primary" election. We would then use the “primary” election to screen out the third-party kooks and cranks. Ultimately the need for a primary election would fade entirely.

Once you think about it, I-872 may do a lot of good. I say vote for it.
- posted by Thomas @ 1:25 PM