Pelz, McDonald and Hunt pile on 'top two' primary

I am at the Democratic State Convention in Spokane and I cannot define the hostility present with every glance at my Hillary pin. I cannot begin to explain how disappointed I am at this moment to call myself a Democrat.

Yesterday, I attended a WA State Democratic Rules Committee Meeting which offended me beyond repair, not just as a Democrat, but more importantly as a woman. A DNC Party Leader, and no surprise an Obama supporter and Super Delegate David McDonald stood up to explain what happened at the DNC Meetings in DC-believe it was Room 111B at the Spokane Convention. He proclaimed that the DNC's votes in DC a couple of weeks ago came down to a Beauty Contest vs. a Rules Contest! I was so furious that I grabbed my bags and stormed out of the room.

Regardless of how any one feels about Senator Clinton, I am furious that one of our so called "leaders" of the Democratic Party referred to Senator Clinton's Campaign as a Beauty Contest. As a mother to a smart female, I will have no part of a Party that refers to Senator Clinton, who I honor and admire, as a Beauty Queen running for political office. Need I remind the DNC Leaders that Hillary Clinton has a law degree and over 30 years of political experience?

Over the past few weeks, I called for all of us to be reserved about our votes until a VP decision has been made, but now, I am truly sure as to what I will do with my vote. I shall not support the DNC until its puppet David McDonald apologizes for his statements about Hillary Clinton!

Anne Block, WA Delegate for Hillary Clinton, 39th LD
Attorney

The Democratic Party wasn't so worried about minor parties when they made it harder for them to get on the ballot at all in 2004 (they, through their members in the Legislature, and the Democratic governor at the time, Locke, dramatically increased signature requirements for minor party and independent parties).

This is just a red herring, because in their aim to get "Top 2" thrown out again, they figure that they can play on the voters' sympathy for minor parties. The following article, that I wrote a few weeks ago and revised somewhat, explains why "Top 2" may actually be better for minor parties.

THE TROJAN HORSE OF DWIGHT PELZ

Washington state Democratic chairman, Dwight Pelz. and his Republican colleague, care about minor parties like Doctor Jack Kervorkian cares about a hospice patient. These are the same Democrats, by the way, with the pen of ex-Governor Gary Locke and supporters in the Legislature, that proceeded to make it much more difficult for minor parties to get on the ballot from 2004 to the recent Supreme Court decision (the Green Party barely made it onto the General Election ballot in '04), substantially raising the numerical requirements for signatures, as it related to the then requisite Minor Party/Independent Conventions.

The "Top 2" system, now, puts the major and minor parties on an equal footing in regards to ballot placement. No more conventions, which under the old system were solely for minor parties and independents.

Primaries are a fundamental part of the election process; arguably, the most important part. Primaries are not mere window dressing or an an off-beat stop on the way to the main event. If anything, it is the General Election that is secondary, because the nominees, and the political principles that they represent, have already been chosen through the primaries. Under "Top 2", all political parties, major and minor, will be able to participate in the primaries, and independent candidates as well.

I do not believe for a moment that minor parties (or independents) will automatically be shut out of the General Election. Although, it is not news that the majority of voters have supported the Democratic and Republican parties. The so-called minor party disenfranchisement charge is propaganda (from) those who simply do not support the "Top 2" system, although, the system is quite egalitarian in that the two candidates with the most votes in the primaries, whatever their affiliation, advance to the General Election. What can be more fair than that?

"Top 2" actually represents the best chance for minor party candidates to take office, but they must first show their strength through the primaries. I will concede, however, if minor parties were more interested in sending a message than winning an election, then the old system was best.

With "Top 2" there will be no more "pick-a-party". Like Washington's long tradition, you can once again vote for any candidate you want in the primary. As for minor parties and elections, the problem will be more the inertia of minor parties themselves than "Top 2". Even under the old system, I didn't see any groundswell of minor party candidates running for office. Not a single minor party candidate ran for the U.S. House of Representatives in Washington state in the year 2006. That is part of the reason why the Party of Commons was created, to energize the competition to politics as usual. Our affiliate committee, the Committee of Commons & Political Affairs (CCPA), helped to get "Top 2" on the ballot under the leadership of Mark Greene, the Party of Commons candidate for Secretary of State. CCPA got 500 signatures for the "Top 2" initiative in 2004.

As for the Democratic Party chairman helping us. No thanks -- we know a Trojan Horse when we see one.

WHAT ELSE DO THE DEMOCRATS HAVE IN STORE FOR THE ELECTION SYSTEM?

Their Secretary of State candidate (Osgood) is against all postal mail elections, although there is a recourse in the King County plan for voting the old-fashioned way at regional centers.

Some Democrat legislators are trying to make it harder for initiatives to get on the ballot by requiring registration of paid petitioners. Imagine, too many initiatives on the ballot. Too much democracy for "Democrats".

www.PartyofCommons.com