Do you have to vote on a candidate based on the party they are in or can you flip back and forth. I mean can you vote Democrat for one candidate in one position and Republican for another candidate holding another position?

You only have to pick the party and vote straight line in the primary. The general election you can vote for anyone.

Thanks King

How come the new rule change?

-----------------------------------------------------------

That's a good question. I think the new system $ucks!

Everyone who's registered to vote should have a say in the primaries selection of the candidates who will be on the final ballot.

Candidates from all parties only make vague statements in the voters pamphlet--it's not until the cadidates are chosen on each side and they have their debates that you can see where they stand on issues of importance.

You shouldn't have to register as a democrat/republican/lib. to have a say in who you'ld like to see running.

This whole thing is as ill-conceived as the monorail.

My 2 cents

The Blanket primary was dumped based on lawsuits from the main political parties challenges.

Primary elections are held to determine which candidate from each party will run for any given office, not which individual will be elected to serve in that office.

Use the Dems Repubs and Libertarians as a example.
According to our old blanket primary, these organizations, once they announced their intentions, would not be allowed to pick their own candidate but would have to list several members on a public ballot so any voter could determine who get to run in the general elections.

With the new primary system political parties pick the candidate that best fits that party's goals.

If you are not a member of that party, you should have no say in which candidate they select is the theory.

Actually you're a little off there king. Washington state had a caucus system up till now.

Delegates from each of the respective parties met at these caucuses to decide which of the declared candidates would represent them in the general election.

Primaries are a way for the voting public to have a say as to which candidate should represent their party, instead of just leaving it up to appointed delegates.

The reason that you have to declare a party affiliation to participate in the primary election is so that each party decides it's own candidate and cannot influence the selection of any other parties' representative. It is also a way to help streamline the election process and save WA taxpayers a bit of money.

Like you said above though... in the general election you can vote for whichever candidate you like, regardless of party affiliation.

------------------------------------------------------------

That would work great if everyone was a strait ticket voter--if that were the case we would never need another election--just go by the registration figures in a given district.

Most people vote for whom they believe will do the best job and represent them--not for the (D/R/L) sign beside their name.

In Washington state the registration process hurts minority parties like the Republican and Libertarian. I'm sure that's good news to democrats--but this type of system is just as unfair in a state like Texas to democrats and favors R's.

It's a bad idea in either state.

There's also a part of me that doesn't like to be publically identified with a political party.

I think some of this is skipping by you Rory. Declaring party affiliation ONLY affects the primary election. Republicans choose who they think best represents them, Democrats choose who they think best represents them, Libertarians etc. etc..

By allowing members of other parties to help whittle the field down, you could potentially get skewed results. It costs taxpayers millions of dollars to hold elections. Without a primary or caucus system you could have potentially unlimited numbers of candidates from each party all vying for state election money.

Most other states have a primary system. The caucus system that WA previously employed, (as I explained above) did not allow everyday voters to have a say as to which candidate should represent them in a general election, instead relying on delegates to make the decision.

If you consider yourself an "informed" voter, and are truly interested in the positions each primary candidate from your party represents, it seems to me that someone with your apparent "google" skills, should have no trouble at all gleaning the necessary information.

4 Salt ,

Correct. The parties selected a list of candidates but the voters chose via the balnket primary who would head to the general. With the possibility of a significant say in the candidates chosen coming from the other party. With the new system if the parties wanted to control who made it to the general they have a better chance.

I'm against it. We need to get ahold of our state's legislation to amend it. I know it only affects the primaries, but what it is doing is allowing for laziness in the people who dont research the candidates.

Even though the primary purpose of the Republicans and Democrats is politics, they aren't the government. The government should NOT have you chose an organization (party) by which to vote. They really shouldnt even recognize them. The media? Sure. But the government? No.

Curtis

ok I get it, thanks guys and gals

Why would it preclude you from researching the candidates? You still need to within your own party for the primary. And then again the other parties' candidates before the general.

I think he was concerned about liberals knowing most of them cannot read. In the past at least they could make little designs when they puched the cards. Now all they will have is a straight line.

In a state (and country) where most people take the right to vote for granted, and don't even study the issues and the candidates running carefully--and where more Americans watch the American Idol finale than the Presidential debates, do we want to make voting any more entailed/complicated than it already was?

Elvis, you need to go take another look at the demographics of Bush vs. any Democrat supporter. Hell, just viewing the literacy of participants here should point out the obvious.

As I prepare to vote in this new kind of primary, I'm torn between trying to mess up the Parties, or casting my votes of conscience. I must admit, I'm so upset about what the Political Parties have forced on us, I really am thinking of going the disruptive route. Here's my plan:

1. I decide who I want to vote for in the General Election.
2. Whatever Party represents the majority of my picks, I choose the other Party to vote for in the Primary.
3. I then pick what I perceive to be the least electable candidate of that Party and I vote for them.

This works on so many levels, it gives the Party I vote for a false sense of security that I would vote for them in the General. If the candidate I vote for in the Primary happens to make it to the General, I help insure the election of my real choice of candidate.

What really pisses me off with this new system is that the Political Parties are forcing us to pay for their nominating process. Now, obviously they did the same before the change, but then I at least had the freedom to jump around on the ballot. The reality is that the Parties wanted to get their hooks into the information of voters that declare a Party loyalty. Thank goodness the Legislature chose not to give them their final desire.

Ed I think the new system was born out of frustration for exactly what you are proposing to do. Democrats voting for Republicans in the primary to mess up the process instead of voting honestly. That would allow you and others to vote for the weaker Republican in the hopes that the stronger candidate wouldn't get the nod to face your favorite Democrat, thus increasing your odds.

Grandpa, I understand your point, but I believe the new Primary was born from the fact that the Parties wanted to get lists of voters that they could solicit from $'s, time, etc.
I'm just pi**ed off that I as a taxpayer have to pay for this. I have never voted a straight party ticket in the Primary or General. I have to start now because of someone elses choice. I'd like to give the Parties some confusing data so that they may rethink their position. Still not certain what I will do - but I have marked my Voter's guide for all possibilities.

One other point - I blame all the Parties equally on this. Dems, Reps, & Libs. Funny how when they see self interest, they somehow forget their differences and sue the Citizenry. It sucks!!

Was thinking of doing the same thing.

Eddie,

I was also thinking about doing exactly the same thing you propose.

At least the political parties' lawsuit against the state primary served to peel back the onion layers that much more and reveal that they care far more for their respective political interests than that of the voting citizenry. Do you suppose they ever wonder why we're disgusted with them? I suppose they never care enough to wonder.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Someone once said "Politics makes strange bedfellows" How true it is!!!

Try living in a state where there is only one party, which was the case in most Southern states up until the end of the Sixties or Early Seventies. Unless you where a registered Democrat when the General Vote or Election came arround in November you had noone to vote for as all local, Municipal & County Offices as well as State Offices were already decided in the Democratic Primaries, it was the way politics was run in the South since Reconstruction. As a result it was nothing more than a one party system resulting in rampid corruption that would put Daley's Chicago machine look like a school girl's picnic. No one could get elected unless they were a Democrat and had the blessing of the party bosses.

------------------------------------------------------------
Are you talking about the South or the Peoples Republic of Seattle?

Oh, so that's what Zell Miller meant when he said he was disappointed because the party wasn't what it used to be. No wonder the GOP chose him for keynote speaker.

No just take a look at "Chicago" even the "Dead" still voted there and they gave knotted strings to the "Illierate" to use in the voting machines so they would vote for the right party. Your beloved "Democrap Party " are no angels, even in the North. [/B]

They even tried to do the same thing in both St Louis the last election and they even had people who voted in both NYC and Florida in 2000. Just imagine if it had been discovered then and your boy [B]"Al Bore' would have lost by an even larger margin in Florida as it was they even tried to have our Servicemens Absentee Ballots thrown out.

If you believe the parties are not corrupt and I mean both sides then you must live at Disneyland.

Good one GH!

Dixiecrat was the term used to describe the southern democratic party of the 50's and 60's ACT. I do believe Strom Thurmond was a dixiecrat, before becoming a republican.

He probably does not change for the same reason most libs don't join the socialist party. The historic stigma that is attached. Even though most of the idiologies line up the stigma stops them.

So let me get this straight king... your sayin' that the republicans have a negative historical stigma...

Only with Libs or their alter ego socialists :p

4Salt

How right you are about the Dixiecrat....

Although I am a fifth generation Washington Native, I lived in Florida for almost 15 years before returning to my senses and returning to Washington in the early to mid '70's. While living in Florida I saw the state finally start to break away from the one party system and start to embrace the two party system. When that happened the quality of government improved as it finally made City, County and State Governments accountable to the voters not the other way arround. Believe me I know as I worked both in the public and the private sectors as a Computer Programmer for the Consolidated City of Jacksonville, FL and a Financial Analyist for the Florida National Group of Banks.

Both sides of my family at one time or another have held public offices both here at the local level all up to and including positions in the nations capital. My Greatgreatgrandfather served in the Territorial Legislature going to it's meetings by Indian Dougout Canoe from Port Townsend. My Grandfather was the Chief Auditor for the State of Washington at the time of his Death in 1939.