As an Iowan participating in the 1976 caucuses, I remember Fred Harris’ boast, perhaps the last of his ill-fated presidential campaign: “Iowa started the winnowing-out process, and we’ve been winnowed in.” Winnowing, separating the wheat from the chaff, is the essence of electoral politics.
Last week in Washington we winnowed with a vengeance, having decided to place two and only two candidates for each office on the November ballot. I think the “top two” shortchanges the voter. When the game matters most, in November, we’ll have the fewest choices. And holding the election in August, when sensible people turn their attention to the Olympics, softball, golf, fishing and other guilty pleasures, virtually guaranteed a lackluster outcome.
Despite the hype, turnout fell well below Secretary of State Sam Reed’s original estimate of 46 percent. By Tuesday morning, turnout had climbed to about 40 percent. That’s well below the 45 percent showing four years ago in the September primary but close to the participation rate in 2000. Sure, the election went smoothly and generated no discernible voter rancor, but that’s hardly cause for celebration. It’s what we expect.
As Reed said, there were few “hotly contested primaries” to boost turnout. While high-profile races for governor and the 8th Congressional District assure an exciting November election, they offered little real drama in August. The predictive power of primary elections has always been a little overstated. That’s truer now with the new format, all-mail balloting, and the August election. Too many variables frustrate forecasters.
Of the statewide races, only the three-way race for treasurer winnowed meaningfully. Unsurprisingly, of two Democratic economists seeking to be state treasurer, the politician outpolled the gentle man who studied the state economy to make accurate revenue estimates.
To rise from the torpor of the dog days of August, even to lazily fill out your mail-in ballot from the backyard picnic table, something more consequential than this is required.
We got the top two because the old blanket primary unconstitutionally deprived parties’ control of their nominating process. So now the primary election technically doesn’t nominate the parties’ candidates. It just pushes the top two on to November, regardless of party. While it’s not yet the nonpartisan primary some sought, the process substantially reduces party clout and narrows partisan choices in the general election. This November at least eight legislative races are expected to feature two candidates from the same party.
For all of this state’s fascination with post-partisan politics, exemplified by the “vote for the person not the party” passion, the top two doesn’t get us there. And I’m not sure we should go “there.”
Party labels do more than simply provide voters with another piece of information about a candidate. They also provide candidates an organizational base, campaign funding, policy analysis, and experienced mentors and advisers. In the Legislature, partisan caucuses impose structure and discipline. Frustrating as it may often be, it’s how things get done. And the parties have a legitimate stake in selecting the candidates who wear their label.
Nonpartisan offices, conversely, are no guarantee of efficient, high-minded government. Lacking partisan structure, they can be more susceptible to chaotic dilettantism. There are plenty of examples across of the state of dysfunctional nonpartisan city councils, port commissions and school boards.
Some say we’ve moved past partisanship. Yet the phenomenon that was the Obama primary campaign turned out record numbers of new voters rallying behind a candidate for the nation’s highest partisan office. Although he appeared to rewrite campaign rules, combining personal charisma with cutting edge technology, Obama did not transcend partisan politics. He harnessed it more effectively than anyone else this year, drawing on lessons learned in the wards of Chicago. That’s another thing parties do: establish political career paths for the most promising.
Because of the top two, the debate this fall will be more constrained. Too few voices will offer us too few choices. Our problem stems not from partisanship but from the palpable reluctance of too many Washingtonians to engage in the political process, to reshape and reclaim the parties from the insiders and special interests. To justify that effort, political parties must matter more, not be further shoved aside.
We’ve yet to get the winnowing right.
Richard S. Davis writes on public policy, economics and politics. His e-mail address is richardsdavis@gmail.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
