26 responses so far ↓

• 1 Mike Gillis // Nov 28, 2008 at 2:06 pm

  This is just silly. The Party of Commons has only one member: Mark Greene.

  This party ran one candidate for statewide office in a field of four and came in fourth place.

  Even the atrophied Greens in my state ran more candidates and clearly have more members. They ran a single statewide primary candidate for Governor and came in 6th place in a field of ten

  The Libertarians, also clearly larger than the one-person “Party”, didn’t run any statewide candidates this years in WA.

  I feel fairly certain that if the LP and GP had run someone in Mr Greene’s race, they likely would have beaten him.

• 2 paulie cannoli // Nov 28, 2008 at 2:13 pm

  This is just silly. The Party of Commons has only one member: Mark Greene.

  I alluded to the likelihood of that being the case in the article, but I did not want to state that with an absolute certainty I did not have.

  This party ran one candidate for statewide office in a field of four and came in fourth place.

  Even the atrophied Greens in my state ran more candidates and clearly have more members. They ran a single statewide primary candidate for Governor and came in 6th place in a field of ten

  See

  http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/Results.aspx?RaceTypeCode=O&JurisdictionTypeID=2&ElectionID=25&ViewMode=Results

  Green Duff Bagley got 9,702 votes (0.67%).

  Looking at ALL the state offices, Greene’s claim is technically correct: among non-duopoly parties, only the Constitution Party got more votes.

  This says more about the top two primary that Greene supports keeping than it does about Greene, IMO.

  The Libertarians, also clearly larger than the one-person “Party”, didn’t run any statewide candidates this years in WA.

  I feel fairly certain that if the LP and GP had run someone in Mr Greene’s race, they likely would have beaten him.

  Probably true, but since they didn’t, we can only guess.

• 3 Mike Gillis // Nov 28, 2008 at 2:44 pm

  I know that you weren’t taking them at HIS word, Paulie. But it’s silly to call yourself the fourth most popular PARTY in a state when you have only one member, one candidate (the same person) and the other major third parties with more members don’t even really try.

  And though Duff is a nice guy, he wasn’t a good candidate And aside from the week long petition drive for McKinney this year, I don’t know of any real Green campaigning in my state.

  With the top two and lax ballot access requirements, they should have run people in every statewide contest.

  As for the LP, They didn’t run anyone statewide and likewise should have gone all out. If nothing else, the voter’s pamphlet is a free statewide mailing that you can use to promote your values and your party.

  But had either of these parties really tried in 2008, they would have easily beaten Greene’s party of one, just as they have in the past.

  It’s a shame that only the Constitution Party even tried.

• 4 paulie cannoli // Nov 28, 2008 at 2:47 pm

  I agree. The top two primary seems to be the real problem here.

• 5 Mike Gillis // Nov 28, 2008 at 2:54 pm

  Oh absolutely. I hate this idiotic Top Two. I want my choices back!

• 6 Mike Gillis // Nov 28, 2008 at 3:00 pm

  I think the Top Two fizzled out the desire of a lot of potential third party challengers who knew that they had little chance of making it to the general – the election where people actually pay attention to the race and where they can have any impact on their opponents’ stances and have a lasting vote total impact.

• 7 paulie cannoli // Nov 28, 2008 at 3:04 pm

  I think the Top Two fizzled out the desire of a lot of potential third party challengers who knew that they had little chance of making it to the general – the election where people actually pay attention to the race and where they can have any impact on their opponents’ stances and have a lasting vote total impact.

  Good point. But so is this: If nothing else, the voter’s pamphlet is a free statewide mailing that you can use to promote your values and your party.

• 8 Catholic Trotskyist // Nov 28, 2008 at 5:26 pm

  The Washington Commons Party sounds remarkably similar to the platform of the Catholic Trotskyist Party. Rest assured that I am not Mark Green, nor do I know him personally, but I admire him greatly, and I hope we will be working together in the future.

• 9 paulie cannoli // Nov 28, 2008 at 5:59 pm

  The Washington Commons Party sounds remarkably similar to the platform of the Catholic Trotskyist Party.

  CT, I was thinking the same thing.

• 10 paulie cannoli // Nov 28, 2008 at 6:00 pm

  Although, would Trotskyites be non-interventionist? After all Trotsky called for a worldwide revolution.

• 11 Catholic Trotskyist // Nov 28, 2008 at 8:28 pm

  Paulie, yes the Catholic Trotskyist Party is non-intervensionist, because it believes in a revision of Trotskyist doctrine, saying that war is never necessary for revolution. The world permanent revolution will take place through revolution in the streets of each country, and diplomatic efforts by the Obama administration.

  I am glad that another party is willing to combine this policy along with economic socialism, and also what many leftists tragically do not understand the importance of, cultural conservatism. Although First Amendment rights will be maintained.

• 12 Catholic Trotskyist // Nov 28, 2008 at 8:28 pm

  I also agree with its position on the Top Two primary system, which will actually help third parties in the long run, or just proved that noone wants what they are offering.

• 13 Michael H. Wilson // Nov 28, 2008 at 10:45 pm

  Washington also had the Salmon Yoga Party on the primary ballot in August.

  In Washington candidates get to list their preferred party next to their names. Like the one guy with the Salmon Yoga party did.

  Well maybe he started a trend. Candidates could have the None of your Beeswax Party, the Politicians are Liars Party, the Pot is Green Party and I had a really Kewl name, but I can’t think of it now. Shows ya what happens kids when you %##@&&* too much. ya ferget!

  MW

• 14 paulie cannoli // Nov 28, 2008 at 10:47 pm

  I’m not finding a Salmon Yoga party in the vote results

• 15 darolew // Nov 29, 2008 at 12:28 am

  “However, a quick skimming of the blog failed to identify any party members besides its chairman, Mark Greene, nor any link to a party website other than the blog and a free Geocities campaign site for Mark Greene. “

  http://partyofcommons.com/

  Not much there though, other than a link to his blog and campaign website.

• 16 paulie cannoli // Nov 29, 2008 at 12:46 am

  Thanks! I’ll update the entry tomorrow if no one else gets to it first.

• 17 Mike Gillis // Nov 29, 2008 at 1:22 am

  Paulie,

  I really think that even though the Top Two primary is political death for us all, the voter’s pamphlet is just too good an opportunity to pass up for any third party in WA.

  To get on the primary ballot in WA, a non-presidential third party candidate need only pay the filing fee, no signatures required.

  The Libertarians, the Greens, the Constitutionalists should have taken advantage of this and raised as much money as they could to run full statewide slates and get as many candidates in the voters’ pamphlet as possible.

  It’s like a mailing to every registered voter, many of whom may have never heard of these parties. A full slate will also make folks more willing to think these parties are for real and even if they don’t vote for us for president, they’ll maybe give us a vote down ticket.

  The higher the office we seek, the lower the vote total we should expect. Presidential candidates exist for mainly one person: getting the word out and educating people while trying to get enough votes to force change.

  That attention they get will help people downticket. While Duff ran for Governor, he would’ve gotten more votes running for a smaller statewide office, like Sec of State like Greene did or State Auditor.

  Governor was guaranteed to be a tight race – a rematch from four years ago that then gave us three recounts – and it would be nigh impossible to get many votes as a third option in that contest.

  While I think the Constitution Party should have run a full slate including governor, if they choice offices based on their likely vote results, they chose well.

  Until we can toss out the horrible top two, which leave us with only duopoly choices (sometimes even two of the same party), we should take full advantage of this to get as many names on ballots as possible and as many statements in voters pamphlets professing our particular values in as many hands as we can.

• 18 Morgan Wick // Nov 29, 2008 at 5:26 am

  I don’t get why third party candidates hate the top two primary, entirely. It would seem to me it provides a better opportunity to actually get elected than most other primary methods short of throwing out plurality voting entirely.

  If you sneak your way into the top two, suddenly you’re one of two candidates on the general election ballot and a lot of obstacles against you are out of the way. And with the potential for vote-splitting in the major parties, the top two is less of an obstacle than it would seem.

• 19 paulie cannoli // Nov 29, 2008 at 6:56 am

  I really think that even though the Top Two primary is political death for us all, the voter’s pamphlet is just too good an opportunity to pass up for any third party in WA.

  To get on the primary ballot in WA, a non-presidential third party candidate need only pay the filing fee, no signatures required.

  The Libertarians, the Greens, the Constitutionalists should have taken advantage of this and raised as much money as they could to run full statewide slates and get as many candidates in the voters’ pamphlet as possible.

  It’s like a mailing to every registered voter, many of whom may have never heard of these parties. A full slate will also make folks more willing to think these parties are for real and even if they don’t vote for us for president, they’ll maybe give us a vote down ticket.

  I agree. And it sounds like raising money may not even be the issue – just candidate recruitment, period. Even if they spent no money, all they would have to do is recruit slates of candidates to take advantage of the voter pamphlet.

• 20 paulie cannoli // Nov 29, 2008 at 6:58 am

  If you sneak your way into the top two, suddenly you’re one of two candidates on the general election ballot and a lot of obstacles against you are out of the way. And with the potential for vote-splitting in the major parties, the top two is less of an obstacle than it would seem.

  How’s that? It has not worked out that way at all.

• 21 Michael H. Wilson // Nov 29, 2008 at 9:46 am

  paulie here goes.

  http://www.tri-cityherald.com/944/story/218194.html

  “It’s called the “Salmon Yoga Party.” Get it straight.
  It turns out Dino Rossi isn’t the only one making sure his party affiliation is listed identically on the ballot and on yard signs.

  It seems Timothy Stoddard undermined his party’s own brand when he was among a gaggle of seven candidates who signed up to run for the state Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Harriet Spanel, D-Bellingham.

  In doing so he listed his party preference as “SalmonYoga.” Apparently, that was an error, though who’d ever know since the party appears to exist not online or on paper but only in someone’s imagination.

  Stoddard contacted the Secretary of State’s Office to clarify that there should be space between “Salmon” and “Yoga” and he wanted it corrected so it wouldn’t conflict with what he’ll list in the voters’ pamphlet. Otherwise, voters might be confused.

  Yep, that ought to take care of it. Who could be confused by seeing “Prefers Salmon Yoga Party” on their ballot? “

• 22 Mike Gillis // Nov 29, 2008 at 2:58 pm

  Morgan,

  We dislike it because:

  1) It kills voter choice. As there are more than two brands of ice cream, there ought to be more than two brands of candidate in an election. There’s a principle involved, outside of whether it helps my choice party or not. And as a voter myself, I want more choices.

  2) It’s nigh impossible to make it to the general election. People are so programmed to vote either Democrat and Republican that even in areas where one major party has total dominance, the losing major party still has usually about a 15-20% guaranteed vote. I worked on a campaign for a Green running for State Rep in 2004. We ran against a corrupt Democrat in an extremely liberal area. We ran harder than anyone in the district. The incumbent didn’t even raise much money. His Republican opponent who didn’t even campaign and existed only in the voter’s pamphlet. In the three way race, the Democrat won over 70%, we came in third with 10% and the Republican beat us with 17% based largely on his party affiliation and our political environment.

  We campaigned our asses off and knocked on over 1,000 doors and he didn’t lift a finger. We even scared the incumnbent into changing his positions on a number of issues once we made some noise. The incumbent treated us like his real opponent, but we still came in behind the guy who didn’t even campaign and listed his address in another district.

  That’s why the top two is unfair. Even with the best campaign, the hardest work and the strongest candidate, it’s almost impossible to come in at least second place in a partisan race with both major parties competing.

  And without getting into the top two by getting at least 20%, we can’t get the 5% in the general election we need to win a ballot line for president. The burden is just too unfair.

  And in some districts as we saw, voters are left with two choices in the same party. This would have happened a lot more often had more major party primary challengers tossed their hats into the ring. Places like Seattle and Eastern WA are one-party dominated and the top two practically kills any choice for any sort of political minority.

  And then there’s the fact that far fewer voters pay attention to the primaries, and especially minor parties and independents participating in them. It’s only after the general election begins that most voters and the media really start paying attention to the election in detail in WA.

  And having the field narrowed down a bit to 3-5 people is the only chance minor parties have to shine. How much attention could Nader, Barr, Baldwin and McKinney get if we had this system nationally?

  They’d be forced to compete with much better funded candidates with “the right friends” like Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton and so on…

  3) There are better solutions to the problems you put forward. Take Pierce County’s Ranked Choice Voting, which replaces the Top Two. Get rid of the primary altogether and give us maximum choice in one multi-round ranked ballot and none of the so-called “vote splitting”.

• 23 Ms. Know // Dec 5, 2008 at 3:04 pm

  Ironically if you’re not a part of the left-wing illuminati party, your opinion and hard work doesn’t count.

• 24 Mark Greene // Jan 7, 2009 at 1:50 am

  Regarding the ones on here who are ridiculing me, with really no facts to back them up other than their own ignorance, they apparently have no interest in building a strong third party movement. Even third parties or non-millionaire independents (seeing that some people on here think that I am an independent) that I have strong philosophical differences with, I temper my criticism of them, as I would rather see just about any rational third party bust the two-party system monopoly. So try not to play into the hands of the Democrats and the Republicans, as they would like nothing better than to have their opponents fight amongst themselves. It’s called divide and conquer.

• 25 sunshinebatman // Jan 7, 2009 at 4:13 am

  Gillis’ objection are way out of left field –

  1) It increases voter choice. You have mor choices in the first round of voting, and you have an entire second choice to make in the second round.

  2) It’s easier to make to the general election, because the primary is just half of the general election. As far as ballot-line access, you (3rd-party activists in the state) just have to make sure the 5% general election threshold to get a ballot line is set in the primary election — or just make Presidential ballot access, like the proposed primary access, a civilized nominal fee rather than ballot-line mumbo jumbo.

  3) One-ballot ranked-choice voting would be optimal of course, but the primary/general system is itself a kind of ranked-choice system… you vote your first choice and then you still have a chanc eto vote your second choice.

• 26 darolew // Jan 7, 2009 at 7:56 am

  Gillis’ objections were right on the mark. Responding to sunshinebatman:

  1) Indeed, in the primary, there is more choice under Top Two. But the primary is not really what counts. Few people pay attention to it. The media doesn’t care. How does it help 3rd parties to be confined to the primaries, which are less prominent? What do you think voters think about 3rd parties when they look at there general election ballots and see nothing but Republican and Democratic choices?

  2) The primary is not “just half” of the general election. A primary, by definition, decides who goes on to to the general election. Since third parties rarely come in 2nd place or better, it’s never them who move on. The general and the primary are two separate events which take place months apart. Thus, the Top Two system does not increase voter choice in the general election.

  3) Not really, it’s more accurate to say that in the primary you vote for your first choice to head on to the general election; and, in the general election, you vote for your first choice for office. But this is semantics.

  Besides, sunshinebatman, don’t you purport to be some sort of libertarian? Here’s a point Gillis did not bring up: Should not political parties, as private organizations, be able to choose their own candidates? Under the current system, the “nominee” is chosen by voters without any consent of the party. Any crackpot can get on the ballot claiming to “prefer” some party or another; the parties, including third parties, have no control over who is claiming the party name. Do you see nothing wrong with this?

  For that reason, the Top Two system was opposed by all the major third parties — the Green Party, Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, and Progressive Party. The Democratic Party and the GOP opposed it as well. It is simply a terrible system for political parties — all political parties, but especially third parties.

Leave a Comment