9/23/2006

When people say stupid shit over...and over...and over

For some reason, the voters in Washington state have a collective stupidity about primary elections. And I don't mean kinda stupid, or a little dumb, or slow on the uptake, or even really stupid. I mean fucking stupid, unhinged jaw, speechless, drooling in your mashed potatos waiting for craft hour stupid.

Some background. In 1935, the Grange, which like most special interest groups hates actual democracy and especially political parties (I'm not pointing fingers here - they're no different from any other special interest groups, including my employer. They're right to focus on their interest, and democracy is right to defend itself.), pushed through the blanket primary, a goofy system in which anyone can vote for anyone in the primary (sound familiar? It's usually called a general election). Voters love this, because it allows them to not understand the political system and vote twice for the same election.

Question: If I'm a voter, and in the primary I want to vote for a Democrat for Attorney General and Republican for Governor and Green for County Commissioner because I think they're the best candidates for the job (the most common defense of the blanket primary), what is the point of even having a primary? If I believe these people are the best candidates in September, will I, barring a dead girl/live boy scenario, be likely to change my mind?


So here's what happens. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the California blanket primary violates the First Amendment right of the political parties to free association - in other words, political parties have a right to select their own candidates from among members of their own party. Pretty straightforward, right? This decision formed the basis of a 9th Circuit court ruling in 2003 that Washington's blanket primary also violated the parties' constitutional rights. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case on appeal, forcing the state to adopt the current system, wherein you have to pick a party (or a non-partisan ballot).

The point? Primaries are the opportunity for parties to select their own candidates to run in the general election. There is no constitutional right to vote for anyone in the primary elections.

Caveat: I have the same question many critics of the current system have: Why the fuck is the state paying for the parties to choose their own candidates? This is an obvious solution to many complaints - pay your own way to choose your own candidates. I hate when politicians are stupid about obvious solutions.


So let's bring up some of the drooling mouth-breather complaints (DMBC) and Switzer's response (SR):

DMBC: I should be able to vote for whoever I want.

SR: You are. It's called a general election.

DMBC: But I want to support the best candidates in primary elections.

SR: So wait for the general; they'll still be there.

DMBC: But I might want a Green candidate, douchebag.

SR: Namecalling already, huh? Listen lipshitz, in the top two system you friggin' morons so crave, Green candidates have no chance. D's and R's will still dominate the system, and instead of having a D, R, G, C, P, L and I candidate in the general election, you'll be stuck with the D and R. Or D and D or R and R. That's it. No more choices for you. Wipe your chin, it's getting slick with the drool.

DMBC: *wipes*

SR: thanks.

DMBC: I have my rights, my freedom of speech is being limited. The constitution says we're supposed to have an open primary.

SR: ???I'd be dumbfounded by this argument if I didn't remember that you're retarded. The primary isn't IN the constitution. Here's a factoid: the primaries were created by the Parties, to choose their own candidates.

DMBC: I think it's wrong "to allow the parties to select their own people" (actual quote by swatter in this thread).

SR: ....{wracks brain for appropriate response to something so obviously stupid as to potentially be some sort of trick}

DMBC: *wipes chin*

SR: Are you a Republican?

DMBC: Um, sure.

SR: Do you think I, a Democrat, should be able to select your candidate?

DMBC: No! Democrats should select their own....oh, wait.

SR: Ahhh...you're getting it grasshopper

DMBC: No, I pooped myself. Democrats shouldn't select my candidate, but I should be able to vote for whoever I want.

SR: {storms off, muttering angrily about disgraceful state of civic education in this state}

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aside from your equating the Grange of today, with the Grange of 1935 (which was a progressive group of the time and allied with the AFL-CIO), I agree with you.

8:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Willis, it is for the most part. The President of the Grange spoke to the ARC (Agricultural and Rural Caucus) when we met at the convention in Yakima. He had some good things to say.

12:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amen brother! As someone who first voted in NY (where as a Dem I could only vote for Dems in the primary), I have found this state's primary system to be ass-backward. Great logical explanation for the hard of thinking there.

Proper PH

9:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh yes, Switzer, can you also explain WHY THE GRANGE is so into this?

Thanks, PH again

9:09 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home