First Primary Election Results

39 Replies to “First Primary Election Results”

1. In the 8th Congressional District, the second position was won by a candidate who dropped out over a month ago. If you need any further proof that we have a massively uninformed and uneducated electorate, there ya go.

   1. 123 losing big gives me hope

   2. Alex “Stand Up America” Tsimerman came in dead last for US Senate among 17 candidates. The voters have spoken on letting one person or a handful of unelected people dominate the public input process.

      1. Tsimerman came in behind Zach Haller, who didn’t even bother submitting candidate info for the voter’s pamphlet.

2. Down goes 123.

   So long viaduct, I’ll remember you as I walk on our fully open waterfront when you finally come down.

   Come to think of it, maybe I won’t spare much thought..

3. Wow, good job Nicole Macri! I got 5x the mailings from Dan Shih and believe they would both serve ably, but thought Dan’s “I support women’s rights, I once volunteered at a women’self defense class twenty five years ago” line on his website was too funny, and went with Nicole instead.

   1. It’s kinda too funny that you would choose to focus on this one tiny excerpt from a long and very impressive resume of accomplishments and volunteer actions. But, I will say, this one tiny action is probably 100% more than 99% of the male population could claim, let alone all of the other generous work he has done?

      1. P.S. And not to sound adversarial but, usually when one uses quotation marks it is to actually quote what someone said, not normally used when paraphrasing and condensing into your own words. ;-)

      2. Sorry, phone keyboard; couldn’t find a better way to emph.

         But that’s how close the candidates were for me, a fairly common voter, who gets junk mail, ignores it, reads STB, reads The Stranger, and makes some quick calls! They both had excellent qualifications and achievements — I would trust either to do generally what I believe to be the right thing — it is precisely because the other achievements were so substantial that that bit seemed so out of place.

4. Thank gawd the viaduct park died….What a bunch of nonsense that was.

   1. You must hate parks. Just kidding, as nice as it would have been, it was ridiculously expensive for what it provided. I love parks, but would rather extend the cap on I-5 for that kind of money.

   2. When was the open house or public input or renderings of the elevated walkway? Waterfront Seattle had several open houses to determine what people wanted from the waterfront, illustrate alternatives, and show their successive design plans. The elevated trail came seemingly out of nowhere a month before the election as a take-it-or-leave-it. The proponents talked only about the views from the trail; there was no larger public discussion of how important those views are compared to other priorities, or how the trail would relate to the rest of the waterfront and impact it. We were just given a vision designed by a small number of people and told “Hurry or you’ll lose your views!” as though nothing else was important. What I care about is having an inviting place where people can sit down and spread out and linger; it’s not clear that they’ll want to do that on an elevated trail, or that they’ll want to walk up to the trail, or that they won’t be disappointed if there’s no other park-like space besides the trail.

   3. It had me at “no” as soon as “..save our viaduct…” It had me at H*!! no when the guy who built the HighLine in NYC came out against it.

5. The voters have spoken. We will send a never ending increasing amount of money to housing so that we can continue to provide a couple thousand units over a decade in a city growing by 10 of thousands each year. We’re going to continue to elect people based on who we think looks cool or was already in office. Well at least we killed I-123, so there’s that, which I think was the most important outcome of all.

   1. Levies are limited to five years. We can decide in 2021 whether to renew it or change it. As for voting for who looks cool or is the incumbant, that’s just your opinion, that’s not how I voted or many other people voted. I weighted the incumbants’ track record and experience against the challengers’ priorities. I don’t think it’s wise to cashier incumbants who are performing OK and risk an unknown; only if the incumbant does something intolerable or the challenger is overwhelmingly better. Seattle has now booted three mayors after one term for what I think are trivial reasons or over-expectations; we’ve been lucky that the successive mayors have been good, but that doesn’t mean every new person will be.

6. what’s expected from the 2 “prefers Republican” options for State Treasurer?

   1. I expect Democrats will now give an open ear to electoral reform, such as ranked choice voting, in particular the variant that allows the 3rd-place candidate to advance if the top two don’t get at least 50% between them, and then allows voters to indicate a first and second choice in the general election.

      If Podlodowski were to promise to formally request legislation to do such a reform, I would vote for her.

      1. Brent, I love it!!!!! Are you involved in your local LD Dem organization? I would like to pitch ranked-choice voting to the party. I think it is a fantastic idea, whose time has come.

      2. Instant Runoff Voting (the type of Ranked Choice Voting that I think you are talking about) will have a hard time catching on in this state because of the disastrous experience the state’s second-largest county had with it a few years ago (see Dale Washam). From a theoretical perspective, I prefer IRV to the top-two system, but the problem is that it is too complex for some people. If just 5-10% of voters do not understand how to mark their ballot, the consequences can be horrific. However, some amount of complexity is needed to avoid the problems that occur with simpler systems as shown by the State Treasurer race (or if you prefer Republicans, the Superintendent of Public Instruction race. Even though SPI is “nonpartisan”, both candidates who will be on the November ballot are Democrats). The solution is to have the complexity behind the scenes so that voters can still just vote for their one preferred candidate.

         As for the State Treasurers race, there may be a push to write in the top vote-getting Democrat. I would support that, but it would need the support of the state party to succeed.

         If the election system is not fixed and we remain stuck with the top-two, then the parties will need to find a way to enforce their decissions about who is allowed to run on their ticket – not an easy task when state law allows anyone to say they are a Democrat or a Republican without the approval of the respective party.

      3. True, parties can’t stop people from appearing on the ballot, but the parties do have some clout. They endorse candidates, and they have money so why couldn’t they have TV ads that say things like “The Washington Democratic party wants you to support X this primary”?

         I’ll be honest, for some positions (like treasurer or CD7), I couldn’t really tell any of the “prefer Democratic party” candidates apart from each other So while I relied on sites like STB and the Progressive Voter’s Guide, it was still kind of a crapshoot for me, and I consider myself a relatively informed voter. Combine that lack of distinction with low turnout and it creates a system where 51% of voters (as of today) voted for a Democratic state treasurer, but no Democratic treasurer will appear on the general election ballot.

      4. “If the election system is not fixed and we remain stuck with the top-two, then the parties will need to find a way to enforce their decissions about who is allowed to run on their ticket – not an easy task when state law allows anyone to say they are a Democrat or a Republican without the approval of the respective party.”

         What’s the problem you’re trying to solve? The top-two primary was explicitly intended to put the voters in control and minimize the parties’ ability to limit their choices. Is it fair that in a district that’s 70% D, an R and L have a guaranteed spot on the final ballot but a second D is shut out, even if voters would prefer to choose between two D’s? The top-two system allows an extreme and a moderate to emerge (as might happen with Jaypal and Walkinshaw), whereas the party-based system favors extremes (which is partly why there’s been so much polarization throughout the country). The situation with the Treasurer’s race, where three D’s fell behind two R’s because of an equal number of votes between them, is perhaps a disadvantage but it doesn’t happen very often and it’s still arguably better overall than the party-based system was. And I don’t think the Treasurer has a lot of discretion over policies and programs, s/he just manages the accounts and tells the Legislature how much is in them.

      5. The problem is that we have a position where a majority of the voters voted for someone who prefers the Democratic Party, but there will be no Democratic candidate on the November ballot. This same phenomenon can happen to Republicans as well. A tweak to the election system can fix the problem while preserving the intent of the top-two system. If that tweak is not made, then the fix that the parties will have to employ would destroy the intent of the top-two system.

      6. I recall the IRV system used in Pierce County was some weird concoction never tried before, designed by the charter review commission. It was such a complicated mess that I can’t even remember what the heck it was. Both sides of the Two-Party Sithdom campaigned heavily to vote it out at the very same election where it was first tried.

         I’m suggesting that we simply advance the 3rd-place candidate to the general election when the top two candidates don’t get a majority. Then voters get to pick a first choice, and if they so wish, a second choice. What could be complicated about that?

         Though a distinct minority of races would have the 3rd-place candidate go forward from yesterday, they aren’t really that rare. Check out the Lt governor and Superintendent races.

         But if the rule became part of the election system, I bet more (and more serious) candidates would run, causing the 3rd-place candidate to get to go forward a lot more often.

   2. How much power does the state treasurer have?

      That cuts both ways. There’s 2 Rs for state treasurer, but in some local districts, e.g. congressional district 7, state district 43, there will be 2 Ds. If 1 of the D Lt. Governor candidates didn’t run, there might have been 2 Ds there as well.

      I don’t think we need to change the election system. But local political parties need to do a better job. If the Washington state Democratic party had kept a firmer hand on how many candidates were running for each position. they could have avoided this.

      1. J.P. Comerford was pitching the creation of a state bank. I believe that he needs authority from the legislature to do this, but this would have saved millions of dollars annually from being paid to Bank of America and instead could have been re-invested in our state. The Treasurer could be a powerful office to do a ton of good through seemingly small decisions. This is terribly unfortunate.

         The WSDCC should have gotten the three candidates in a room during filing week, let them hash out details, and given one of them the option of dropping out for the greater good. The WSDCC can’t enforce who does and doesn’t file, but they can encourage proactive teamwork. Please see the first post on the page regarding the CD 8 Congressional Election for why ranked choice/instant runoff may be necessary.

      2. If the election system forces candidates to agree some of them are going to drop out rather than give voters the final say, then that is a bug, not a feature.

      3. Brent, nobody is forcing anybody to do anything, but if there are three candidates, two of them have nearly identical agendas and philosophies, and one of them would prefer to drop out, that’s a choice. Political deals get made all the time. Ranked choice voting would reduce the need for back room deals like this, but on behalf of other progressives, this type of deal, under our current election system, would have improved our choices in November. Now what? A write-in campaign??????

7. probably fiscal sanity

   1. Don’t sully my good name.

8. 1. My only question on 123 is its sponsor’s motive. Because I don’t think this is her first try. I suspect it’s about extortion. “If you don’t give me (whatever), next Viaduct plan will be held up by giant balloons.”

   Better marshal our forces for 120 (infinity) , because considering present planning for Waterfront surface transit, putting Bertha on scheduled Waterfront express service could be a landslide. Well, at least a sinkhole.

   2. I strongly prefer State Senator Pam Roach, who her fellow Republicans prefer to pile furniture and safes against the doors to keep out of the Capitol Building, to any candidate who’ll tolerate a “preferred” in front of their party affiliation on any ballot. She’s also courageously right demand citizens know how to write. For when Vladimir Putin takes out Facebook with an Elecro-Magnetic Pulse weapon to help Donald.

   If an office is non-partisan, why mention any party? If candidate’s political affiliation matters, then position certainly is partisan. So I very strongly prefer an Constitutional Initiative to only make State law vomit – inducing on orders of the State Department of Health. Too bad “pusillanimous” has too many letters to fit a ballot.

   3. Dan Shih could be on the level. Maybe he volunteered to impersonate somebody threatening or abusing a woman, and his padded suit got justifiably ripped to shreds just before he did. As many times as there were students in the class. Until they could all do it in five seconds.

   Wish my political side had spent the last forty years being the students here, rather than the sparring partners. So let’s vote for Dan so he can also be an example of the way we should leave the other side looking. Anyhow, Dan, thank you for your service.

   Mark Dublin

   1. The ballots say preferred because that’s what it is. Candidates can list any party they want, and it doesn’t even have to be a party that actually exists. It also means that the parties can’t control who appears on the ballot using their name, and it means that party affiliation has nothing to do with appearing on the ballot or counting votes. That’s what is meant by non-partisan.

      1. “Nonpartisan” offices are a joke. Anyone who can put up an effective campaign for an office with a medium-to-large constituency has some party affiliation, either with one of the major parties or with a minor party. Those of us who are involved know who the Democrats and Republicans are even when it doesn’t show up on the ballot. Really, these are secret partisan offices.

      2. The offices that say “Prefers” are partisan. It’s just that the party can’t control who gets on the ballot. “Prefers” is the compromise language so that it doesn’t imply the party endorses the person. There are other offices that are officially nonpartisan like judges and I think school boards; those don’t have “Prefers” on the ballot. Whether “nonpartisan” is a realistic expectation is a larger philosophical issue. I think everybody has views and you have to look at their views. The nonpartisan offices are specifically non-legislative: they’re not setting the agenda and laws for everybody else (the main thing parties usually care about); they’re just implementing their own little sphere, and hopefully they’ll devote more attention to their sphere and all its constituents than in their party’s ideology. And judges are supposed to be impartial and keep their biases in check; and one of the criteria for evaluating them on is how well they do that.

      3. Candidates can list any party they want, and it doesn’t even have to be a party that actually exists

         Oh Cool! So if I’m ever forced to move across the river to Clark County I can run for office as a member of the Gun Shootin’ Front Portch Beer Filled Refrigerator Party?

      4. A couple years ago a guy in Bellingham listed the 99% party.

         Here’s some strange ones from this election: http://www.electionprojection.com/unusual-political-party-names-in-the-2016-elections/

      5. Glenn, you can’t, but only because there is a character limit. I think it’s 16. If you can condense it to fit, then you can.

      6. US Senate: Tsimerman prefers the Stadupamerica Party, which I gather is his own invention. Churchill prefers the Lincoln Caucus Party. Cummings, Haller, and Jackson prefer the Independent Party. Wright prefers the Human Rights Party. Uncle Mover (“the Original Mike the Mover”) prefers the Republican Party. Teuton prefers the System Reboot Party. US House: Regier, Cooper, and Flener “State No Party Preference” (SNPP or “S”).

         Governor: Goodspaceguy prefers the Republican Party. Martin prefers the Socialist Workers Party (I’ve heard of that). Rubenstein prefers the Independent Party, which is apparently different than SNPP. Joubert prefers the Holistic Party, and has elected experience “in the academic & spiritual realms”. Lieutenant Governor: Greene prefers the Citizens Party. Davies SNPP.

         The state departmental candidates are all boring; they prefer D, R, L, I(ndependent), or S(NPP)

         State legislature: all are boring except Smilanich, who prefers the Non-Partisan Party. Eddy SNPP.

         The Superintendant of Public Instruction and the Judge positions are nonpartisan, and the candidates have no party preference.

         Nobody prefers the Tea Party.

      7. But of course!
         It’s Seattle.
         Someone needs to start a Coffee Party.

9. I believe Joe McDermott currently (as well as at the time of publishing this story) has 21.54% of the vote, which by the rounding rules you used for the rest of the candidates would be 22%.

Comments are closed.