Blogs Dec 22, 2011 at 3:14 pm

Comments

1
Indifferent.
2
Neither angry or indifferent, but pleased at this positive development. With the new top-two primary system, parties have no formal role in either the primary or any other part of the election system. They are private clubs and can pay for their own damn club officer elections.
3
I know and care about what a PCO is. But I'm with #2. This is an intra-party function.
4
Yeah on #2.

And furthermore, the parties brought this on themselves, through their lawsuit to force voting by parties.
5
I have multiple reactions:
*1 - this is what "efficiences and reforms" mean. They mean cuts. If you don't like it, advocate for more taxes, which is how government can pay for the services you want.
*2 - why haven't we also allowed to vote for pco's on the ballot for fringe parties? Maybe I want to vote for the Green Party or Libertarian pco.
*3 - this is the fault of the D's & R's. They pushed to do away with the old open primary system. They made this bed, now they can lie in it.
6
Instead of saying "this is political stuff you wouldn't understand" why don't you do what you're being paid to do and write a brief explanation of the issue so people would be able to understand?
7
@5--
1) I certainly agree.
2) Because Green and Libertarians have refused to organize county-level parties.
3) Washington was the only state to have an open primary, which was clearly unconstitutional. Thereafter the people voted to have perhaps the only kind that is worse, the top-two. Blame the voters. Ohy, wait, that would mean you were responsible for your own choice, God forbid!

The problem with this decision is that state law requires political parties to have PCO elections, but gives them no control over how the elections are conducted.
8
Not many people want to be PCOs, so from what I've observed, the few people who do are introduced by the district chair and simply affirmed by a voice vote of the district members who happen to be at the meeting (and who really don't care). That's not exactly an "election".
9
The parties argue that this system somehow prevents curruption, maybe they should take an objective look at how Gerry Pollett was selected and appointed by a private political party to a public seat, 46th LD Rep.
The nomination of 3 people by a private party, with 2 of the 3 testifying that they respected the party process, and were institutionalized place holders. The county council didnt have all of its Dems at the subcommittee meeting so they could not approve Pollett, the Republicans were conspicuously absent. The vote was taken at the full council later in the day with the 5th Dem literally telephoning in her vote.

A striking lack of democracy involved in that process. I'm not sure how that isn't the essence of curruption.

I would rather go with just 1 Rep than to have that shitty insider process. Have an open election at the next opportunity.
10
I'm with 3, explain that a PCO decides who is appointed to the legislature should a seat become vacant and for some fucked up reason the individual vacates a seat but a private party retains control over that public seat. You want to decide that, you must become part of a private party in order to do so.
11
@8:

You're right ... you're referring to appointed, not elected PCOs.

Operationally, the distinction is important only at the LD reorganization meeting in January of odd-numbered years. Only elected PCOs can vote to fill certain LD offices at the biennial reorg.

That's because elected PCOs are essentially the only party "officials" whose positions exist before the reorg takes place (they were elected during the previous year's primary). Before the reorg, no LD organization exists, so that appointing PCOs is logically impossible at that time.
12
Fuck the political parties. They screwed us out of our beloved open primary and have been complaining about the consequences ever since. Apparently they want it both ways. Politicians indeed.
13
I have zero sympathy, and even less interested in having tax dollars support the election of precinct committee persons for private political parties. Their argument on behalf of open government and political process is amusing.


Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.