Why yeah, I'm going to nag you about voting. I expect that most of the readers of this blog (both of them), have already voted, but if not, get out there and vote, and encourage others to do so.
There is stuff I can't vote on around here, primarily because I am not in particular district or community that has those elections. So this a lot of this is distant thunder, and may affect me (and you) eventually.
The big one is a two-part vote up in Seattle that monkeys with how they vote. The current system is that whoever gets the most votes wins. Pretty straightforward, but as the Primaries show, it is a bit of a pain with multiple candidates, and tends to be dominated by the major parties. So the first question is do you want to change the system?
If you do, the next question, do you want the beef or the fish? I mean, do you want Approval Voting (AV) or Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). Here's the diff:
Approval Voting says you can vote for as many candidates for any office as you want. You like all four Democrats? Vote for 'em. Don't like the incumbent? Vote for everyone except that one person. All the votes have the same weight, so the candidates with the most votes win. Approval Voting has been playtested in a couple locations, though not extensively.
Ranked Choice Voting says you do that, but list them in order. You like the hot educated young professional but will settle for the incumbent but don't care for the climate-denier? Rank them 1, 2, and 3. when the votes are counted, the low guy gets thrown out and the ballots for them look at the second choice and toss those votes onto the higher-ranked candidate. Continue the process until you get to the winner. So if you don't get your first choice, you at least have a shot at getting a decent candidate. RCV has shown up in a number of places, including Alaska, New York City, and the Hugo awards, and has been pretty effective.
Both versions reduce the binary nature of campaigns and removes situations where multiple candidates running who have a particular viewpoint results in that viewpoint getting frozen out. It will likely push voting towards the middle as opposed to opposition camps. It can weaken the power of political parties and promote more independent candidates. That's all good. But it they are admittedly more complicated (knowing how difficult it is to get people to fill in ONE little oval on the ballot). They are intended to be for Seattle's Attorney, Mayor, and City Council, so there will be "hybrid ballots" with two different types of voting on them. And this is proposed for the primaries, which are still "top two". In fact, this type of voting can negate the need for primaries at all (though you'll end up with Goodspaceguy being considered for the general election).
Here's the thing I really want to do. The Secretary of State should call on a brain trust of game designers (hey, he knows a few) and turn them loose on the system with the question "How do we cheese this system?" If anyone knows how to milk exploits out of a set of rules, it will be game designers. Let's run a development cycle or three.
But then, that's not on my ballot. If it were, I'd say No, then swing over to RCV if forced to make a choice. And get rid of primaries entirely, but that's not on the ballot this time.
There are also races that are actually kinda tight, but because of the way they draw boundaries around here, I can't vote in them, either. A few blocks away is Legislative District 11th, a redrawn district that was once traditionally GOP, but last election went Democrat, so they redrew the boundaries to put more red and rural voters into it. Kim Schrier is the incumbent who has done well in her rookie season. Her opponent is Matt Larkin, who definitely on the whackadoodle train - he's just now getting around to saying "Yeah, Biden won" effectively gaslighting his own supporters. Both sides are running attack ads on the tube, the difference being while Larkin's are all about how scary Schrier is (Ominous music, grainy photos, yellow police tape), while ads against Larkin tend to just use voice clips from Larkin's speeches about how this is no time for moderation. So, yeah, there is a difference.
But Larkin's the not the worst GOP Candidate in Washington State. That away goes way to the south, far outside this blog's throw weight. Joe Kent is a newly-arrived carpetbagger looking for an easy grift in a conservative area around Vancouver, Washington. He's got Trump showing up to support him, and ticks all the MAGA boxes. Most recently, the Seattle Times notes that Joe Kent wants to go after those really responsible for Jan. 6 - the FBI. Because attacking the capitol building was a sting operation. So yeah, support his opponent - Marie Glusenkamp Perez. Southern Washington is "Let's Go Brandon" territory, but there are enough sane GOP supporters down there that the race is tight.
Finally, MOST of the city of Kent (but not this household) is in the 47th state legislative district, and actually has a race between two competent, reasonable candidates. Bill Boyce and Claudia Kauffman both come out of the Kent City Council, and have proved to reasonable and responsible grown-ups. This is a choice between two good candidates. I favor Claudia Kauffman because of her positions, it is one of those races where I feel the political responsibility is in safe hands. And I want to point out that there ARE sane Republicans out there. But I still don't like their positions.
In the meantime, if you are in Washington State, or any state that allows early voting. Go Vote, and encourage others to do so as well. 'Cause you have some real loons out there.
More later,
