IRV: affirming political choice

Ryan Blethen writes in the Seattle Times about Amendment 3 and improving voter choice. Blethen, like many others, is intrigued by alternatives to the pick-a-party primary. He likes the idea of more voter choice given by adopting IRV.

One of the intriguing parts of his piece is his open speculation about the statewide implications of Amendment 3. Blethen views Pierce County as the leaders in the effort to replace the pick-a-party primary.

Unnecessary Pick-a-Party Primary

In 2006, for county level positions, the pick-a-party primary is a waste of time and money. Proposed Charter Amendment #3 would have saved money for 2006, if it had already been implemented.

Amendment #3 would affect the County Council and the Auditor's races (as well as others not up for election in 2006). County Council Districts #1, #5 and #7 are up for election. In each race, only one candidate has filed for office. And the pick-a-party primary system still requires Pierce County to run primaries for these races! Amendment #3 would eliminate these primary races.

In the case of the Auditor, one candidate filed for the Republican nomination and one for the Democratic nomination. Once again, the pick-a-party primary system requires Pierce County to run a primary for this race. Amendment #3 would eliminate this primary and move straight to the November general election.

Eliminating the pick-a-party primary for Pierce County would reduce the costs of the voters pamphlet, the vote counting and the size of the ballot. This year's example shows one of the benefits of Amendment #3.