ELECTIONS
Choose ranked choice for fairer primaries
Now that the general election is coming up soon, I want to look back at the deficiencies of the primary election we had on August 6.
We used an open top-two election system to choose two candidates as our choices for each position in the general election on November 5. This has two pluses:
• An open primary allows independents and third party voters to have a say in who advances to the general election.
• The general election will consist of a simple ballot with only two candidates for each office.
However, the top-two system does not always advance the true choices of the voters.
A good example is the Commissioner of Public Lands. There were two Republicans and five Democrats running in the primary. The five Democrats received a total of 57.05% of the vote; the Republicans earned 42.85%, and write-ins earned 0.09%. If 52 of the votes for Democrat Dave Upthegrove had been cast for one of the other four Democrats, two Republicans and no Democrats would have advanced to the general election.
For either party to reduce this unfavorable outcome, they would have to be disciplined enough to limit their nominees to two candidates (not going to happen).
With only two Democrats and two Republicans running in the primary, an unfair choice for the general election is still possible. Assume the two Democrats received 35.61% and 21.44% of the vote, and two similar Republicans received 21.43% and 21.42%. Two Democrats and no Republicans would be on the general election ballot in November — not fair!
The solution: Change future primary elections to Open Ranked Choice Vote elections. Voters can rank their ballot choices, allowing their vote to count for a second choice when their first choice does not receive enough votes to win.
It’s simple and it’s fair.
Melvin Mackey
BALLOT INITIATIVES
Vote no on I-2117
Washington State is leading the fight on the existential threat from greenhouse gas emissions. Our elected officials passed a cap-and-trade law called the Climate Commitment Act (CCA). We are the only state in the U.S. with such a law — California has a rule from an agency, not approval by their legislature.
Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New York are considering following our lead. This fall, we have an opportunity to show them how important this law is to our future and theirs by voting No on Initiative 2117.
That ballot initiative would repeal the CCA and prohibit the state from implementing cap-and-trade programs. If I-2117 passes, the state would lose billions of dollars that otherwise help us fix problems caused by unhealthy air and water.
I-2117 is opposed by 500 organizations, including small and large businesses (Meadow Creatures, Amazon, and bp America), environmental groups (Vashon Climate Action Group), Tribal Nations (Puyallup Tribal Nations), faith groups (Vashon Friends Worship Group), medical groups (WA Physicians for Social Responsibility), environmental leaders (Vashon Bird Alliance), labor groups (Washington & Northern Idaho District Council of Laborers), farmers (American Farmland Trust), community groups (Vashon Maury Community Council), and transit groups (Islanders for Ferry Action).
Join this growing alliance. Vote NO on I-2117.
Virginia Lohr
Vote no on I-2066
We are in a climate crisis. The major cause? The burning of fossil fuels. Policymakers in our state have been working hard on effective policies to transition to a clean, carbon-free energy future. Initiative 2066, which will be on the November ballot, will block their progress and tie their hands.
I-2066, if passed, would stop efforts to reduce the use of natural gas, a potent greenhouse gas. For example, it would end incentives for switching appliances from gas to electricity and would roll back updated building codes — locking in more climate damaging emissions and polluted air for decades.
There are health and safety reasons for removing natural gas from buildings, as well. In addition to risks from gas explosions and carbon monoxide poisoning, recent research finds higher incidences of asthma and other respiratory diseases in homes which use gas.
People who can afford to are removing gas from their homes and replacing it with clean electricity. I-2066 would leave those who can’t afford to (and most renters) paying higher rates to maintain aging pipelines delivering gas to fewer and fewer buildings. We must have policies to transition us off of fossil gas if we are to maintain a livable planet. But we must also manage the transition with policies that ensure affordable energy services are available to everyone.
Vote No on I-2066 and on all four initiatives on the ballot in November. They are funded by wealthy fossil fuel interests, whose decades of deceit have brought us the current climate disruption. Our state has emerged as a national leader by adopting bold policies that will lead to a safer, healthier future for everyone. Let’s keep it that way.
Rob Briggs
