Anonymous wrote:I think King's figures show that the problem of apathy is much greater than the closed primary problem, especially since anyone can register as a Democrat if they wish.

Nevertheless, I think that party labels in DC tell so little about the candidate that it would be better, as Jeff said, to follow CA and have a single primary with the general election a run-off between the top two. I would go a step further, and have preference voting, where each voter ranks the candidates, and there is a series of counts, where the lowest ranked at each stage is dropped until two remain. That gives some voice to those who vote for the underdogs, and perhaps would make us more willing to cast such votes, and thereby make it easier for less well-known people to get into the system.

There would remain a question of how to handle the at-large seats. I suppose the primary could winnow it down to four, with the top two chosen in the general (perhaps using the ranking scheme). That would lose the present enforced diversity of allowing each party to nominate only one candidate for the two positions, but Michael Brown has already made a mockery of that by running as an "Independent Democrat".

Apathy which has been breed from years of the Democrats basically locking out any other voter. It shouldn't be so tough to vote. The whole "change your registration" argument is kind of like the proof of voter registration VA just adopted. It places undue burden on a vote making them less likely to vote.

Get rid of the closed primary and you would still have a handful of people choosing our politicians. I agree with Colbert King on most things but I think he's wrong on this one.

I think King's figures show that the problem of apathy is much greater than the closed primary problem, especially since anyone can register as a Democrat if they wish.

Nevertheless, I think that party labels in DC tell so little about the candidate that it would be better, as Jeff said, to follow CA and have a single primary with the general election a run-off between the top two. I would go a step further, and have preference voting, where each voter ranks the candidates, and there is a series of counts, where the lowest ranked at each stage is dropped until two remain. That gives some voice to those who vote for the underdogs, and perhaps would make us more willing to cast such votes, and thereby make it easier for less well-known people to get into the system.

There would remain a question of how to handle the at-large seats. I suppose the primary could winnow it down to four, with the top two chosen in the general (perhaps using the ranking scheme). That would lose the present enforced diversity of allowing each party to nominate only one candidate for the two positions, but Michael Brown has already made a mockery of that by running as an "Independent Democrat".

I think the idea of an open primary and then a run off is very intriguing. We do have a huge problem with intrenched incumbents in this City. The ability of incumbents to raise so much money -- much of it corporate -- makes running against them very difficult.

BTW, if you are a registered DC voter and would like to see direct corporate contributions to campaigns eliminated, please sign a petition for Initiative 70. If you haven't signed one and want to, let me know and I'll arrange for you to sign one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dc-needs-to-break-from-its-one-party-political-system/2012/06/01/gJQA6s6q7U_story.html

Jeff, and other followers of DC politics your thoughts? I"ve been saying this for a while, but everyone in DC and DCUM is just a small sample size are so hyper left wing they all vote party first.