Editor’s note: Today’s editorials originally appeared in The (Kennewick) Tri-City Herald and Walla Walla Union Bulletin. Editorial content from other publications and authors is provided to give readers a sampling of regional and national opinion and does not necessarily reflect positions endorsed by the Editorial Board of The Daily News.
Washington state’s 2020 presidential primary should be more noteworthy than ever before thanks to a change in the election date. However, it is likely this positive development will be overshadowed by voter frustration.
That’s because participants still will have to declare whether they are a Republican or a Democrat when they cast their ballots, and those who consider themselves independent of either party are sure to balk at the requirement.
It is unfortunate lawmakers didn’t change these rules when they had the chance.
People are also reading…
On March 14 Gov. Jay Inslee signed into law Senate Bill 5273, which moves next year’s presidential primary from late May to the second Tuesday in March.
We encouraged the date change because the May election makes our state practically irrelevant during the presidential campaign.
In 2016 the presidential primary cost Washington taxpayers about $12 million, and by the time it rolled around, the only Republican left in the GOP race was Donald Trump. On the Democrats’ side, the caucuses ignored the primary election results favoring Hillary Clinton and went with Bernie Sanders as their choice.
Moving up the date to March should give more weight to Washington votes and entice presidential hopefuls to our state. And that’s a good thing. Those campaigning here would have to be prepped on matters important to the Northwest — like Hanford cleanup, the Snake River dams and trade issues.
While this will make for a more exciting presidential primary, we fear many people will be so irritated that they have to declare a political party before they vote, they probably won’t bother.
Senate Republican Leader Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville, said as much when he issued a statement on the day the governor signed into law the presidential primary date change.
Schoesler said, “While I applaud moving Washington’s presidential primary to March so it gives our state’s voters a greater voice in choosing the presidential nominees, I’m disappointed that this legislation will disenfranchise independent-minded voters in our state since many of them will refuse to affiliate with either of the two major parties.”
He called the new law a “big win for the political parties in Washington but a lost opportunity on behalf of our many voters who value independence and privacy.”
We agree.
The original bill allowed people to participate in the presidential primary without having to declare themselves a Democrat or Republican when they vote, but that language eventually was taken out.
Now, what was conceived as a way to increase voter participation will ultimately encourage people to opt out of the process.
Next March’s presidential primary election will be more significant than ever, but it won’t count like it should, and that’s a shame.
Electoral College needs reform, not abolishment
The Electoral College, the system used to elect the president of the United States is not perfect — far from it. Yet, it was put in place for our nation’s Founder for some very good reasons.
Among those is that the Electoral College ensures that every state has a stake in who will serve as president. It’s a way to ensure that a few highly populated states (or even a couple of big cities) do not have the power to sway the election.
Nevertheless, there are more than a few folks irked that President Donald Trump was elected in 2016 despite falling 3 million votes short of Democrat Hillary Clinton in the popular balloting. It’s now an issue on the campaign trail as more than a dozen Democrats are vying for the party’s 2020 nomination.
This week Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., used the issue to make some political hay on the campaign trail. She called for ending the Electoral College, arguing for a system where “every vote matters.”
The reality is that this would create as many or more problems than it solves. It would leave much of the country — particularly rural areas such as Eastern Washington and Eastern Oregon where we live — disenfranchised when it comes to electing a president.
A better approach could be to tweak the current Electoral College system so that more voters matter.
Right now, in 48 of the 50 states, it’s a winner-take-all system in which the candidate who wins the majority of votes gets all of that state’s votes in the Electoral College (the number of congressional districts in the state plus a vote for each of the two senators).
However, Nebraska and Maine allocate their electoral votes by congressional district. The candidate who wins each congressional district gets that single vote and the candidate who carries the statewide vote would get the two electoral votes representing the two senate seats.
If this approach was adopted by each state, it would make the Electoral College system more equitable and reflective of the nation as a whole.
Let’s look at how it would impact Washington state. The eastern half of the state and the rural parts of the west side tend to favor Republicans, while the urban Puget Sound area is a Democratic stronghold. Statewide, Washington generally favors Democrats.
So instead of a presidential candidate getting all 12 of the state’s electoral votes — as has been happening for several election cycles — the split could be 10-2 or 9-3.
This might ease some of the frustration of voters east of the Cascades who often feel their votes are drowned out by the throng of people in Seattle.
Washington as a state isn’t alone in this. Other states have population splits with different interests.
This a way that more of those views could be brought to the table to be discussed and considered by presidential candidates.
The Electoral College debate should focus on making sure every part of the country has a voice.