Great op-ed in the Seattle Times today on the Top Two.
...The party bosses didn't like Democrats picking Republicans, and vice versa. They won their lawsuit, and last September, for the first time in 70 years, Washington primary voters were confined to candidates from only their chosen party.
People hated it so much that, two months later, voters adopted by initiative a primary that is all but blind to party. Next September, voters will go back to choosing among all candidates for a political office. The top two highest vote-getters advance, regardless of their party.
...They can convene all they want, but the result will amount to nothing more than an endorsement. Washington voters have embraced a "qualifying" primary and rejected the parties' nominating primary — the parties should respect them.
If Vance, Berendt and their party cronies don't like it, they have only themselves to blame.
It doesn't get to all the points I would make, but it gets the argument out there. I would actually contend that dropping opposition to the Top Two would actually be good for the Democratic Party.
And, here is why. The Times article puts it right out there: " The party bosses didn't like Democrats picking Republicans, and vice versa." From the point of view from people inside the parties everyone is either a Republican or a Democrat. Taking this point of view a little further, if you don't choose a party, you can't vote in a primary.
And, as my logic train chugs on, since most people in Washington don't see themselves as either Democrats or Republicans (or, if they do, they sometimes they like the Democrat over a particular Republican) closing up the primary will close these folks out of the political system. And, as Democrats, this is the last thing we want to do.
Open parties, open ballots.