Unopposed candidates a cause for concern?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003213933_candidates21m.html ^

[Grendel9]

OLYMPIA — For 39 people running for the state Legislature — nearly a third of all races — the November election is essentially over. They have no opponent. It's the largest number of unopposed candidates in at least 36 years. And it's no one-time blip, but rather a decades-old trend that's increasing over time.

[Grendel9]

So the politicians and voters have NO reason to blame the Republicans for things that go wrong in Washington State, right? Hah! Too logical.

[Zakeet]

Let me guess.

A Republican party morphed into Republicrats. A Democrat party that panders exclusively to special interests -- especially the far left. Districts gerrymandered to the point where one party controls the seat. Incumbents with an enormous fund raising advantage due to their incumbency, franking and campaign "finance reform." Term limits declared unconstitutional.

Nope. I can't figure out for the life of me why anyone would ever not want to vote. In Washington State or anywhere else for that matter.

[weegee]

"And I have seen a number of times when somebody is not expected to have a chance and they end up winning. That's not happening much anymore because they [the parties] don't field candidates."

Critics contend the lack of competition can lead to a less-responsive Legislature because politicians who don't have to worry about getting kicked out of office are less likely to listen to their voters.

It isn't "the parties" that don't field candidates. In an uncontested race, it is ONE party that DOES field a candidate and one that doesn't.

It's the Republicans' fault because without a contested race, the Democrats don't have to be accountable to the voters. < /sarc >

[bigfootbob]

I am the chair of the GOP recruitment & development in my county. I have 4 seats I couldn't get a candidate for.

I see two reasons. 1) Damage to the Republican's due to the fact we've elected too damn many mainstream republicans who vote like knock-off dims. I've heard repeatedly, why should I vote for one of your guys, they will cut our throat eventually. 2) Politics of personal destruction.

The dims have a staff of PI's who dig until they find some dirt or they manufacture it and have their willing accomplice's in the media carry their water.

We've taken the stance here in my county, that we don't care if we have a few vacant seats, because we've instituted a vetting policy that requires a candidate to be a real Republican and sign a statement declaring they support our platform and we now utilize comprehensive background checks so we know beforehand if a candidate has the potential for an October surprise and can fix the problem early.

[poindexter]

The Dems have the elections rigged in this state (WA). Repubicans can't win, even when they win.

[weegee]

For now, "in large parts of the state we are effectively a single-party democracy," said Chris Vance, who used to chair the state Republican Party and is now a consultant at The Gallatin Group.

There is a reason this statue of Lenin was relocated from the USSR to Washington...

[weegee]

The article addresses this:

And his family wasn't eager for him to run either, he said.

"Families pay a lot bigger price in this than people ever look at. It's less time at home. You get calls from people who are really kooks and are mean," he said. "It takes a toll on them."

[Steven Scharf]

Having somewhat the same experience here in Portland Maine, I can tell you that the problem is that in some districts even if you find a candidate; they don't stand a chance in winning.

I ran 2 years ago and ended up with 10% of the vote which about mirrors the republican breakdown of the district. I don't know the size of Wash house districts, but there are 8000+ so you can get out and meet most of the voters.

We have difficulty getting 25 signatures to get on the ballot and finding fifty $5 checks to qualify for clean elections. The checks can be from any registered voter.

We have a race in Portland that won’t have a republican. It is the only house seat with a green. He is the only thing keeping a dem from being in it. The greens are running six candidates in Portland and three of them have a chance of winning.

We are going to struggle to take a house seat in the suburban part of Portland where the registration is more balanced. We also could take a senate seat.

[Steven Scharf]

If we utilized platform adherence standards, we would have no candidates.

The state party has made its mission to have candidates in every race in the state. It has been good in that it makes sure legislative leadership has to do some work in their district and cannot be traveling the state working for other dems as much. We are close to taking the leg in Maine. Assuming we do, our policy will be a significant part of that victory.

[bigfootbob]

I had a county auditor candidate withdraw. His reason was family related, but not because of the kook factor but, the time away from home was the main issue, he said, as was the fact that candidates must be able to raise large amounts of cash. (that's what I think was his main reason for quitting)

To many, this is a ball buster. He was going to have to raise 2 times the annual salary of the job to have a chance of winning. That is tough on a neophyte.

[bigfootbob]

"If we utilized platform adherence standards, we would have no candidates."

I disagree. We've worked hard to make a 1 page conservative philosophical platform, if a candidate doesn't agree, then we didn't want them running under our banner anyway.

I agree with your other statement and would add, legislators from all levels need to be closer to their county party, we have a problem with the mainstreamers who I mentioned earlier not working with us until election time, that is BS. Elected leaders need to interface closely with the county party on staffing issues, motivational purposes and mentoring chains of succession.

[sionnsar]

Say WA? Evergreen State ping

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this ping list.

Ping sionnsar if you see a Washington state related thread.

[sionnsar]

Isn't that a rather old picture? There's a Taco Del Mar there the last time I went by. And a yellow rubber ducky perched on the brow of the cap, and a dried-out brown garland around the cap. Complete mockery...

[Sail The Blue Sea]

It doesn't matter if the seat is winnable or not. It's the failure of the party to not fill every slot. Everyone deserves a choice.

[razorback-bert]

Where exactly is that statute?

[bigfootbob]

That kind of mentality get you the Duke Cunningham's, John McCain's, Lindsay Graham's et al.

It's the responsibility of the party to fill the seat with qualified candidates, not quantity. That will inspire others.

[No phonys allowed]

The problem as I see it is that when we get decent candidates the party doesn't support them. No one will get up to do anything to help. The only time the party will step forward and support a candidate is when it gets down to the wire and it's a pretty sure thing they're going to win.

So for a Repulican in this state, you're pretty much just on your own.

[bigfootbob]

"The only time the party will step forward and support a candidate is when it gets down to the wire and it's a pretty sure thing they're going to win."

Here's my opinion on that. Due to the nature of the beast here, you don't want the state party involved in your campaign early on. They don't have a good record of supporting worthy candidates in the house since before 2000.

Two things generally happen, they either fill the neophyte candidate's head with illusions of of things unrealistic and the candidate sloughs off or they bring their "campaign in-a-box" concept into your county whether it fits or not and micro-manage the candidate. The House Organizational Recruiting Committee in 2004 helped fund 13 races from the get-go or winner after a challenged primary in 2004. 0-13!

They appear to have a better handle on the race this time, but not by much. We'll see.

So in my opinion, if the state party is gonna help, it should be at the end or if they'd make a commitment to the candidates to help retire campaign debt if they win early in the process, that would be enough for a quality candidate to design a winning campaign plan. Plus HROC wouldn't squander hundreds of thousands of dollars on a bet.

[URist]

Also, Washington has a requirement that in order to get on the ballot, one percent of the annual salary of the office that is being sought must be paid, or if the candidate doesn't have the money, a number of signatures of registered voters from the area covered by the office must be given to the Sec. of State's office (for a state office) or the County Auditor's office (for a County or municipal office). The number of signatures must be equal to the number of dollars that is one percent of the annual salary of the office.

This requirement is fine for offices such as Governor and U.S. Senator, but is high for state legislator and local offices. In Cowlitz County, WA we have seen a non-incumbent sheriff's candidate run unopposed and most of the time incumbent District and Superior Court judges and prosecuting attorneys run unopposed. We also have a Democratic County Assessor running unopposed even though many residents think the 2006 property assessments are too high.