Votes hardly ‘wasted’ in top-two system

John Burbank’s Guest Opinion in last Wednesday’s Sequim Gazette attacking the Washington state two-tier primary system (“Options for our ‘un-choices'”, page A-11, Aug. 17) merits a response.

One thing that both the Democratic and Republican parties agree on is their determination to make it as difficult as possible for independent and third party candidates to get elected. They are determined to preserve the two-party monopoly for themselves. To partially alleviate this problem, many voter organizations, including the state Grange, lobbied successfully to replace the traditional party dominated primary system with a two-tier system, despite the strong opposition from both political parties.

Voters were now encouraged to vote for the best candidate, regardless of party affiliation (if any). If a highly qualified independent candidate failed to be one of the top two vote-getters in the primary, voters could still vote for their second choice in November.

Thus, voters don’t have to fear that their vote will be “wasted.”

Burbank provides illustrations to show the weakness of the system. Actually, they illustrate the strength of our two-tier approach. Yes, we will have two Republican candidates for treasurer in November. So what? If no Democratic candidate could reach at least second place in the primary, he probably did not deserve to be elected in November.

A very good illustration of the strength of our system is in Clallam County’s second Commissioner District being vacated by Mike Chapman. Here the voters selected an independent candidate to be on the final ballot in November. Under the previous system, he would have doubtless lost a lot of votes from those who felt constrained to major party voting. Now, he has a decent chance.

Washington and California are the envy of voters throughout the country, tired of the stranglehold imposed upon them by the two-party system.

Ted Miller

Sequim

(Editor’s note: Miller is a Sequim City Councilor.)

‘Let Sequim be Sequim’

Regarding an article in the Aug. 10 Sequim Gazette (“Councilors vote down comp plan update,” A-1) about the Sequim City Council’s rejection of zoning changes to the Sequim Municipal Code:

The article inaccurately reported as facts the support of the Sequim REALTOR® community to the zoning change recommendations. The article stated that a committee of real estate agents had given its approval.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Members of the Government Affairs Committee from the Sequim Association of REALTORS® had several meetings with Mr. Hugo and Mr. Bush. Mr. Hugo also attended a Sequim Association of REALTORS® meeting in order to present zoning changes he envisioned as beneficial to the community. The membership of both organizations expressed opposition to those changes.

In the most recent meetings, as cited in the article, a focus group, not a committee, was organized by invitation of Mr. Hugo. The representatives from the real estate and builder community were Greg McCarry, Tom Williamson and Bruce Emery. The purpose of this group was to receive the draft plan and to give comment on the most recent proposed changes. Mr. Bush expressed the idea that the exchange was healthy.

A healthy discussion usually indicates that some compromise is in the making. No such compromise has been forthcoming but rather a persistent pursuit of Mr. Hugo’s goal to make Sequim something which it is not. These changes would have meant the end of condominiums and town homes (among others). These structures are one of the most popular forms of single family dwellings in Sequim.

Detached, multi-story cottage-style dwellings do work in an age-diversified community.

Mr. Hugo has a photograph collection of subdivisions from just such communities which he has shown to many Sequim area residents in public meetings. Admittedly, these are nice looking photos when compared to photos of homes that are not new in older neighborhoods. Garages to the rear of the home, a grid pattern designed to move traffic quickly and the demise of popular cul-de-sacs and alleys is part of Mr. Hugo’s plan. Why not just “let Sequim be Sequim”? That’s why most of us moved here.

Sequim has been, is and most likely will remain, a retirement community, attracting individuals who do not wish to see themselves living in a two-story home. We have the highest median age in Washington state.

Why not continue to build the structure that gives that choice to the purchaser who pays for and owns that dwelling rather than the official in the zoning office?

Karen Pritchard

Sequim

On behalf of the Sequim Government Affairs Committee Sequim Association of REALTORS®