Exactly what did we learn from the recent state primary election, actually the second one this year? The first one was ostensively for president, which was ignored mostly by the political parties. Yes, it was early but that turned out to not mean much.

The August 19 primary was about state and local matters. We had a primary for governor and other state offices. In King County the incumbent Democratic governor got more votes which experience tells us that does not mean much for the November general election. For one thing, people in August are more concerned with a day (maybe) in the sun or when the kids get back from camp. Politics and elections are considered lightly, if at all.

There was an interesting idea about making several county offices nonpartisan, abolishing the largely symbolic party labels here. The people voted overwhelmingly to make the King County executive, assessor and county council members' races where party affiliation does not count.

Since when has political party mattered here for the past decade or two? Republicans in King County are as rare as igloos in Phoenix. The few that are around have moved so far to the left as to be considered rather quaint. That, in this newspaper's view, is not good for the citizens because all good ideas do not spring from a well-marked "Democrat."

But that non-partisan vote was only preliminary and we have to do it all over again in November to make it so. What's with this? We have an election to decide we will have an election to make something happen?

In West Seattle we had an election for members of the state House and Senate, but we had no choice. Only the incumbents were on the ballot. Democrats true, but not even a stray name with interest, say Goodspace Guy. Now that should not be interpreted to mean we don't think our legislators are doing a good job. Sharon Nelson of Vashon took over the House seat vacated when Joe McDermott was elevated to the Senate. Nelson, McDermott and Rep. Eileen Cody all do a respectable job, but we wish we heard more from them, as they are largely silent except for a newsletter once or twice a year.

The general election will pit Reuven Carlyle against John Burbank. Republican Leslie Bloss was overwhelmed by the two Democrats. Carlyle got 44 percent of the vote and Burbank 40 percent. We will talk to both and made a recommendation to voters before the November election, but we are unhappy that they will be virtually forced to tear each other apart and spend a long of money to take a job that pays only $42,106 a year.

The real question is why we have these elections. One obvious reason was to wrest and keep control out of political party hands. When the courts invalidated our open primary, the Democrats and Republicans maintained they had a right to choose their own candidates, an argument that made some sense.

The state then came up with a primary election that required each of us to specify one of the two political parties we prefer in order to be allowed to vote. Virtually no one liked that and the question rang from the rafters, "Why do I have to be a Republican or a Democrat in order to vote in a state-paid election?"

So the top two was born here. It is better than having nonpartisan voters having to tell a white lie in order to exercise their election franchise, but is seems a bit unfair for Republicans in a state overwhelmed with Democrats.

That brings us to the question about whether it is a good idea to have an entire regions dominated by a single party. We wish there was a chance to remove some dead wood, but since they are Democrats they are in no danger at all - few Democrats want to run against fellow Democrats. (We note once possible exception as County Council member Larry Phillips is contemplating running against Executive Ron Sims.)

Elections cost taxpayers money. To have too few is cheating us from making important decisions, but too many is costly and lulls many into to figuring their vote may have some importance but not much. We should reconsider primaries having little reason for being.

- Jack Mayne