Good. Parties should have the freedom to associate with only those candidates they desire. But what to put in place of the current Washington law?

Novoselic suggests an “unassembled caucus,” sometimes called a “firehouse primary,” as the means to select party candidates.

That’s a caucus that runs for, say, a day, with people showing up at a polling place and casting a ballot. The difference between this and a regular primary is that the polling place is controlled — and paid for — by the parties themselves, not the taxpayers.

The I-872 system is called the “Top Two Primary” because the top two candidates from the August primary go on to the general election in November. Since the two could both be from the same party, the breadth of choice in the general election can and does decrease . . . hardly great for the electorate. Fewer options.

The best thing would be to replace the August election with firehouse primaries. Oddly, Novoselic isn’t suggesting that, apparently as a compromise with current, Grange-supported law. He officially supports the firehouse primaries plus the two elections.

Why two elections? Consider what happens in a single election with private primaries and multiple (more than two) candidates, and there’s no majority, just a plurality outcome. The more candidates in a race, the more likely that a generally despised candidate could win a plurality of the vote. And thus, in first-past-the-post elections, win the seat.

That’s the point of a runoff election, to ensure something like majority support. That was part of the thinking behind the current Top Two system in Washington state, to accommodate a runoff.

But this is where Novoselic’s Instant Runoff Voting makes better sense. IRV would allow a recounting of ballots without holding a costly runoff election. This can be done because each person would vote, on his or her ballot, for the candidates in ranked order of preference. Then the ballots for the lowest vote-getters would be resorted, by their next-ranked preference, to see which of the top vote-getting candidates gets more popular support.

IRV saves the cost and trouble of a second election and gives voters more choice. My only worry about such reforms is that they would lessen the oppositionalism in current minor-party politics. A Green Party candidate would not necessarily take votes away from a Democrat. In fact, by attracting more voters to the polls who might likely support the Democrat as their second choice, the Green candicacy might help the Democrat.

Something similar might happen between Libertarians and Republicans.

Oppositionalism has its advantages. It can whack complacent major-party folks upside the head. Something they often need.

On the other hand, IRV takes away the “wasted vote” argument, and it might be that, someday under such a voting system, a new party could arise.

That would really upset the current insiders.

As of now, the party leaders in Washington state are all for Novoselic’s run. He seems to be on “their side.” But if Novoselic’s full agenda were to be instituted, they might quickly change their tune.

In any case, it is good to see a celebrity focus both on local office and on procedural matters that are, in actual fact, the lifeblood of a democratic republic.

That’s the best way to “rock the vote” . . . as well as the establishment boat.