After reading the results from the first-ever top-two primary, you have to wonder why the major parties raised such a ruckus about it. Sure it’s only one election, and the feared consequences could still materialize some year, but thus far it doesn’t look like it was worth a four-year court battle to block a system that Washington voters overwhelming approved via initiative in 2004.

But the state Democratic and Republican parties did unleash their attorneys, saying the parties’ influence would be severely diminished by a system that didn’t allow parties to affix the political labels to candidates. This, they feared, would lead to general election contests where two candidates with the same party preference would face off.

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the top-two primary was constitutionally sound, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the 7-2 majority, noted it was “sheer speculation” that the parties would be hurt. When comparing the primary results with the parties’ concerns, it looks like Thomas has a point.

In only eight of the 124 state legislative contests did two candidates of the same party advance, according to the secretary of state’s office. In five of those races, only one party was represented. For example, all five candidates in the 7th District Position 1 race declared a Republican preference. That leaves a mere three instances – all on the West Side – where two legislative candidates with the same party preference advanced in races that had a mix of preferences.

Meanwhile, all eight of the races for statewide offices will feature a Republican vs. a Democrat in the general election. The same goes for the partisan local contests in Spokane County. So with rare exceptions, the 2008 general election will look like any other year.

What the major parties fail to acknowledge is that they still have the power to spread the word about their preferred candidates and that their influence remains more potent than any other political force. That point was made repeatedly in the fight to keep the popular blanket primary, which the state used from 1935 to 2003. But party speculation about what could happen with crossover voting – rather than what actually happened – carried the day, so they challenged the blanket primary and got it tossed on constitutional grounds.

For their efforts, they have been dealt a system they also dislike, because it restores the historical independence state voters have come to enjoy.

The major parties have not publicly surrendered in the legal battle against the top-two primary. Their attorneys could perhaps find a way to skirt the U.S. Supreme Court ruling to try to get the preferred pick-a-party primary reinstated. But after seeing how this primary played out, they might want to consider whether it’s worth it to once again anger the state’s voters when the prize could be so small.