Thanks so much for posting this story. That's what I had hoped blueoregon would be.....the first place to check for oregon political news. Surprised me that you haven't posted anything on the female candidate for Senate. So what if she is "fringe"/unknown? I'd like to rely on this site for that kind of news. Is there another site I should be checking? Thanks.

Backbeat obviously has something on her/his mind. I assume you're talking about Eileen Brady? Umm... I don't think she's done anything beyond "consideration."

I'm interested in what Torrey's plans are. Anyone in Lane County catch a whiff of anything Torrey-related?

Kevin is correct. Torrey's own statements (and the Independent Party of Oregon website page on "Issues, Legislation, & Initiatives") show that the "Independent Party" has quickly turned into a back-door route for non-affiliated candidates to get on the ballot without collecting signatures to show they have an actual constituency for whatever personal platform they are selling.

I was referring to Candy Neville, whose candidacy was mentioned on KPOJ a few days ago. Thought this would be the place to find a link to a news story, but I was wrong. Whatever. At least Kari discloses his biases, an admirable quality.

Sal wrote:

The Independent Party was created in response to the passage of HB2614 in 2005, which was a law designed to keep independent candidates off of the ballot in Oregon.

Actually, HB2614 was a response to the Faustian arrangement between disgruntled Nader-ites and Republican political operatives who conspired to qualify Nader for the ballot in Oregon, thereby helping George Bush's prospects in the 2004 election.

The "new" Independent Party is nothing more than a furtherance of that marriage between purists like Dan Meek who have no qualms about hurting progressive candidates who dare to disagree with him, and Republicans like Torrey and Frohnmayer who are afraid that their real party identification would hurt them in future elections.

HB2614 guarantees that the principle of "one person, one vote" holds just as true for primaries as it does for general election. For if you can cast a vote in your party's primary and also cast a vote for a NAV with your signature on a petition, how free and fair is that election?

That Dan Meek is participating in this process is unsurprising based on his past actions. That Sal got hoodwinked into it is disappointing.

My agenda is simple. Husband is disabled and I work more than one "uniquely american" job to put food on my family. Drive the kids all over creation. No time. Kari gets a lot of credit on KPOJ as having "the site" to check out for all the news in blue oregon politics. Thought I could come here to find links to stories of people announcing. I don't know the first thing about Neville and wanted to read about her. I've since been told that she is a "fringe" candidate, doesn't have a website, so is persona non grata around here. Like I said, no biggy. This is Kari's site, and he can post whatever he wishes. I just need to find a site where I can easily obtain blue news. That's it - the sum total of my agenda. Oh, and I want the republics to keep their filthy war mongering hands off my beautiful teenage sons.

(Ah... Well, I have to admit, I never heard of Candy Neville before now. Thanks Jenni. As to the newsworthiness, it sounds like she's even less further along than Brady. I don't think BO should do a story on Pavel Goberman, either.)

If only Vicki Walker would follow suit?

Actually, HB2614 was a response to the Faustian arrangement between disgruntled Nader-ites and Republican political operatives who conspired to qualify Nader for the ballot in Oregon, thereby helping George Bush's prospects in the 2004 election.

Nader and his supporters were disgruntled with the undemocratic system in place that was rigged by the oligarchs of both major parties to thwart others from getting on the ballot. The Republicans thought they saw an advantage to themselves if they helped Nader, but to allege there was a "Faustian arrangement between disgruntled Nader-ites and Republican political operatives" is wrong. Nader probably has less use for Republicans than he had for Democrats.

This triggers serious conversations and ideas afoot. Some questions it poses for me (there's many more than this):

A) (1) Is there a significant realignment brewing in the country? It happened 100 years ago...it might be happening now. (2) Will the Independent Party here be an early step and sign...or just a Perot-like blip?

B) (3) Is a more multi-party system a way for locked-up good ideas to get through that help the public interest and actually open things up for truly progressive ideas? (4) Or would it merely divide the coalition of the public interest, make it even easier for money-bought t.v. to dominate elections, and/or just advantage the party that is the most brand differentiated -- that is, the party that doesn't have as obvious a "spoiler party"?

C) As someone who has registered a buncha voters and seen A LOT of registration cards, there will almost certainly be many, many people who check "Independent" thinking that they are not picking a party. (5) Should we care about that? (6) What should we do about it?

D) (7) Am I just a big coward for merely asking questions rather than asking them? (*There's a key below)

E) I am reminded of sitting on a panel with a smart tech guy who was talking about his experience as president of his college's Anarchist Club. I thought it interesting that an anarchist club had a president...or even a club. Asked what was the eventual result...the man responded "it disbanded." And I replied, "So it was a SUCCESS!!." :-) ((8) Do people do those happy faces anymore?)

<hr/>

*(Some answers, aka my-own-not-fully-formed-or-informed-personal opinions: 1) "at least in some sense"; 2) "depends on a lot of other factors -- including money, the actions of major institutions, and more"; 3) "maybe -- I think the money thing probably makes a bigger impact"; 4) "that's my fear -- and I'm having night sweats of being forced to debate the idea surrounding the 2000 election"; 5) "yes"; 6) "not sure"; 7) "no...well, maybe"; 8) "not most sensible people.")

"As a long-time Independent, dating to well before the NAV appelation was foisted upon us, I take exception to referring to members of the "Independent Party" as Independents."

I agree with Kevin's assessment (and by default, Mr. Smith's). I also think that NAVs should stay out of the primary races. This applies to both Merkley and Novick supporters here (mainly the latter).

AND

Don't mess with Sal Peralta on the question of Frohmmayer's registration. I (inadvisably) did that a couple of months ago, before I knew that Mr. Peralta has left the Democrats and become campaign manager for John Frohnmayer, candidate for the Independent Party of Oregon nomination for U.S. Senate. Really, that's why he has better information than us.

Now who can we recruit to run in HD 24?

Jeff-- Some attempts at answers: *After the 1996 primary when I was standing in line a day or so later waiting for computer runs of results (those were the days!)I pulled a registration card out of the holder to re-register outside of a major party. I saw the County Clerk and asked him how to vote because I didn't want to be part of any party and he said it should be NAV because somewhere in the country there was an Indep. party so they had to go to NAV.

*That fall, a friend took me to an event for 3rd party candidates, and it was more fun than any partisan event had been for a long time. Perhaps that is part of the answer. If everyone on this side of issues is duty bound to pledge allegiance to the Democratic caucuses, and to the platform for which they stand <?>, why would people who think for themselves want to be involved in a party?

There was a time when any Democratic gathering was ripe for all sorts of issue debates. Now it seems there are those who want to shut off debate of certain issues because they are right and everyone else is wrong. When did that happen? (2 examples of issues: those who think it is time to debate the legal status of campaign finance reform in general and pass throughs specifically, and those who admire the Democratic politicians with military background, even if their views on Iraq may not fit those of groups like MoveOn.)

*Even before the 1996 primary, a famous and wise partisan staffer was the first person I ever heard use the phrase "fastest growing party is no party at all".

*There were very intelligent discussions many of these issues at the Public Comm. on the Legislature. Those used to be linked to the Oregon Legislature website--maybe still are, and anyone interested in this topic should try and find those.

*As far as "branding", many people I know vote for individuals rather than parties.

But look at the question at the bottom of the TAOISEACH comment. I can remember a time when state rep. candidates were chosen locally, before the days when a caucus would decide, "you've got a good chance, we will back you, but that candidate in the next district has a lousy R to D ratio, thus no chance, and we won't waste precious resources on that race when we can target more likely winners".

I can also remember working on multiple campaigns for Dem candidates in my legislative district. Often very rewarding experiences in the sense of civic involvement and meeting interesting people, but it was called an "impossible" district--one of the top 3 Republican districts in the state. Until it elected Democrats 3 elections in a row. Then a local retired businessman with "more money than God" won a squeaker of an election (won one county by enough it didn't matter he lost the other county) and Republicans have won here ever since. As I recall, when we elected local Dems who had run local races, there may have been some in the caucus who were shocked they won (one defeated a Majority Leader-recruited candidate in the primary) and who may not have always agreed with who we elected. Maybe it is time to ponder what "we the people" really means. Control of the legislature for years now has been determined by races won by 3 digit margins--well below the number of voters in those districts not registered with major parties.

Oregonians are famously individuals, and have been for decades. Perhaps the rise of NAV and 3rd parties is a direct result of people deciding they are not required to choose either the R team or the D team and then follow that platform without question.

I don't understand the concern over party registration. I've looked at the voter reg cards and if you want to join the IPO, you check a box that says "Independent Party." There is another box that says "Not a member of a party" and one that says "Other" with a line to enter your party.

I think it's crystal clear.

Look here to see for your self: http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/votreg/sel500.pdf

On the question of spoiling the election for others, if this state had instant runoff voting (or similar system,) what would the result of the 2000 election been? What if federal elections had IRV?

Why do the major parties continue to pass over solutions like IRV and Fusion when they could solve the second-guessing?

I think the answer is obvious. Who would they then blame for losing. And what kind of a world would we live in where someone not tied (bound?) to the major parties could get elected.

Is there any law preventing the formation of a Nonaffiliated Party? What about a North American Voter party?

Travis,

After you have explained IRV or Fusion to a neighborhood group, or the coffee hour of a church, or a Rotary or other civic group (folks who have interests outside of politics) and can report back how easy it was, what the questions were, etc. then you may have an answer to:

On the question of spoiling the election for others, if this state had instant runoff voting (or similar system,) what would the result of the 2000 election been? What if federal elections had IRV?

Why do the major parties continue to pass over solutions like IRV and Fusion when they could solve the second-guessing? <<

I'm talking about the busy professional who didn't realize Measure 30 was a referendum rather than a legislative referral to the voters because he had been so busy he hadn't seen the news about Dick Armey coming in from out of state to collect signatures.

I'm talking about the working parents of small children who don't think they have enough hours in the day.

One question I think many would ask is "most of our elections are 2 candidates, how would this help?" or "If I like one candidate and can't stand the other, what do you mean I have to have a first and second choice?" or "WITH EVERYTHING IN MY BUSY SCHEDULE YOU EXPECT ME TO BE HAPPY THAT YOU ARE MAKING VOTING MORE COMPLICATED??".

I have seen versions of IRV used in organizational elections and how they can be manipulated. And does anyone here really think that if Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004 (where the voting machines differed from county to county or pct. to pct.--both in type or in number) that IRV or Fusion would have changed the results because there was no human or mechanical element to those elections which IRV or Fusion couldn't have fixed?

And how does one do a recount of IRV or Fusion?

Jeebus, what's with all the meta-commentary? This is a blog, not the freaking New York Times.

:lol:

it's all good and thanks for the emails we all share one goal: kicking some smith fanny for the good of our country and kids. best to you all.

Gretchen writes: HB2614 guarantees that the principle of "one person, one vote" holds just as true for primaries as it does for general election. For if you can cast a vote in your party's primary and also cast a vote for a NAV with your signature on a petition, how free and fair is that election?

Your belief in the purity of HB2614 would be justified if they had applied it equally to all candidates and voters. But they didn't -- they only targeted independents, which makes it a blatant conspiracy between the two major parties to lock out third-party voices.

As you stated, if you vote in a gubernatorial primary and then later sign a petition for another candidate for governor, your signature for the independent candidate is invalid. But do you know what happens if you first sign a nominating petition and then vote in the primary? Your signature for the independent candidate is invalid. So the major parties basically said "Your vote will always count for us, but not for anyone else."

And what happens if you cast a ballot in a partisan primary but abstain from voting for governor, then later sign a nominating petition for someone else for governor? The record shows that you voted in the primary, so your signature is invalid -- EVEN THOUGH YOU DIDN'T VOTE FOR GOVERNOR IN THE PRIMARY. And what if you're registered as a Democrat but vote only for the nonpartisan races so as to keep your options open? I don't think the SOS has ever clarified that point.

You want one person, one vote? Fine, apply it equally to major and minor parties. HB 2614 is the worst kind of politics. Those who supported it are weasels.

It couldn't possibly have anything to do with a legitimate and deeply held sense of frustration at the inability of the two political parties to work together for the good of the state

Sal So, Sal proposes that it is an improvement to run as somebody who can't get along with either? And they're all bought and paid for, excepting of course Sal who ran... I'll pass on a failed Republican and pissed off used to be Democrat used to be progressive. 70% have nobody to vote for? Who voted in your district, Sal? If 70% think your ideas are so hot, where was your win? That would be a 70/30 split if you aren't full of hooey. Registration runs mid 30s both parties and high 20s low 30s "other" so somehow you should have won big. It wasn't a Primary, it wasn't all split up, you just lost. Not appealing enough to that 70%? Primaries are the big one, picking whose going to represent your interests is a big deal, then on to the general, Indies short circuit that process, they just go to the general - chosen by their ability to fill in the form, big deal. Novick and Merkley are going to have to shake it out in front of the Democrats and they will. Not so much, Sal's boy.

I should know better than to mess with Html

Chuck,

Why do you feel it necessary to engage in personal attacks. I think there has been some well meaning and thoughtful discussion here and you jump in to attack Sal. You've done this now over many of the most recent threads where Sal has posted.

What's up buddy?

Let's give it a rest about Nader, alright? Yes, he is an arrogant jerk. No, he did not "give" any elections to Dubya.

Jeff,

Professorial moment: The last realignment occurred 75 years ago, not 100.

Most scholars have given up the whole idea of "realignment" as a not very helpful term. Even those who cling to the usage acknowledge that the "candidate centered" elections system which emerged after 1960 has really ended any possibility of a party-driven realignment such as we experienced in 1832/1860/1896/1932.

So no, this is not the sign of that sort of realignment. It may be evidence of further DEalignment--movement away from the two major parties. Other evidence nationwide (not in Oregon) argues against this--e.g. Independent identification is no longer increasing, and hasn't been for at least two decades.

RE: Fusion, IRV, etc. Folks around the world seem to understand these systems just fine. We are one of a small number of nations that use the most undemocratic system of democratic elections available.

I guess Americans are just too stupid to vote any other way.

Paul,

When I read Jeff's post, I assumed he was referring to the rise and fall of the Progressive movement, approximately 100 years ago. You appear to be referring to the rise of the New Deal coalition 75 years ago. Perhaps my confusion about which of these events constitutes the last major realignment testifies to the conceptual weakness of the term.

You reference unnamed scholars who believe that candidate-centered elections preclude a party-driven realignment. Can you please provide citations or links? This is not a hostile question; I am sincerely interested.

anyone who cites ralph nader in 2000 as being evidence that third party or independent candidates ALWAYS siphon votes from the democrat is forgetting ross perot in 1992.

it was only 15 years ago. gawd, am i getting that old? it seems like yesterday...

I think Ross Perot and the 1992 election results DO show that 3rd parties act as spoilers. It's just that in '92 it was arguably the Republicans who got burned by Ross, not the Dems.

1992 Results (popular vote): Clinton the first - 43.01% George the first - 37.45% H. Ross Perot - 18.91%

I agree with Kevin's assessment (and by default, Mr. Smith's). I also think that NAVs should stay out of the primary races. This applies to both Merkley and Novick supporters here (mainly the latter).

In theory, at least, elections are about electing the best person to represent the people. Let's say you have 500 voters with 100 voting for "A" - a really good person, 200 voting for "B" - a loser, and the other 200 have elected to be NAVs but who like candidate "A." What should they do? Sit out the election and let "B" win or re-register temporarily to give the election to "A?"

For the record, I'm a NAV and I'll re-register to vote for Novick because I want the candidate I believe to be the best to win. Most elections are about choosing the lesser of two evils. With Steve on the ballot I can vote with confidence I'm voting for a top notch candidate and not a lesser evil.

Miles asks: And what if you're registered as a Democrat but vote only for the nonpartisan races so as to keep your options open? I don't think the SOS has ever clarified that point.

HB 2614 is very clear on that point, as is the Secretary of State. If a registered Dem or Rep returns a ballot envelope, no matter what it is in, she is disqualified from signing any petition for any independent candidate for any offfice, and any prior such signatures are retroactively deemed invalid. It does not matter whether the voter returns only the nonpartisan ballot or mistakenly returns her grocery list. All that matters is that the outer envelope comes back to the county elections officer.

Thanks, LS. And it's pretty obvious why that is: Once your ballot leaves the envelope, there's no way to tie your identity to the votes you cast. It's still a secret ballot.

Certainly. It makes an horrible solution intolerable.

So,

Before HB 2614, you could sign a petition to give ballot access to a non-affiliated candidate and vote in a primary.

After HB 2614, if you turn your primary ballot, even if your ballot is blank, the Secretary of State strikes your name from the petition without notice.

Which one is the more open and friendly to democracy. Isn't there a better solution?

Or was the goal a better solution?

It's absolutely clear that the goal was to disenfranchise party members who might dare stray outside of the party. HB 2614 is a direct attack on open democracy in favor of a closed two-party system. It's abhorrent, and it was supported by Dems and Republicans alike.

Anyone care to look up Merkley's vote on HB 2614?

I'm proud to be NAV since 1992. Both parties are so tied to their iconoclastic extremes as to be truly no representative of many in the general population. About the only thing the donkeys and elephants agree on is how best to keep the NAV's out of the process in selecting candidates.

It is a pain, but we can switch registration for the loyalists party primaries and then switch back. Of course I continue to back those who would allow for truly open primaries. If you have nothing to fear you would also.

My name is Candy Neville. I am running for U.S. Senate with a very simple agenda. I filed as a Democrat to not be a spoiler, even a small one. I am not running because I am so interested in a career in politics, or because I like to read snotty comments about me or others from people who have no knowledge of me whatsoever. I chose to run for the U.S. Senate because it addresses my several deep concerns which I believe the majority of democrats and republics share. I do not want to wait until the next election for promises when we have enough people in office to keep promises right now.
1. We must get out of Iraq immediately. We must all stand up and contact our congressmen and women via e-mail, letter, phone, person, alone or in groups. Today and every day. We must make it clear that this is the most dire thing on our agenda. We must not continue to let our dearest and most powerful national resources - our young and idealistic youth - to die or be maimed physically or emotionally.
2. When Congress relinquished their power to George Bush to wage war, it was an abdication of power. At that time, those who voted in favor of that should have abdicated the throne. The power they abdicated was not their individual power to relinquish, it was the balance of power that belongs to the people. Every individual should insist today and everyday that their congressman - republican or democrat - take back that power and that balance. This abdication of power has made congress out of whack. It is like a boat that is missing an oar and is thus travelling in a circle which gets tighter and tighter until it flushes us right down the toilet. I do not know if that decision was born of PTS or foolishness, but if they did not feel capable of using the power, the individual should have stepped down. 3. We must insist that our elected officials heed, listen to and represent us - right now. Instead of fighting about the other party's leaders, we should insist our own leaders speak up loud and clear about what the majority of us care about most - our soldiers and each other. 4. Torture. My father was a prisoner of war for 44 months in WWII. He was on the Bataan Death March. Believe me, the trauma doesn't end for tortured victims when the wars are over. I'm very experienced in accomplishing things I have never done before without the benefit of support from "good old boys and girls". I was one of the first (maybe even the first) individual to put in a subdivision after the recession. I had no prior experience, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to follow directions, make decisions, cooperate and produce change. I did the same building two homes. Previously, with no experience I became a free-lance writer for the Chicago Sun-Times. I have two small companies which I developed and manage on my own. I'm running because I care. I have guts born of sorrow and agony over the state of the nation. There is nothing happening that we did not allow. One elected official can not turn a course - this time it takes a nation of fed up individuals. I expect fellow democrats to behave themselves and encourage all elected officials, candidates to stand up, speak up, starting here and starting now. Vote for who you want - but we must insist those in power and those trying to get in power - use whatever power we have to stop this national disgrace. Thank you, Candy Neville