Top-two primary: So much for THAT argument
Well, the Washington top-two primary is over - and the results are in.
Here in Oregon, as we look ahead to the fight over Ballot Measure 65 - which would create a top-two primary of our own - let's examine one of the key arguments of its opponents.
There are plenty of arguments marshalled by opponents of M65, some of which are very good arguments, but here's one that appears to have fallen flat on its face.
The argument goes something like this: In a top-two primary, situations would arise in which districts that are usually closely divided between the Democrats and Republicans could wind up with a general election featuring two candidates from the same party - effectively wiping out the other party's "right" to contest a close seat in the November election. Presumably, that situation could arise with four (or more) candidates tightly bunched together -- say Donnie Democrat 26%, Lucy Liberal 25%, Ralph Republican 24%, Connie Conservative 23%. And while the Democrats combined for only 51% of the vote, they would get 100% of the spots in the general election (acing out the GOP.)
But here's the thing: In Washington's inaugural top-two primary, across 124 separate legislative races, that didn't happen a single time. In fact, in every single swing district, the top two candidates were one Democrat and one Republican.
Here's the run-down:
- 24 districts were contested by only one candidate.
- 70 districts had two candidates - and in all of them, both candidates will move forward to the general election. 67 districts featured candidates of opposing parties. In 3 districts, it was two candidates of the same party.
- 18 districts had three candidates - and the top two move forward. In 15 cases, the top two included a Democrat and a Republican. In one case, it was a three-way Democratic primary.
In only two cases, the top two candidates were Democrats, while the Republican lost -- the "disenfranchisement" situation. In one of those cases, the Democrats combined for 83%. In the other, the Democrats combined for 82%. In other words, these are safe Democratic districts with a sure-loser Republican.
- Seven districts had four candidates. In 6 cases, the top two included a Democrat and a Republican. In just one case, the top two candidates were Democrats (and the two losers were both Republicans.) Again, it was a safe Democratic district - with the Dems combining for 74%.
- Three districts had five candidates. In two cases, the top two included a Democrat and a Republican. In the third, it was a five-way Republican primary with no Democrats at all.
- Two districts had seven candidates. In both cases, the top two included a Democrat and a Republican. Interestingly, in one of them, the leading candidate was a Democrat with 32.46% of the vote - while six Republicans split the remaining 67.54% of the vote. This appears to be the only instance where one party would have been able, mathematically, to ace out a candidate from the other party by consolidating their efforts behind two chosen candidates.
Beyond the Lege races: All nine congressional races had the top Democrat and the top Republican advance. In all eight partisan statewide offices, the top Democrat and the top Republican advanced.
So... while there may be other reasons to oppose M65 - and acknowledging Gronke's concerns about samples-of-one - so far, it doesn't appear that the Top Two primary would tend to cause a raft of disenfranchised partisans in swing districts.
I remain undecided.
|
August 20, 2008 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (93 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Rulial | Aug 20, 2008 1:46:35 AM
If the top-two system were in place here in Oregon, non-Democrats would have had a meaningful say in the election of our next attorney general. I think that John Kroger will make a fine attorney general, but I think democracy lost in the process by which he was elected.
Posted by: mlw | Aug 20, 2008 2:09:45 AM
I think the best argument for a top two system is that the candidates have to pitch to the political center, rather than the political fringe. Currently, many jurisdictions are non-competitive, so candidates win the primary by appealing to the party "base", not the political center, and go on to win the general. However, they then have no interest in principled compromise, since they were elected by the fringe, which doesn't like compromise. I'm ready to see some movement forward in Salem and DC. How about you? More here.
Posted by: David English | Aug 20, 2008 5:55:37 AM
I also am undecided on M65. The rest of the ballot should be straight forward though. In the end, if I'm still in doubt I'll mark no. Until then I'm keeping an open mind about it. I haven't had a chance to read Paul Gronke's article yet.
Posted by: Emmett O'Connell | Aug 20, 2008 8:13:25 AM
While not a legislative race, the county commission race here in Thurston County I think illustrates your point, Kari.
Jon Halvorson and Sandra Romero were the two well funded Democratic candidates in the most swing of three districts. They raised nearly $100k between themselves, compared to $3,000 by the lone Republican candidate. Most folks assumed that Halvorson and Romero would end up on the general together, thereby "acing out" the Republicans in a swing district.
Though, if that did happen, you could hardly give credit to the Republicans. There guy only raised $3k, for Christ's sake.
Anyway, it ends up being Romero and the underfunded Republican. Money cannot defeat party identification.
Posted by: Keep your eye on the ball | Aug 20, 2008 8:21:17 AM
Boy Kari, you sure know how to miss the point. You're attempt to spin this single first result as somehow conclusive that a key argument against this system is false, rather than the first significant evidence of a possible problem that is the real point of that argument demonstrates an astoundingly superficial intellect, the list of largely beside-the-point stats notwithstanding. Or maybe it demonstrates something else?
From the Seattle Times: Washington's top-two primary put to test:
Tuesday's primary will give voters something they've never had before in the general election.
Democrats running against Democrats, and Republicans running against Republicans. At least a half-dozen legislative races this November will be one-party contests.
First, the real argument against Washington's system and M65 is that such a result in a Federal race would violate the intent of the Federal law that sets the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as a common election day so that no state communicates to other states which Party will hold a seat in Congress before that day. Congress said they passed that law because they wanted to prevent one state from improperly influencing voters in those states (like to not go to the polls similar to what happened in 1980 when West coast voters apparently didn't go to the polls after the media called it early for Reagan). This is the Congressional intent SCOTUS actually cited as the reason they gave for WHY LA's declaration of an early winner in their top-two primary was illegal in Love v. Foster and Foster v. Love.
In the meantime, what people, and most notably supporters have refused to address, is that Washington's system and M65 actually does is to make re-districting an even higher-stakes political game. Supporters I've met willingly demonstrate their support is actually out of their political ignorance (and usually personal selfish pique) in that they also rail against uncompetitive races. But they can't explain when asked how that relates to and is increasingly a product of modern re-districting in which the goal has become to draw districts so the seat is safe for one or the other party.
Under Washington's system and M65, whatever party happens to hold the majority at a time of re-districting will now have even more reason to re-draw the map as best they can to their favor, which also means drawing fewer but safer seats for the minority. Given the patterns of political self-segregation we see at the national and state levels, the result could be a more closely divided legislatures which actually lead to more polarization and deadlock, not compromise.
Could it be that Kari, as a partisan political operative, actually doesn't see this increased polarization due to re-districting outcome as a problem? Which is why he is quick to make an argument that this evidence of one election is conclusive, rather than a possible hint at what could actually happen over time?
And LA has now abandoned their system for a bunch of reasons.
Posted by: Mike Schryver | Aug 20, 2008 8:26:21 AM
I think I'm opposed to this top two system, Kari, and partly for the reason you say is debunked here, in that one party could get both slots.
But if that's extremely unlikely, and the survivors are always going to be a Republican and a Democrat, then what's the point of the system?
The only argument I can see for this system is so that non-party members can affect a party's choice of candidate. But if you're looking for that, an open primary would provide it (and I'm opposed to that, too.)
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 20, 2008 8:57:00 AM
I wish I could respond to KYEOTB's argument, but it doesn't make a whit of sense.
whatever party happens to hold the majority at a time of re-districting will now have even more reason to re-draw the map as best they can to their favor, which also means drawing fewer but safer seats for the minority. Given the patterns of political self-segregation we see at the national and state levels, the result could be a more closely divided legislatures which actually lead to more polarization and deadlock, not compromise.
While not agreeing with the premise here, I fail to understand how giving the minority fewer seats leads to a more closely divided legislature. The arithmetic doesn't make sense.
Could it be that Kari, as a partisan political operative...
GUILTY! I'm a partisan political operative! GUILTY! Next question?
I'll suggest one: If Kari's a predictable partisan hack, why is he still undecided on this measure that's opposed by every single political party in Oregon?
Nevermind. Ignore that. Discussing what's inside my head might be interesting for a psychologist, but boring for everyone else.
Posted by: carla axtman | Aug 20, 2008 9:12:42 AM
I haven't decided yet what I think of the top-two system...but it sure doesn't seem to have helped the turnout in Washington State.
I'm hearing it was pretty low....
Posted by: Oregon Independent | Aug 20, 2008 9:12:50 AM
I'll suggest one: If Kari's a predictable partisan hack, why is he still undecided on this measure that's opposed by every single political party in Oregon?
The Open Primary is not opposed by the Independent Party, nor the Working Families Party. The IPO is split on the Measure, and I believe that the WFP is generally supportive.
Posted by: paul g. | Aug 20, 2008 10:44:35 AM
Kari,
I don't know what opponents you are referring to, but I have not claimed that evenly balanced districts will result in two candidates from a single party being pushed forward. I am far more concerned about districts that are imbalanced, where it is likely that two candidates from a single party--a moderate and a wingnut--will go forward.
Furthermore, in such a district, it is quite likely that a number of moderates from a single party will clog the "middle" (as it were) and multiple wingnut will emerge.
The irony of your posting is that you support one of the main arguments I have made--that it is the DISTRICTING process that encourages the election of extremists, not the primary system.
So why muck around with the primary system? Why aren't we considering a non-partisan redistricting system?
BTW, in the cases you cite above, my key concerns would be in those districts with 4 or more candidates, where a lot of candidates split a relatively small amount of the vote.
The central argument used by the proponents is that the top two will reduce partisanship and gridlock in the legislature by electing candidates that appeal to "all" the voters.
That argument raises all sorts of problems, the biggest being that all the heroes from the 1970s they refer to were elected under the old system!
Nonetheless, one primary result really tells us nothing. That's the same error that the Oregonian made (and as pointed out above, if we were to use the Oregonian's logic, the Top Two just lost out on turnout).
Did that happen? You've said nothing about that, and in those districts with a lot of candidates, there is a very good chance that a fringe candidate emerged.
I don't know those candidates well enough to know the answer.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 20, 2008 10:57:51 AM
The Open Primary is not opposed by the Independent Party, nor the Working Families Party. The IPO is split on the Measure, and I believe that the WFP is generally supportive.
I stand corrected.
Posted by: Rulial | Aug 20, 2008 11:10:10 AM
I hear people complaining that the top-2 system allows for two Democrats or two Republicans to advance to the general election. But this happens in districts that are overwhelmingly Democratic or Republican. Under Oregon's current system, the election would have been determined in the primary.
There are districts in Oregon where this happens. If you live in some parts of inner-southeast Portland, and you aren't a Democrat, you have no meaningful voice in the election. Under a top-two system, you would.
"Keep your eye on the ball" says:
First, the real argument against Washington's system and M65 is that such a result in a Federal race would violate the intent of the Federal law that sets the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as a common election day so that no state communicates to other states which Party will hold a seat in Congress before that day. Congress said they passed that law because they wanted to prevent one state from improperly influencing voters in those states (like to not go to the polls similar to what happened in 1980 when West coast voters apparently didn't go to the polls after the media called it early for Reagan).
The two-Democrats or two-Republicans situation only arises in districts where one party traditionally dominates anyway. Sure, now we know for sure that some districts in Washington will be represented by a Democrat or a Republican, but most were fairly sure of that already. And even if it's a forgone conclusion that a member of party X will represent me in the fall, I still care about individual candidates' stances on the issues.
In the meantime, what people, and most notably supporters have refused to address, is that Washington's system and M65 actually does is to make re-districting an even higher-stakes political game. [. . .] Under Washington's system and M65, whatever party happens to hold the majority at a time of re-districting will now have even more reason to re-draw the map as best they can to their favor [. . .]Why? In your whole post, you never any explanation why the party controlling the legislature would have more reason to make safe seats under the top-two system.
Under the old system, making a safe district also guarantees a party a seat in the legislature. If anything, the top-two system only ensures that all voters, rather than just registered voters of the dominant party, decide who fills it.
However, in an very liberal or very conservative district, the top-two system might lead to a situation in which a minor-party candidate is one of the top two. In this case, people might feel more comfortable voting for the minor-party candidate, because they wouldn't fear helping the major-party they dislike. In this way, the top-two system might actually make so-called "safe seats" less safe.
Posted by: Nick Wirth | Aug 20, 2008 11:17:12 AM
I don't know what opponents you are referring to, but I have not claimed that evenly balanced districts will result in two candidates from a single party being pushed forward.
I would be one of those opponents Kari is referring to. And I've already admitted that it's unlikely that this circumstance will happen often. That said, 1 primary election is obviously a terrible sample size to judge whether or not the system works. Give it 10 years or so when most of the members of the state legislature have been elected under this system, and then see if it's actually made a difference.
That said, the more common danger of a top-two primary is the chance for candidates to be ideological spoilers as Paul alludes to. MLW suggests that candidates have to pitch to the center to win enough votes in the primary, but historically this is inaccurate in Louisiana where the system originates. In reality in the open primary it is even more important that a candidate solidify their base. What happens is the two candidates the furthest away from the center of the political spectrum consolidate their respective party bases, while the more moderate candidates split the votes of everyone in the center, resulting in the most extreme candidates advancing.
And Kari, didn't you design the original website for the petition?
Posted by: Oregon Independent | Aug 20, 2008 11:35:29 AM
MLW suggests that candidates have to pitch to the center to win enough votes in the primary, but historically this is inaccurate in Louisiana where the system originates.
The Open Primary is not directly analagous to the Louisiana System. That system is more similar to the current non-partisan elections that we have in most counties and municipalities around the state.
I think that Oregon's experience with non-partisan races is enough to shoot a fairly big hole in the sky-is-falling David Duke example that some folks keep falling back on.
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | Aug 20, 2008 11:44:47 AM
Mike S., take another look at Kari's post. He didn't say that all races will end up with 1D, 1R -- nor is that what happened in Washington. Kari noted that:
In only two cases, the top two candidates were Democrats, while the Republican lost -- the "disenfranchisement" situation. In one of those cases, the Democrats combined for 83%. In the other, the Democrats combined for 82%. In other words, these are safe Democratic districts with a sure-loser Republican.Seven districts had four candidates. In 6 cases, the top two included a Democrat and a Republican. In just one case, the top two candidates were Democrats (and the two losers were both Republicans.) Again, it was a safe Democratic district - with the Dems combining for 74%.
In those districts (and several others he mentioned), non-affiliated voters and minority party members will have the opportunity to cast a meaningful vote for their representative in November. They will have an opportunity to participate in their government. If the November ballot featured a heavy favorite and a guaranteed also-ran, that is a fake election. It makes a mockery of democracy, and marginalizes voters -- in a number of cases, I believe, the majority> of voters in a district.
In general, I think all the speculation -- on both sides of this -- about extremism and moderation is misguided. "Moderate" is not a clearly-defined term. It's not something we can measure.
The best reason to support Measure 65 are that it allows citizens to have a voice in who represents them. That is fundamental to democracy, and is something that many citizens lack as of now.
Also, Mike -- you repeat a misunderstanding that seems to be persistent. Under the top two system, parties do not get to nominate candidates. So the notion that one party could meddle in the affairs of another simply doesn't make sense; the parties wouldn't have those kinds of affairs to meddle with.
Disclosure: I've done a fair amount of consulting for the pro-M65 campaign, but I'm speaking for myself.
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | Aug 20, 2008 11:49:42 AM
I should explain -- in a heavily-slanted (pro D or pro R) district, under the current system, members of any minority party, and non-affiliated voters, effectively have no meaningful opportunity to vote for, and almost no influence over, who represents them. I may or may not be correct that it's ever a majority of voters in a district, but it comes close. Consider a district where registration is 50% R, 25% D, 20% NAV, and 5% minor party. That's 50% of the voters who never get to choose WHICH Republican wins the November election in a landslide.
Posted by: Jax | Aug 20, 2008 11:52:27 AM
I like Arizona's system of primaries the best. Each party has a separate ballot, but unaffiliated voters can choose any one primary to vote in.
Posted by: Terry | Aug 20, 2008 1:05:52 PM
Kari was easily able to identify the D's and R's running in each district. Therein lies the problem.
True electoral reform --whether top two, instant run-off, or some variation thereof-- needs to be entirely non-partisan. Let the candidates run on the issues and keep party affiliation out of it.
That's the way it's done locally. One can only guess whether Multnomah County chair Ted Wheeler is truly a Dem. Or whether Portland School Board member Trudy Sargent voted for Bush in 2004 (that wouldn't surprise me.)
I suppose you could look it up. But how many voters have the time to do that?
Posted by: Miles | Aug 20, 2008 1:31:59 PM
it sure doesn't seem to have helped the turnout in Washington State.
I'm leaning towards supporting top-two, and one reason is to increase turnout in the primary. So this is an important variable for me, because if turnout doesn't increase I have one less reason to support it.
I am far more concerned about districts that are imbalanced, where it is likely that two candidates from a single party--a moderate and a wingnut--will go forward. Furthermore, in such a district, it is quite likely that a number of moderates from a single party will clog the "middle" (as it were) and multiple wingnut will emerge.
Paul, isn't this just as "likely" (meaning, not very) under the existing party system? If someone were trying to introduce the two-party dominated system we have now, an opponent could argue that it would result in two extremists running in the general. After all, a few moderate Ds and one liberal wingnut on the left, and a few moderate Rs and one conservative wingut on the right, could result in both wingnuts being nominated. Two wingnuts in the general, and we're all screwed.
Of course, this hardly ever happens, as we know from 200 years of experience. So why do we think it would happen under top-two? And even if it did happen once or twice, how is such an outcome worse than disenfranchising a plurality of voters, which currently happens in some heavily NAV districts?
The strongest argument for top-two is to give NAVs the ability to vote for their representative without requiring them to join a club in order to have their vote matter.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Aug 20, 2008 1:51:27 PM
Top-two and other modifications to the voting process are in one sense essentially gimmicks attempting to make essential improvements, but if we want elections to be vehicles to choose the best candidates we need above all else an electorate that is well-informed and can think independently. That would mean to a great extent the majority of voters becoming NAVs and not being afflicted by blind or some other form of loyalty to some person, ideology, a party or other group.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Aug 20, 2008 2:39:04 PM
As I pointed out last week at the Multnomah County Democrats meeting, this ballot measure does more than just change to a top two election.
It changes PCP elections. Right now, PCPs are elected every 2 years. Only elected PCPs can vote on leadership, which is the main difference between an elected PCP and an appointed PCP. Recently in Multnomah County, there was a little change in the election calendar, which meant that the leadership wasn't elected right after a PCP election. And that meant the number of elected PCPs available to vote had been dramatically reduced due to moves and such. For instance, I moved from HD 50 (southern Gresham) to HD 49 (northern Gresham). That meant I was then an appointed PCP and no longer eligible to vote for officers. By changing PCP elections to every 4 years instead of every 2, you're going to see the number of elected PCPs dwindle down even more as the years pass, and in the meantime you still have to elect officers.
This measure also changes how vacancies in the legislature are handled. Right now, if a Democrat vacates a seat, the replacement his supposed to be a Democrat. This will no longer be the case. So if we win a seat in an area where the county commission members are heavily Republican, and there is a vacancy, we could lose that seat when the vacancy is filled.
And of course there's the very real possibility that the two major parties will move their nomination system outside the election system and still only put one Democrat or one Republican on the ballot. This is definitely the discussion that is happening at central committee meetings, both at the state and county level. Some people might like to deny it's happening, but it is indeed a conversation that has been happening. Personally, I prefer 85,000 Democrats voting in the primary to a few hundred showing up at a caucus or other type of meeting. Talk about denying people a choice.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 20, 2008 3:00:06 PM
And Kari, didn't you design the original website for the petition?
I built the website for the 2006 version of the measure. The 2008 version is somewhat different. It's also true that in 2006, we hadn't had a majority in the Legislature in 16 years (and it didn't look that would change anytime soon.)
At this time, I'm undecided on M65. In general, I favor anything that involves more voters in deciding the outcomes of elections. As a "party hack", as I was called above, I'm also sensitive to the views of the parties.
Posted by: LT | Aug 20, 2008 4:12:34 PM
Jenni, about this--
"And of course there's the very real possibility that the two major parties will move their nomination system outside the election system and still only put one Democrat or one Republican on the ballot. This is definitely the discussion that is happening at central committee meetings, both at the state and county level. Some people might like to deny it's happening, but it is indeed a conversation that has been happening. Personally, I prefer 85,000 Democrats voting in the primary to a few hundred showing up at a caucus or other type of meeting. Talk about denying people a choice."
------
There may be folks active in parties, certainly in big counties like Mult., who don't want to admit this.
But in recent years local downstate parties have supported /recruited candidates who never got onto caucus radar but nonetheless ran inspiring campaigns. Some got help from the state party, some didn't. Do you think the folks who worked on those campaigns have positive feelings toward the partisan caucus system? I am talking about districts where folks feel fortunate that someone is actually willing to run for the legislature ---the only local primary was in Dist. 23 where the challengers to those who became the nominees weren't really much of a challenge, as both ultimate nominees were well known locally.
Is this measure a statute or a constitutional amendment? I'm not sure. Of course a statute can be fixed by the next legislature.
As far as the caucus system, I'm not sure that would happen, Jenni. Was it the subject of an agenda item at the state level, or only corridor conversation? I know party officers are going to be against this, but all involved in the process? A friend who has been an active member of state central comm. who I spoke with recently (from a county which did support local candidates not on the caucus radar) said to me when I mentioned it that the Dist. 25 Thatcher case was something to consider in the debate over this measure. Not every district has a Danny Democrat vs. Suzy Liberal primary.
Truth is, that if every county, district, state central comm. member came out against this measure, it wouldn't answer the question of those who don't register in major parties, and who get shut out of the nominating process. Some states require nominating processes to be paid for by parties so that the tax money of those not registered in major parties doesn't pay for elections they can't vote in. If the answer to "why is our tax money paying for partisan elections we can't vote in?" nothing but,
"well, you could always register with a party before the deadline and re-register NAV the day after", and those voters don't consider that a responsive answer, they might well think this is a good ballot measure.
Some of these "end of the world as we know it" arguments were made about 1994 campaign finance reform. It was a measure which collected signatures in all 36 counties, won I think in all counties, and was in effect for at least one election cycle before being thrown out by the court. As I recall, Ryan Deckert gave it credit for allowing a young man like himself to win against a well-funded opponent.
I was registered NAV from late May 1996 until March, 2002 (yes, I was THAT angry about the DSCC-endorsed candidate outspending one friend of mine in the Dem. primary by 10-1 and another by 100-1 and then acting like all good Democrats owed him allegiance without his having to be more specific than the one-liners he used in his ads).
My voting behavior did not change--I still voted in every election, talked to my friends about candidates I favored, and delighted in responding to "Democrats believe ..." with "The I in Independent means I think for myself, thank you very much!". There is a stereotype of NAV implying all who register that way vote alike. Truth is, if you get 10 NAV in a room, you can have 10 different opinions, levels of activism, knowledge of politics. Some just plain got fed up.
I saw the presentation that Phil and Norma gave to the Public Comm. on the Legislature, and I have yet to see any reason to oppose it. A county party or other political unit passing a resolution opposing it will not change my mind. Something has to be done to return the legislature to the more reasonable, open body it was when Phil and Norma were legislators.
This has a much better chance of being enacted than a total ban on pass throughs (which is more likely to be the result of court decision or legislation).
Retired Justice Linde thinks pass throughs are on shaky legal footing. A check sent to Friends of John Doe is the legal property of that entity, not of John himself, and should be used for salaries, postage, car mileage for the campaign, office rent, etc. Friends of John Doe shouldn't be writing checks to another legal entity. People who write checks to Friends of John Doe should not have to worry that their money will find its way into a campaign they disagree with.
It has been said that the reason Packwood fell so far so fast at the end was the anger of the "Not another dime, Bob" women. They'd responded to a 1986 campaign solicitation by Gloria Steinem when Packwood had a tough primary challenger. He was a rare, pro-choice Republican and women contributed to help him win the primary. There was money left over after the primary and the general election proved to be easier than he expected (nominee dropped out and a roomful of state central comm. members chose the candidate who had called every voting member and personally asked for their vote over the stronger candidate who had, in the words of someone standing next to me, "alienated everyone in the room at sometime in his life"). So Packwood gave the money to Oregon House Rs who then gave the money to what turned out to be some anti-abortion candidates. The contributors were furiously angry, vowed never to give another dime to Packwood, and pass throughs have been a controversy in some circles ever since.
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | Aug 20, 2008 4:46:42 PM
Jenni, the thing I don't get about that argument is this: any Oregonian, regardless of party registration, can run for office. Without having to ask their party's permission. Right?
The parties may move their endorsement processes out of the publicly-funded electoral process...but how exactly is that a problem?
Posted by: Ian | Aug 20, 2008 4:49:25 PM
This question is for LT. NB: I am not any kind of expert in Oregon politics, skeptical of Measure 65, but trying to understand its appeal.
As Jenni wrote and you noted: And of course there's the very real possibility that the two major parties will move their nomination system outside the election system and still only put one Democrat or one Republican on the ballot.
It seems a certainty, to me, that major parties will take their nomination processes in-house. Maybe not for each and every state house race. But for the big races, they would be foolish not to. Their candidates for Governor, Senator, and every high profile race will be nominated in good old fashioned smoke filled rooms (or, if you prefer, caucuses).
I get the sense (from your post and elsewhere) that proponents understand this, and have concluded that the benefits outweigh this cost. That, in essence, party primaries aren't competitive enough anyway, or aren't important enough to preserve, or the principle of universal participation in a publicly sponsored election trumps everything else.
In other words: at the end of the day, a central committee may decide the nominees for Governor or Senator from the Democrats and Republicans. To which proponents say: okay, we'll live with that.
Am I characterizing the proponents' position accurately? Your answer may be lurking in your previous post, but I can't tell.
FWIW: I realize the proposal will place every candidate's personal party registration on the primary ballot, even if they don't get an endorsement. My reaction to that: whoopee. Lyndon LaRouche could be a registered Democrat. The party's endorsement: I care about that.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Aug 20, 2008 4:49:42 PM
As I've said several times already, I am also active in the SCC as an alternate from Multnomah County. And I've heard this exact topic spoken about on numerous occasions. No, it hasn't been on the agenda yet, but I've heard from numerous people that we need to put it on the agenda and come up with a plan of what to do if this ballot measure does indeed pass.
But people at all the meetings I've been to have been pretty adamant that it will be members of the Party who choose the nominee of the Party. And to do that we need some sort of caucus system, nominating convention, or whatever. Do you really think the parties are going to run the risk of having multiple candidates and splitting the vote so badly that two members of the other party advance to November even though they're not the majority party? And I think the last thing we all want to see is backroom deals to ensure there is only one candidate from the Party on the ballot.
Every time I bring this up, you talk about your friend at the SCC meetings not hearing this - well I have been there personally and I have heard it and participated in it.
Not every district has a Danny Democrat vs. Suzy Liberal primary.
That's not even the case in all of Multnomah County, you know. I come from east county, which runs conservative, and we've been off the caucus' radar plenty of times. Heck, in Rob Brading's first race, the Mult Dems were just about the only ones there working for him. This year, Barbara Kyle, who ran against Nick Kahl in the HD 49 primary, said the caucus recruited her even though Kahl was already running.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Aug 20, 2008 4:53:19 PM
Pete:
Right now they can. However, if this passes, that may no longer be the case. The parties are given control over their party, so they could make it so that only the endorsed candidate can appear with the party's name. Or they could force other candidates out of the race.
Posted by: Greg D. | Aug 20, 2008 4:59:27 PM
I consider myself a reasonably smart guy, but I still can't understand why party insiders are so hostile to the Top-Two concept. Anybody can crawl out from under a rock and file for office in the primary election as a representative of any party, so I don't think this has anything to do with "controlling" who files for election as a candidate. The election office does not require you to establish your bona fide qualifications as a Dem or Repub when you file and pay your filing fee.
I have a vague feeling that the parties are concerned about loss of party affiliated voter registration (why bother to register as Dem or Repub under a Top-Two system) which might affect fund raising by the parties? Just a guess, but the only thing I can think of.
Enlighten me please, in simple language!!!
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Aug 20, 2008 5:11:28 PM
I have a vague feeling that the parties are concerned about loss of party affiliated voter registration (why bother to register as Dem or Repub under a Top-Two system) which might affect fund raising by the parties? Just a guess, but the only thing I can think of.
It wouldn't really affect fundraising at all, since those who are most willing to give dollars to the party are still going to stay registered as Democrats. We'll still have party registration.
However, what I don't think people understand is that there is nothing to say that the party can't stop candidates from using the party name next to their name on the ballot. Right now it's not an issue since members of the party (those registered with the party) choose their nominee. But under this system, that goes away. As such, the parties would be likely to move their nomination process internally and only allow their nominated candidate on the "primary" ballot.
Posted by: paul g. | Aug 20, 2008 5:13:00 PM
Bill, I just can't let this go: Top-two and other modifications to the voting process are in one sense essentially gimmicks attempting to make essential improvements, but if we want elections to be vehicles to choose the best candidates we need above all else an electorate that is well-informed and can think independently. That would mean to a great extent the majority of voters becoming NAVs and not being afflicted by blind or some other form of loyalty to some person, ideology, a party or other group.
Why why why? What is wrong with using group affiliations as a way to structure our social and political lives?
Humans are social creatures. We have always and everywhere formed social groupings, whether it be for procreation, recreation, or governance.
I am not sure what you have in mind, that people will just sit in a dark room, read (and comprehend) all the campaign literature and information, and make a decision?
To get a bit less philosophical, democracies in all places and for all times have relied on the organizing institution of the political party to help structure political competition and channel participation. Even in America, the first and oldest of democracies, party grouping appeared in the first legislature and we had identifiable mass parties by 1824.
What's so wrong with this?
Posted by: paul g. | Aug 20, 2008 5:19:19 PM
I think that Oregon's experience with non-partisan races is enough to shoot a fairly big hole in the sky-is-falling David Duke example that some folks keep falling back on.
This is not true. In a non-partisan contest, you can win on the first round, so you have a strong incentive to build as large an electoral coalition as possible (and thus run to the median voter).
This is not the case in a top two--the incentives are as Nick describes them. This is a critical difference between the two systems.
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | Aug 20, 2008 6:23:16 PM
Jenni, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Your understanding of what Measure 65 would do is incorrect. Please take a closer look at the text of the measure.
There is simply no provision in there that gives the parties an opportunity to deny people the chance to be on the ballot. And their party registration may be listed, without party approval, provided that they were registered 70 days prior. (The parties may endorse, which would appear separately.)
Posted by: Steve Rankin | Aug 20, 2008 6:35:14 PM
'Keep your eye on the ball' says: "And [Louisiana] has now abandoned their system for a bunch of reasons."
Louisiana has this year restored party primaries for its congressional elections, but it continues to use the "top two" (popularly called the "open primary") for its state and local elections. Louisiana began using the "top two" for state and local elections in 1975, and it used the "top two" for congressional elections, 1978-2006.
Jax says, "I like Arizona's system of primaries the best. Each party has a separate ballot, but unaffiliated voters can choose any one primary to vote in."
Arizona is the only state that has a law forcing the parties to let independents vote in their primaries. Last year, a federal court said the AZ Libertarians could block independents from voting in Libertarian primaries (AZ Libertarian v. Brewer). While the AZ Democrats and Republicans could likely also win such a lawsuit, they continue to follow the law-- probably because they're afraid of being blasted by Sen. McCain.
It's worth noting that in a closed primary state-- like Oregon-- each party has the right to invite independents to vote in its primary. I understand that one or both of your major parties has, at times, extended this invitation to independents.
The "top two" makes it nearly impossible for independent and small-party candidates to reach the final, deciding election, so I cannot fathom why any small party would support this measure.
If a small party's message is kept out of the final, deciding election, the party loses its main reason for existing.
Why should the voters be limted to only two choices in the final, deciding election?
Posted by: Katy | Aug 20, 2008 6:45:07 PM
It's not the party that will deny people the opportunity to run, Jenni clearly understands that. The parties will decide who to endorse (who gets to have a D or an R or a whatever) next to their name. At least that's the way Kiesling explained it to the group I sat in on. He also seemed pissed when anyone questioned his proposal. Think about the race in 42 - consultants and lobby groups would have decided who they liked and strong-armed the rest not to run so they wouldn't split the vote. Maybe they would have picked Jules, maybe they wouldn't have. Either way, democracy loses. This is where the backroom deal will occur.
Of course the biggest problem with this measure is the amount of $ folks will end up spending and what it does to 3rd parties.
I'm really surprised at how many people are saying they haven't decided on this one yet.
Posted by: LT | Aug 20, 2008 6:50:12 PM
Thanks, Pete. The summary language about parties and the "beliefs and choices of their members, without any compulsion..." is very interesting.
I had a hard time imagaining Jenni's scenario in an party meeting I had ever attended. Every party action takes at least a majority and generally both a majority and a quorum. It is hard for me to envision a quorum and a majority (esp. given all the involvement by new people) acting as Jenni described without any pushback from anyone.
Reality is, this got on the ballot in a campaign led by 2 former legislators who later became Sec. of State and in the minds of many did that job well.
Partisans might not like that reality, but if there wasn't support for the idea, they wouldn't have gotten on the ballot, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
How many years now has the percent of those not registering in a major party been 20% or more? You don't think those folks can influence elections? Could it be that parties are "losing market share" because ordinary people see them as closed clubs?
Posted by: Steve Rankin | Aug 20, 2008 6:51:41 PM
It's worth noting that, prior to Washington state this year, Louisiana was the only state that used the "top two" for all of its state and congressional elections (making WA now the only state using it for its congressional elections).
I'm convinced that the Washington "top two" and Oregon's M65 are clearly unconstitutional for congressional elections.
Look for that to be one of the features of the Washington system that is challenged in federal court next year.
~~ Steve Rankin
Jackson, Mississippi
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Aug 20, 2008 6:56:11 PM
Actually, some have been discussing the legal situation this puts the parties in, and they've come up with a few things that might work...
- they add to the qualifications for a candidate with their party's name on the ballot to say they have to have the party's endorsement
- the parties fight for their legal right to nominate a person to represent their party, which then excludes anyone else from running with the party's name
It's not so much what the ballot measure says as it is the rights of the political party to choose who represents them on the ballot. This is why we get into a sticky situation.
And of course there's always the backroom deal option, where other candidates are forced out of the process.
One way or another what we're likely to end up with on the ballot is one candidate per party. And if you think 85,000 Democrats choosing the Dems to represent the Party, what do you think of a handful or a few hundred doing that?
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Aug 20, 2008 6:57:36 PM
Darn it... that's what I get for itching and typing at the same time (stupid allergic reaction).
That should say:
And if you think 85,000 Democrats choosing the Dems to represent the Party leaves people out, what do you think of a handful or a few hundred doing that?
Posted by: Katy | Aug 20, 2008 7:07:20 PM
It got on the ballot because folks collecting signatures for it asked passer's by if they'd "like to sign a petition for an open primary in Oregon?" Ugh,I can't tell you how many times I had to correct someone looking for a signature on this one.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Aug 20, 2008 7:10:22 PM
I had a hard time imagaining Jenni's scenario in an party meeting I had ever attended. Every party action takes at least a majority and generally both a majority and a quorum. It is hard for me to envision a quorum and a majority (esp. given all the involvement by new people) acting as Jenni described without any pushback from anyone.
The only meetings I've ever been at that require a quorum are executive committee meetings. Every other decision has always been based on a majority vote. And a caucus-like system would definitely be on a majority vote.
People like to use Multnomah County as an example for why we need this (inner Portland districts with "no choice in November"). Don't forget this is also the county that didn't endorse Governor Kulongoski and opposed Ginny Burdick. You don't think we wouldn't have a vote to support only one candidate in order to not run the risk of sending two Republicans to the November ballot? Or that we wouldn't support one Dem over another - we do it all the time.
Even worse, we could have what happened to us in Texas - we had to have an open race because of a small redistricting done after the primary, with a run off afterward. Republicans put up Democratic candidates that they used to try to get one of the top 2 spots (it was obvious Congressman Steve Stockman, R, would be the other one in the top). It took a fight in the courts to get one candidate off the ballot and all our time to ensure that Nick Lampson was in the top 2. At the same time we had to ignore almost all our other races.
Posted by: Greg D. | Aug 20, 2008 7:22:32 PM
So does the Oregon Democratic Party hold the trade name or trademark rights to the word(s) Democrat or Dem. or whatever, so they could sue to stop candidate Mr. X from claiming affiliation in the absence of party endorsement? What if Mr. X is a lifelong registered Democrat, but chooses to throw his hat into the election without going through party channels?
I am not a troll. Death to the Republicans. But I still don't understand this issue or the consequences.
Posted by: Oregon Independent | Aug 20, 2008 8:15:50 PM
But people at all the meetings I've been to have been pretty adamant that it will be members of the Party who choose the nominee of the Party.
They may be adamant about that point, but as the Decider has proven, time and again, it is possible to be adamant and wrong.
Political parties will have endorsement power if Measure 65 passes, not nominating power.
Posted by: Oregon Independent | Aug 20, 2008 8:20:33 PM
The "top two" makes it nearly impossible for independent and small-party candidates to reach the final, deciding election, so I cannot fathom why any small party would support this measure.
There is no aspect of the open primary that will make it "impossible" for minor political parties to make the general election ballot.
44 percent of legislative races and two out of five statewide races will not be contested in November. There is a very big hole for minor political parties to exploit if they can guarantee that their candidates will face a one-on-one election in November.
Moreover, they will have the right to have cross-endorsements printed on the ballot -- a right that is currently not extended to minor political parties (in contravention of Oregon law, IMHO).
Posted by: LT | Aug 20, 2008 8:39:39 PM
Greg, I don't think parties hold a patent, copyright, etc.
Even under the current system, Kim Thatcher was able to hijack the primary process and defeat Republican Dist. 25 incumbent Backlund, supported by many Republicans and also many who weren't registered that way. There have been other primaries where incumbents have been defeated.
And when a Democratic nominee (the first election after a census and redistricting, when it was someone who was not previously in the district) was found to have had a voting record to the right of Republican Norma Paulus in the legislature, a group of prominent Democratic activists with well known names launched the "We say vote for LB Day " advertising campaign (yes, that was a long time ago) and that is how the Republican Day got re-elected.
Jenni,
When I was on state central comm. and cong. dist. central comm., there were quorum rules. There were quorum rules in our county bylaws, but they were ignored and I was treated as some kind of subversive one time when I asked for a quorum when the chair was trying to push through a resolution.
Do you realize how many people feel that a political party organization passing a resolution has no relevance in their lives?
My grandfather helped defeat a local county machine in the 1930s. Very few entities are run by political machines these days (except some people think caucus-run campaigns come close). So many people vote for the individual and just want problems solved (and some people distrust political consultants for legislative and lower offices) that I don't think most people care about political parties. The woman in the front yard who says "I won't read any literature about a Democrat" has been rare in my canvassing experience. More often, it is "I'll take the literature and read it when I can" or "do you actually know this person?".
Katy, as far as this goes,
"Think about the race in 42 - consultants and lobby groups would have decided who they liked and strong-armed the rest not to run so they wouldn't split the vote",
I'm thinking if anyone tried that there would be a scandal.
"OK, powerful groups, if you want this candidate you can darned well do the campaigning and we'll find something else to do!".
Don't know much about 42 but is there really so little grass roots infrastructure that if powerful people want someone to run there is no money and no volunteer base to support anyone else? Is the district that spread out that it can't be walked?
Under the current system, years ago, the House Maj. Leader recruited a candidate to run after someone had already filed. 2 quality people fought it out (there was a 3rd candidate who came in 3rd) each with their own volunteers and campaign base. The already filed candidate defeated the recruited candidate and won the general election.
I'm just not seeing all the evil things suggested as a result of this ballot measure, as many such things have happened under the current system over the years.
As far as parties inviting independents to vote in their primary, that's like saying "your taxes and our taxes pay for the same primary voting system, but you only get to vote in our primary if we invite you".
Those not registered in major parties still vote in general elections. Are you that afraid of the unknown that you don't think they should have a say in nominations unless they went to the trouble to register with a party in April and re-registered NAV in late May or June? And you wonder why this might pass?
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Aug 20, 2008 8:41:47 PM
I consider myself a reasonably smart guy, but I still can't understand why party insiders are so hostile to the Top-Two concept.
There may be rare exceptions, but party (and other) insiders are hostile to anything that threatens their perceive power and authority.
What is wrong with using group affiliations as a way to structure our social and political lives?
In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with this. The problem comes when members of social and political groups are "afflicted by blind or some other form of loyalty to some person, ideology, a party or other group" without regard to ethical principles or the rights of others. A most obvious example for anti-war people is support among Republicans for the war on Iraq in spite of evidence of there being no justification for this war to the point of elected officials in Congress reneging on their oaths to uphold the Constitution, especially after a lecture by Senator Robert Byrd.
Posted by: LT | Aug 20, 2008 9:09:11 PM
Bill, I agree. And the habit of "if you are a Republican/Democrat, that means you believe..." drives people away from parties unless that is what they believe.
There was a time when Republicans believed in problem solving, but they don't any more. This year the Democrats have been a lively party, but there were some very dry years.
So what about the person who admires Barack Obama and Chuck Hagel? Which party do they belong to? Is it impossible to be a pro-choice Republican? How about a Democrat who represents a state like the one Jim Webb represents or a district like Oregon's 2nd? Tim Walz won a Congressional seat which had been Republican. Is he supposed to vote like people in deep blue districts? There were people here at BO who argued with Darlene Hooley's voting record, but by golly she's retiring undefeated!
There was a time in Douglas County when there were two rival factions and whichever one got elected to county party offices, the other stayed away until the next re-organization. There was also a time when the state central comm. passed a resolution (by a small margin) supposedly saying "what all Democrats believe" except there were fewer than 50 people voting. They represented all registered Democrats in the state? Hardly likely. It was taken by some to be an insult to then Sen. Pres. Kitzhaber, so at their next meeting his home county disavowed the state resolution.
With regard to "What is wrong with using group affiliations as a way to structure our social and political lives?", it may come as a shock that some people with long experience in politics (long time volunteers, former party office holders, former campaign managers or treasurers, etc.) who don't regard politics as their whole lives and structure their social lives around something other than political party. In a free country, they have that right.
It would be a very interesting project to find the names of State Central Comm. members, Platform Committee attendees, people who attended delegate selection conventions at the state and cong. district level and compare them. Of the people on those lists in 2008, how many were there in 2004? 2000? In the 1990s? In the 1980s?
Organizations exist as long as they are relevant to people's lives. If some people drop out that is OK if new people replace them. But a theory about how people organize their lives is more academic than about real life.
And about those 3rd party concerns:
Years ago a friend of mine ran in a statewide race the year there were so many 3rd party candidates that the Offical Abstract of Votes needed 2 pages to list all the names. My friend got the most votes of any of the 3rd party candidates (came in 3rd in a multi-candidate election). A year later he was fed up with the infighting in the party he had represented. He joined another 3rd party which then restructured. Perhaps parties are less important to most people than some activists might think. I know there are people who get tired of party infighting and find a different activity (perhaps as different as a musical group) with which to occupy their spare time.
Posted by: Ian | Aug 20, 2008 10:11:04 PM
OI writes, in response to Jenni:
Jenni: But people at all the meetings I've been to have been pretty adamant that it will be members of the Party who choose the nominee of the Party.
OI: Political parties will have endorsement power if Measure 65 passes, not nominating power.
To OI: I think Jenni's point is about implicit negotiating and strategic power, not just legally defined authority.
Suppose the party command names a nominee. Sure, defectors can theoretically put their name on the ballot. But ultimately, cooperators can be rewarded, and defectors can be punished, in a variety of ways, both within and beyond the electoral process.
People can debate, at some point, whether this type of strategic power grows or shrinks because of Measure 65.
I'm not trying to launch that debate; I start with the opinion that parties' implicit power to reward and punish would grow significantly. But my point for now is: we ought to be careful to account for how this measure changes the parties' real strategic power, not just authority.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Aug 20, 2008 11:53:37 PM
Pete Forsyth: The parties may move their endorsement processes out of the publicly-funded electoral process...but how exactly is that a problem?
I just start to sneeze all to hell in smoke filled rooms, that's all. That little "endorsed by" marker will be valuable enough to cause knife-fights, and I would so hate to see blood on the floor in DPO meetings.
But hey, if you want to return to the days where political bosses decided everything behind closed doors, you have a right. I just don't agree.
Posted by: paul g. | Aug 21, 2008 12:23:41 AM
Steve R. wrote: Louisiana has this year restored party primaries for its congressional elections, but it continues to use the "top two" (popularly called the "open primary")
This is not correct. An "open primary" is a system whereby a voter can choose a ballot upon walking into the booth (a "semi open" primary) or one where a voter can vote within parties by change across races (hence, vote in the D presidential primary, the R Senatorial primary, etc). Neither restrict participation only to voters who previously declared a party.
The proposal is NOT an open primary. It is popularly referred to as a "non partisan blanket", "jungle" or "top two".
It is really not a primary election at all (from wikipedia: "In other words, primary elections are one means by which a political party nominates candidates for the following general election.")--it is a first run at a general election.
This is why I it to the two-stage or runoff elections used in many presidential systems (France, Peru, other Latin American nations).
Calling it an "open primary" is misleading.
Post a comment
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 20, 2008 12:14:03 AM
Oh, one more thing: David Duke didn't win any of those legislative primaries. (Just in case you were wondering, given how often M65 opponents bring up his name.)
But the guy who says he represents the "Salmon Yoga" party did get 1.7% of the vote in one of those seven-way primaries.