In future elections, the winning Democrat will clearly work hard to retain the support of Green party voters.

Why? Let's say the winning Democrat ignores many of the Greens' concerns. What are Greens going to do? Vote for the Republican?

In fact, because minor parties need to earn 1% in the general election to maintain legal recognition, the Green Party would have to endorse Democrats in order to survive. That means there would be no motivation for a Democrat to address their concerns. Worse, if the opponents of this measure are right and each major party consolidates support around a sole candidate in the primary, that candidate would not have to address the concerns of progressive Democrats (like me) either.

However, if we instead added fusion voting to the current voting system (which I know you like), then the Democrat would have a big motivation to court Greens, because they could eliminate the threat of a spoiler and build their base of support.

What I'd really like to see is instant runoff voting. I do agree we need some sort of electoral reform, because like you, I think more (viable) parties would be better.

65 was about the only ballot measure that took some thought, mainly because there were people on both sides of the issue I respect. I ended up voting for it (Ducking) because I feel it will over time give more power to the center of the electorate. Too often, the Dems and GOPers veer to the outer reaches of their respective parties voters in order to gain the nomination. I feel the top two will force candidates to broaden their messages earlier in the campaign, parties won't be able to count on their registration edges in a particular district and will have to take more care in choosing candidate who will be more attractive to a broader base of voters. Gridlock will ease, special interest influence will wane and issues and ideas will rule. Now tell me how I'm wrong.

Nice thoughtful post, Kari. But I'm still "agin it". Only slightly OT perhaps, but until campaign financing reform becomes realistic, M65 offers no real improvement in my view. Thanks

For those who feel that our partisan system is somehow unfair, but care to learn what kinds of systems actually are fair, rather than this utter nonsense by Kari, you could turn to the serious scholarship out there. For instance, there is a new book called Gaming the Vote: Why Elections Aren't Fair (and What We Can Do About It).

And by the way, most of these scholars recognize the plurality voting system as we have in our multi-party general elections, or would have in the open primary, is not fair. Most of them including Poundstone agree mathematics and human psychology both support that instant runoff voting is one of the best solutions, even as they recognize it will be an uphill battle for IRV to become widespread in the US because of human nature. None argue for any variant of open primaries, much less make any version of Kari's argument that ultimately rests on nonsensical assertions about what candidates would do in some fantasy political world. Kari is in effect trying to falsely impute some quality of IRV to a fundamentally unfair open primary system.

For instance, just as it is a fact that negative advertising works, part of the reason is because it depresses turnout, a negative phenomenon that Kari's theory doesn't even consider. Most of the scholars on voting I've read do.

Kari's theory also depends on his unsupported assertion that third parties would chose to endorse one of the two major party candidates in the general. Of course why should they? I think it's clear to anybody that human nature is such that they would prefer to advocate their own position right up until the general election. At the same time, there is no plausible argument that is compatible with human psychology of politics that a major party candidate will repudiate his or her party's values and will promise anything more than just enough support for the values and goals of a minor party. The path to 50% plus 1 is accomplished more easily in reality by discouraging the opposing candidate's supposed third party allies from voting (mainly by reminding them they are just being used) and behaving venally enough to get the bare minimum of support from whatever third party voters are most easily swayed. Candidates who can do that I think lack an essential character integrity and I would not be alone in voting against them in the primary itself.

What Kari really is doing here is making an arrogant argument of entitlement However, there is no need to attribute his argument to any kind of malice when the simpler argument he just doesn't know any better suffices. He is a partisan for one of the two parties that will place a candidate in the general in any contested race. His argument from the get-go disrespects the right of third parties to argue their own case right up to November. Instead he' s making the argument older siblings make that a nickel is worth more than a dime to swindle their younger siblings out of 50% of their allowance. The sad thing is Kari may really believe in his fantasy about human nature and politics because he is not a supporter of a third party AND he has chosen to actually identify with the corrupt mainstream of one of the two major parties. Full disclosure is simply making an apology when in fact the real problem is the need to make an apology at all.

I'm not a member of a minor party nor do I support IRV because as long as we are talking about unlikely eventualities, I support proportional representation. However, I do respect the right of people in minor parties to be a spoiler in the general election if they feel their values have been disrespected. That means respecting their right to tell their story themselves right up until November, and leaving the decision up to them, rather then forcing them threw a discriminatory primary system that poor excuses for leaders like Keisling and Roberts are cynically trying to mislead people into supporting, to throw their endorsement in the general to a major party candidate.

For those who want the Reader's Digest version of the above: Kari's arguments in support of M65 depend on candidates doing something that is at best in tension with human nature to bring an simulacrum of fairness into the system. Genuinely fair systems are fair because of their structure and despite the perversity of human nature and the behavior of individual candidates. Fantasies about how M65 will weaken parties are just that, based on our tendency to believe our own rationalizations.

I voted against 65. But I bet it passes. Oregon voters like the idea of non-partisan elections. They like to "falsely" think of themselves as being non-partisan.

Another reason I think 65 will pass. The Obama campaign has been centered on a post-partisan America. The economic meltdown and the divisive, gutter campaign of McCain/Palin has played right into Obama's strategy. Next Wed. evening, when Obama does the half hour program on national television, we're going to get a full dose of what a united America looks like in facing a national crisis. It will play well, just as the Michelle Bachman politics and McCain robo-calls are going down the toilet.

Americans are sick of this crap of Willie Horton/Lee Atwaters/Karl Rove politics we have had over the past couple decades. So I think Oregonians, rightly or wrongly are going to see a non-partisan primary as being a step in that direction.

For many average people, if you can't explain the whole idea in a nutshell in 1 sentence or less, they will just throw up thier hands and proclaim 'what's the point?'

This is why we are having such a debate on M65 - we are alln trying to explain the measure in a nutshell, but it just can not be done with the ideas involved.

I voted NO simply because, even though I understand the principals and the thoery involved, many other average people can not (especially grasping the theory) because it is not 'streamlined' enough theororetically (sp) to get the point across. This is why some say that is it a 'solution looking for a problem'

Bottom line - if it is confusing now, why vote Yes on it and make it even more confusing when we get to the next election that will use it? Many will vote No because if you can't explain it without a scorecard to decipher it, it is not worth it.

Of course, this is not an "unsupported assertion". We already know that two minor parties in Oregon took the SOS to court in order to have their cross-nominations printed on the ballot this past August. No fewer than 6 major party candidates were cross-nominated in Oregon during the 2008 election cycle.

Sal Peralta provides a nice example of what is known as the fallacy of hasty generalization. In general, you can disprove a point with counterexamples, but you can't prove a point with anecdotal examples. Particularly when several of those counterexamples are of a party who includes cross-nomination as a party principle. Furthermore, one of those counterexamples --- I presume he includes Kroger --- came about as a result of quirky circumstances and there is some reasonable debate whether Kroger is a better Republican than he is a Democrat. It's always nice when someone presenting arguments for a proposition provides the reasons to discount their own arguments.

It very will may be that more parties would choose to cross-nominate if forced to do it by the system. But that's the main point that can't be rebutted by Sal's counter-example: The system would be forcing that behavior rather than allowing them to make the choice of running their own candidate in the general election or supporting another candidate.

Bill R's right: Oregonians do "like to 'falsely' think of themselves as being non-partisan". The problem is that they don't even now what it means to be non-partisan, and many also confuse "partisan" with "party". Many Oregonians nominally on the left or right really just want their own individual way and they call that "non-partisan". I have to disagree a bit about what we see with Obama (who I voted for). He has provided an interesting modern example of a certain type of political tactician who is no means unique, even in our party system. He has carefully said what he thinks he needs to say to be elected, even if it is fairly vague and in fact is inconsistent, while carefully choreographing his public appearance in a more skilled way as an actor than even Reagan. It remains to be seen how many in the end will be pleased with his actual performance in office and why. Apparently enough were satisfied with the Shrub's first performance to vote to give him a second, even as they rate him low now for reasons that have nothing to do with his "partisanship".

Well Kari - its an argument - but you still overlook that one fact I can't overlook.

Come November, there will only be two candidates on the ballot. Not three, four or more, only two.

Two is still less than three, or four, or more.

Limiting choices pretty much will seal the fate of any minor party candidate. Rather than gradually rising as a party , candidates for any minority party will have to do so alone on a primary ballot. So, while one candidate might win in some district by force of personality, or ability to articulate a winning policy position - it does not translate to a PARTY having a place in the electoral process.

Where are we when we are all independent voters? We will be taking the legs out from under all parties, the big ones and the little ones. Every man/woman for themselves.

It just isn't right to set up a system that undermines such a fundamental balance of power between the individual and the ability to form meaningful groups to advocate for change in our government. Without meaningful group power, we stand alone and naked before the power and might of our government.

Kari - bottom line, its a return to a near feudal system.

If the problem you would like to fix is that minor parties don't get on the primary ballot - well fix that problem. At best this is an indirect solution to that problem, but one that in turn creates worse problems.

Sidenote: So, why the heck do Dan Meek (of the IPO), the Pacific Green, Peace, and Libertarian parties oppose M65? I'm willing to bet it's because they will no longer be able to limit which candidates file for office under their banner. It's a control thing.

I think you're wrong, and there are other, more important issues that others here have identified, but is there something wrong with this? Should just anyone be able to run under any party's name regardless of whether they actually represent the party? That doesn't seem right to me.

It would be interesting to see if rural voters under 65 might become less captive of the Republican party.

Here's an interesting news release today. Sorry but I don't have the link, it's from Rural Strategies:

"After trailing by 10 points in U.S. rural areas, Democrat Barack Obama is neck-and-neck with Republican John McCain among rural voters in 13 swing states, a potentially key group for winning the White House, according to a poll released on Thursday.

Obama was supported by 46 percent and McCain by 45 percent of 841 likely voters surveyed from October 5-21, as U.S. financial turmoil deepened, according to the poll commissioned by the nonpartisan Center for Rural Strategies in Whitesburg, Kentucky.

A month ago, the poll showed McCain led 51-41. This time, respondents said Obama would do better than McCain on the economy, taxes and "the financial crisis in the country."

Nearly 20 percent of Americans live in rural areas. They tend to be social and fiscal conservatives. President George W. Bush won rural districts nationwide by 19 points in 2004."

I personally think that there there is no weakening of any party control here. All M65 does (in thoery) is shift the spoiler role of a 3rd candidate from the general to the primary - thus eliminating the 'uncertaincy principle' a 3rd candidate in the general. We still will have minor parties, but they would be more active during the primary than the general.

Now...if we could just apply this 'top two' stuff to the BCS...

I'm still unsure how the example Kari laid out is empowering to third parties (any more than say, fusion voting would be). And what concerns me more is the scenario placed in a comment from the City Club debate: Hypothetical (posed at the City Club debate): four Democrats and two Republicans run for Governor, all of whom have decent support from their respective parties. Say that 60% would vote D, and 40% would vote R, and those votes are split evenly. The four Ds each get 15% of the vote in the primary, and the two Rs each get 20% of the vote in the primary. For the general election, we'd get to decide between which of the Rs would be governor.

How does that outcome help third parties, OR the majority of voters?

Sunnyside, that's a hell of a boring governor's race you described. Are Oregon voters really that apathetic.

Sorry, but no thanks:

--This measure would keep minor parties off the general-election ballot. I call BS on that. --I'm fed up with the way this measure has been sold as a way to allegedly push candidates away from 'extremes' and towards the 'center'. IMHO our ideological choices are already few. I WANT clear ideological choices on the ballot.

Kari, your support of M65 seem to boil down to two main arguments:

1. We should allow minor party candidates to have their say -- but in the primaries, rather than in the general election. We'll allow them to compete, but only so long as they don't get to mess up the really IMPORTANT election in the fall. (Sort of like Michele Wie playing in the opening rounds of men's PGA events but missing the cut and not playing in the final rounds when the TV cameras are on.) With a M65 system, the little kids can play for a while. But once things get serious, they'll have to get out of the gym so the big kids can play.

2. The minor parties' can become players by endorsing one of the two major party candidates. It just doesn't make sense for them to field candidates embodying their particular point of view, since they aren't going make it to the general election ballot anyway.

First, it's the possibility of being a spoiler in the general election that focuses at least some attention on the minor parties. It forces the candidates of the two major parties to not completely neglect the center, or, if they're being too moderate, to pay some attention to other elements of the political spectrum. Most people pay much more attention to the general election than they do to the primaries. It may be more convenient for the Dems and Rs to rid themselves of these troubling elements before the start of the varsity game, but I'm not sure that it's the best thing for the political process. Remember that if this system had been in place at the national level in 1992, Bill Clinton might well not have been elected. Ross Perot peeled off a lot of votes from GHWB. His presence in that election certainly wasn't "minor." The potential presence of properly positioned third parties in the general election at least makes the major parties a little more attentive.

As far as the second argument goes, if the only role of a third party is to sprinkle holy water on either the Democratic or Republican candidate, what's the point? People run as third party candidates because the positions taken by the major party candidates don't represent their world view. It's a way to put forth new ways of looking at things, and to advocate for what seem in the moment to be "wild eyed ideas" that often become mainstream later on. Why would they want to line up behind someone they disagree with? If they wanted to do that, they could just campaign for that candidate in the first place.

On the other hand, there could be a mischievous element in a M65 world. Endorsements could become a weapon. (If you, Mr. R, don't take the correct position on my issue, I, the Militant Right Wing Separatist Party candidate, will plant the kiss of death on your cheek by officially endorsing you.) I'm not sure this is what we want, but it could be an unintended consequence.

So who, in this confusing ballot of "Democrats", is the actual nominated (endorsed) Democrat? The one all the voters will pick?

Yes. Thankfully, the "endorsed" label will mean very little, and less over time. Especially in the Governor's race you describe: name recognition and endorsements of fellow Democrats (NOT "endorsed by the party") will be everything. Kari's right -- it's a control thing and some powerful interests will loose control with M65.

Sunnyside, 6 people with support from their respective parties but nothing about them as individuals?

There are years when straight party voters vote for one person of the other party--Dave Frohnmayer for AG comes to mind.

They voted for DAVE, not for "the candidate of the GOP".

Your hypothetical says nothing about the actual individuals running. People should vote on 65 based on parties because individuals are not part of the equation?

Paul, Hope you have time to lobby the legislature about this, rather than just blogging.

"I like fusion voting. I support fusion voting for the reasons Kari spells out."

Sal Peralta asks:

I'll repeat a question I asked Steve Bucknum: If the current system is so much more favorable to minor political parties than the top two under M65, then why has no minor party candidate been elected to statewide or legislative office in more than 100 years?

Measure 65 opponents argue that 65 would be even worse for minor parties than the currently-broken status quo, not that the status quo is good at all for minor parties.

What's worse, and what really makes me upset, is that if this measure fails, some will spin it as an endorsement of the old system. If we try another reform (e.g. instant-runoff voting), some people will say "Oregonians voted to keep the old system. Why are you disrespecting their decision?" It's so frustrating.

I wish there was a way to vote against Measure 65 but still indicate displeasure with the current system.

I have a hard time with the idea that minor parties and minor party voters are well served by the current system. They almost never win and contrary to their own belief they rarely influence the major party candidates except for being spoilers. Under 65, there is a legit chance that a minor party candidate could reach the general and actually be competitive, particularly in legislative races. And they get equal treatment in the primary so its not like M65 is discriminating against them.

Can anyone honestly say that minor parties have a major influence under our current system?

@ Sal P.: The answer to your question about why no minor party winners is that we use an antiquated and inadequate plurality voting system where each voter only gets to make one selection rather than a system that lets the voters express their preferences completely by ranking the candidates in order of preference (hence the name "preference voting," explicitly allowed in the Oregon Constitution).

Political scientists cite Duverger's Law: "The existing "winner-take-all" electoral system in the United States makes it incredibly difficult, although not impossible, for any non-incumbent party to receive more than single-digit support in a race contested by the two incumbent parties. Political scientists call this loaded-dice effect "Duverger's Law."" (http://is.gd/4E6g)

If we used preference voting to select office-holders (as Pierce County, Washington, is doing this election, as San Francisco will do for the fifth time, and as many nations around the world do) we would actually see the benefits being ascribed to Measure 65: a reduction in extreme rhetoric and a boost for minor parties without harm to the majors.

Even better, by using the preference voting system that our Constitution already provides for, we would see shorter campaigns with more choices and an elimination of any need for voters to make strategic choices about who to support in the primary -- parties would simply use whatever system desired to pick their nominee and then voters can vote their choices without any fear of "spoiling" or winding up with two unpalatable choices as their only choices in the general election. There have been numerous stories about the healthy effect that preference voting has on campaigns, because candidates can't afford to run negatively when they want the second and third-choice votes of voters' who gave their first-choice votes to someone else.

Make no mistake, Measure 65 is about REDUCING voter choices while preserving the worst aspects of the status quo: domination by the majors, marginalization of minor parties, enhancing the role of money, etc.

It's quite telling that M65 is getting all this support just as the GOP is fast waning in power. Just like the R's were all for term limits until they succeeded in overthrowing Democratic dominance in state house and Congress, now they want a system to ensure that they don't get replaced as the alternative to the Democratic Party. By hobbling minor parties with the Cajun Primary system (top two), the Republicans in Oregon can avoid going the way of the Whigs for a while longer, coasting on the favored status provided by top-two.

As for the original argument in this thread, it's simply nonsense. I trust the members of the various flocks of chickens to know what's good for chickens much more than I trust a fox when he says that leaving the coops unlocked is good for chickens.

There is a fatal flaw in M65 that posters here seem to have missed. That is, if one of the top two candidates drop out/die/move away after the primary, there is no mechanism to replace that person other than go to the next highest vote-getter. So if David Democrat gets 95% of the primary vote for Senator, and Radical Ron Republican gets 4% and Lou Libertarian gets 1%, the general election pits Ron against Lou. This hugely Democratic district will be represented by a wingnut R for the next four years. There are some other technical problems too.

Any possible advantage to this experiment is trumped by the dire consequences of this scenario.

And here's another argument against that: It doesn't strengthen third parties nearly enough to make a difference...but it certainly does make it really, really easy for the vote to be split. All Republicans (or Democrats...but honestly, do you really think they'll try this?) need to do to take a seat is to trump up a third party candidate and they can probably split off enough votes in some districts to win elections for their candidate by a minority of the vote. Yes, it's nice that we feel strongly for third parties, but this isn't enough to make that argument even worthwhile. Third parties would need to get a whole lot more funding from the national level to compete, or really strict election finance reform to compete on a level battleground...and mandatory equal media coverage to even make a dent. Helping them out peripherally like this at the expense of making it really, really easy to game the system is just shooting yourself in the foot.

@ Sal P: Preference voting IS a winner-take-all method, and one that provides a majority choice naturally rather than through the artificial and expensive mechanism of a top-two runoff. There's no such thing as a "parliamentary" election method -- Britain's parliament is elected, for example, using the same plurality system we use here (we got our system from them - funny how we would never tolerate being treated with 17th Century medicine but don't mind continuing to use a 17th Century voting method that was designed to serve the interests of the propertied few who voted).

Sold me! .

"VOTE for the Squirrel Party Ticket - We'll put a NUT in every Nest"

Sal writes, "Steve B - If being guaranteed a spot on the general election ballot along with both major parties is a recipe for electoral success for minor parties, then why has no minor party candidate won a legislative or statewide office in more than 100 years?"

Julius Meier was an "independent", Governor of Oregon from 1931 to 1935. And for the record, Sylverter Pennoyer was a "Democrat People's" party member, Governor in the 1880's, and one of the Territorial Governors, John Gaines, was a Whig.

If you don't have the facts, just make them up, right Sal?

And furthermore - other Independents

1909 - W.J. Mariner, Oregon House 1909 - H.D. Norton, Senate 1911 - Tim Brownhall, House 1917 - Seymour Jones, House 1917 - Hermon Lewis, Senate 1919 - Walter Jones, Senate 1919 - Alex LaFollett, Senate 1919 - John Nickelsen, Senate

I got bored, but you can check it out at http://www.sos.state.or.us/archives/legislative/histleg/statehood/statehood.htm

Kari Chisholm writes:

"Well, I suppose it depends on how valuable you think that 'endorsed by' tag is. To me, ballot access itself is the key thing - not the endorsement tag. Right now, if a person wants to run as the candidate of a particular minor-party, but they're cross-wise with that minor party's leadership, they have ZERO access to the ballot. (Other than changing parties or going independent.)"

For a good article on the value of party identification, see this from the PI: http://is.gd/4F2L

If M65 works as its proponents claim, then the "endorsed by" tag is vital, since the whole claimed benefit for M65 is allowing the most apathetic, least involved people in Oregon (the ones who have not affiliated with a political party) to help select the top-two finishers. These people will rely almost exclusively on "endorsed by" since they will have very little else to go on (unless you concede that all we're going to do if M65 passes is see the cost and length of campaigns skyrocket, both of which favors big business groups over grass roots candidates and progressives).

Nobody has explained how these "independent" voters will find out about various candidates or what they will base their selections on if not party endorsement or massive advertising in the absence of party endorsement.

And if Loren Parks decides to back Joe Blow and pours a bunch of money into Joe's campaign, Joe can do a little rough polling and find which party's line to run on and affiliate with the target party, and the party can't say boo about it, and will be put in the position of having to simultaneously boost Candidate A of the party while campaigning extra hard against Joe Blow. In other words, it puts parties in the position of damaging their brand because they are having to do "in public" what primaries are supposed to do "in private" -- let the party members sort out who is the best standard-bearer.

Second, to say that "ballot access is the key thing" while supporting a measure that denies ballot access to all but the top-two finishers is bizarre if not Orwellian. "Ballot access" is generally not understood as a personal right of candidates, but it's judged by whether a state provides fair ballot access to all parties -- something M65 expressly does not.

George, about this:

most apathetic, least involved people in Oregon (the ones who have not affiliated with a political party)<<

First of all, my brother donated money to Kerry for Pres. when he was registered NAV. He later registered Dem. His life is too full to ever attend a party meeting. Was he apathetic until the day he signed the Dem. registration form? Yes, I know what you say is what textbooks say about NAV. But textbooks don't vote, individuals do.

I was very active in the 1996 May US Senate primary, which I thought was bought by the DSCC candidate who had lots of money and very little ability to discuss issues. After that primary, I was disgusted with the Oregon Democratic Party no longer being a group I recognized in much the same way Colin Powell expressed his anger about the GOP on Meet the Press.

So, I registered NAV. Then a friend introduced me to a 3rd party candidate for US Senate and I campaigned for that very bright person. 3rd party political events that year reminded me of when the Democratic Party still believed in grass roots politics. I didn't reregister Dem. until I decided I wanted to vote in the 2002 primary, so no, I was not a primary voter in 2000.

According to your theory, from late May 1996 to March of 2002 I was one of those "most apathetic, least involved people " you talk about.

I don't remember the details, but it seems like someone in recent years did a study on how many of those registered outside a major party were apathetic, and how many were either young people who saw no reason to choose a party, or people fed up with partisanship or with the political games they had seen as activists.

George, I spent thousands of hours of volunteer time on party activities when I was on Dem. county, cong. district and state central committee, and who knows how many hours on Democratic campaigns from 1974-1996. But the minute I registered NAV I became apathetic?

And some people wonder why the ordinary citizen finds activities other than party politics to be a more worthwhile use of time?

You disqualify yourself by being a member of one of the parties that is going to get the votes. This is classic disenfranchisement of the vote. You are suggesting adding limits to democracy. This is madness. I vote for the best candidate, or the least bad. I haven't had a chance to vote for the best candidate but for a few times in my life. You would prevent someone from having the chance? You do not believe in democracy if you can stomach it's elimination in such a drastic way. This is a good argument why the parties need to all go away for replacements that can get work done benefitting the people of the country instead of the institutions the people in the parties wish to represent. That is what is wrong with the country, inherent corruption in both our current parties. You are demonstrating it with wild abandon.

Kari, thanks for this:

The question is NOT "is this the best we can do?" but rather "is this better than the status quo?"

And this might be a tie breaker for you:

For all the debate here about the role of major and minor parties here, do you know people who are not active in party politics or politics generally? Your dentist or pediatrician, or the parents you may know of children the same age as your child, for instance?

If so, ask them if you get a chance whether they vote for the party or for the person running.

For all the debate here about the role of parties, most people I know vote for the individual --often on a first name basis. Like "You remember when I wouldn't vote for Mike? Thanks for telling me your stories about the people you might vote for and the people you refuse to vote for."

Yes folks, at least in Salem, there are voters who have actually met the candidates either during or before an election year, who base their decision on the experience of knowing those people rather than on what party they belong to as candidates.

M65 isn't fusion voting, which would be helpful. Instead now we are not going to have primaries in Oregon. Look, neither the D's nor the R's will give up any chance to win right? Then, why would they submit more than one person to the primaries? They won't. They will make a defacto decision, and then we will be stuck voting in the generals with the R and the D. A lot of people honestly don't believe their votes will count if they vote for a minor party, and so will vote for the R or the D, on name alone.

The only way this helps minority parties is if on the off chance a couple of R's or D's run splitting the vote. I honestly can't see this happening, and so the minority parties will be excluded from the general election, which a lot more people vote in, and people tend to spend more time researching the candidates.

I am not saying that this can't work, just that due to the nature of politics, this won't work. And we will end up with people in the position without ever being vetted against people from their party.

One more thing:

Under the current system, there was once a candidate who won the Democratic primary although when he had represented a rural district he had voted to the right of Norma Paulus. This bothered Salem residents enough to do an advertising campaign to re-elect LB Day against this Dem. nominee, and the tag line was "we say vote for LB Day" with the voice of a very famous local citizen.

Back in those days (1980s, or late 1970s) there were no third parties. People in that case voted based on the individual, not the party. So why now is so much of the discussion about the role of parties?

I thought about that when I read this in the Washington Post? Could it be that parties matter less than some people expect them to matter?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/23/mcclellan_endorses_obama.html?hpid=topnews Bipartisanship -- or lack of party loyalty, depending on your view -- is not new for McClellan. His mother, Texas politico Carole Keeton Strayhorn, was a Democrat until the 1980s, when she switched to the GOP. Strayhorn later ran as an independent against Republican Gov. Rick Perry.

Oh and I went to Willamette, and worked for Chuck Riley. Let me tell you: You are not voting for the person, you are voting for the party. You don't know these people personally,(even if you live and work on both sides of state st) you are voting on their policies, which are formed by the party they are affiliated with. And if you are not, that is a bad decision, because the only people in place to pull candidates back are people in their party, and they are only going to be held to the standards outlined by the party. So pretty much the only thing you are guaranteed to get is the candidate voting for the party's policies, unless the issue will directly benefit their constituents.

@ LT: Alas, when speaking of populations one must generalize. You are obviously quite involved and not apathetic at all, no matter what your affiliation status. And there is, no doubt, a small slice of atypical folks who want to be active politically but do not want to affiliate with others to magnify their voice and see it represented in office holders.

But, I submit, the generalization that the best informed, most active people are those who are active in some form of political organization holds quite strongly, despite the presence of exceptions. Not for nothing does discussion of measures like M65 coalesce around sites such as this.

@ LT: in speaking of millions of people, one must generalize. No, I did not claim that you were apathetic or ill-informed when you were non-affiliated with a party. Rather, I claim that you represent a rather small exception to a general rule that holds up quite strongly under a microscope: that the best informed, most active people are indeed those who are affiliated with a political organization, which both magnifies their voice and gives them a way to reduce the burden of staying well-informed and active.

@ Steve Maurer: The Court that upheld a ban on fusion (Twin Cities New Party case) went out of their way to support the dominance of the so-called "two-party system" with fears that giving voters real choices would create "instability." It's one of the worst cases ever decided and rivals Bush v. Gore for inventing Constitutional doctrine on the spot in order to achieve a desired result.

I guess I'd like to know what happened to my two posts to this topic that are no longer here. Well, to publish it again:

"Sal Peralta asks: I'll repeat a question I asked Steve Bucknum: If the current system is so much more favorable to minor political parties than the top two under M65, then why has no minor party candidate been elected to statewide or legislative office in more than 100 years?

Besides Gov. Meier from 1931-1935 who was an independent, I found in the State archieves on the Sec. of State website the list of all elected Oregon House and Senate members. Going back 100 years per Sal, it goes:

1909 - W.J. Mariner, House 1909 - H.D. Norton, Senate 1911 - Tim Brownhill, House 1917 - Seymour Jones, House 1917 - Hermon Lewis, Senate 1919 - Walter Jones, Senate 1919 - Alex LaFollett, Senate 1919 - John Nickelsen, Senate

-- And then I decided enough was enough, if people want to see this stuff, they can look it up themselves.

Sal, you really ought to consider finding out the facts instead of making them up.

The more I hear about fusion voting, the more concerned I am about logistical problems.

Are all county clerks OK with this scenario with regard to printing ballots?

"Under genuine fusion I don't know if someone can reject a party nomination on their line, but the fact that a D or R could decline to have such cross-endorsement listed undermines the quasi-fusion argument for M65. "

Wouldn't the printing of only one ballot under 65 be easier for them?

Or do they not matter because they are only elections officials?

Instant runoff voting in the general election- allowing voters to choose their 1st choice candidate, then pick a second in the event their first doesn't make the cut would do far more to build up minor parties. Measure 65 is a much worse way to try and get support for minor parties than instant runoff voting in the general election. I hope Measure 65 goes down in flames.

One of my final thoughts on this is the fact that there probably is a chance a passage of this measure will send it into a court challenge. There is too much confusion in this for it to be implemented immediately. Someone, somewhere, is just licking their chops and waiting for this to pass and then kick it into the courts over some petty reason, thereby costing everyone more money that originally intended.

So, even if you vote Yes, it possibly won't get implemented because of a lurking court challenge. There is a possibility you would be waisting your vote by voting Yes on this. That's why you vote No - that way we won't have to worry about the courts and other crap associated with court challenges.

Kari wrote:

Under M65, the minor party candidates could have a demonstrable spoiler effect - but it would be demonstrated BEFORE the general election.

As Dan Meek pointed out, there could be considerable spoiling in the primary under M65, and that effect would not be limited to minor party candidates. My suspicion is that vote-sucking shills will clog many primary ballots, because parties and candidates will do whatever helps their chances, and diluting their opponents' support accomplishes this. So, we may trade the occasional third party spoiler in the general for multiple spoilers in every primary. Not a good trade in my opinion.

I think the best hope for third parties under M65 is in politically homogeneous districts, as Sal has pointed out. Portland general elections might feature a Democrat versus a Green, while eastern Oregon voters might choose between a Republican and a Constitution Party candidate.

This, of course, would further polarize the politics of the rural-urban divide, something M65 supporters claim the system would decrease.

Paul, I think you are wrong. "I think the "we are not Louisiana" argument is fallacious."

Oregon is Oregon, and comparisons to Louisiana if we pass Measure 65 make no more sense than earlier than the people here who said we should support formation of the Working Families Party because of how well it did in NY.

If you think Oregonians should oppose M.65, give Oregon reasons.

"Instant runoff voting in the general election- allowing voters to choose their 1st choice candidate, then pick a second in the event their first doesn't make the cut would do far more to build up minor parties."

Yes, I know, IRV is the salvation of the modern world, and anyone who says there might be logistical problems or voter resistance is saying voters are stupid. Or so some IRV supporters have tried to convince us is the case.

If IRV is so great, a grass roots movement behind it can be started. Advocates can go to civic groups, community groups, neighborood groups and make presentations to such small groups. They can answer any questions people may have in the small groups, and sign up volunteers. Then if it is such a great idea, all those volunteers can lobby their legislators, and the IRV proponents can find a legislator to sponsor an IRV bill, or get the signatures to put IRV on the ballot.

Of course, that involves a lot more work than just writing "IRV is the best system" on blogs.

What if there are only 2 choices in any particular race (in areas where people are thrilled to find a challenger for the incumbent) and voters don't have a second choice? If the idea in that scenario is to vote twice for the good person challenging the bad person, be sure to point that out when you make your presentations to small grass roots groups,

Whatever you think of Phil and Norma's M.65, they understand grass roots politics, they gathered support for a ballot measure, and they got it on the ballot.

LT wrote:

If you think Oregonians should oppose M.65, give Oregon reasons.

This argument promotes ahistorical thinking. That happens in this country quite a lot. We discuss healthcare reform while ignoring the national systems that operate in other developed nations, as if American diabetes is fundamentally different than French diabetes.

Since a system similar to M65 has operated in Louisiana, it makes sense to look at the experience there. Of course there will be differences here, but we can expect the basic dynamics to be similar.

"If you think Oregonians should oppose M.65, give Oregon reasons"

There probably is a chance a passage of this measure will send it into a court challenge. There is too much confusion in this for it to be implemented immediately. Someone, somewhere, is just licking their chops and waiting for this to pass and then kick it into the courts over some petty reason, thereby costing everyone more money that originally intended.

So, even if you vote Yes, it possibly won't get implemented because of a Possible lurking court challenge. There is a possibility you would be waisting your vote by voting Yes on this. That's why you vote No - that way we won't have to worry about the courts and other crap associated with court challenges. It has happened before on other confusing and/or contreversial Oregon measures in the past.

LT: you request that we engage in speculation. Nonproductive.

Why not review test cases as they exist, seek out rational parallels then review for local saliencies?

@LT: I hate to follow the threadjack too far off M65, but I must ask why Oregonians should need to do any of what you suggest to implement a procedure (IRV) that the Oregon Constitution expressly permits?

http://is.gd/4IUh

BTW, a small group of advocates got an IRV-option bill introduced in the Oregon House last session and it made it onto the floor over the objection of such leading lights as Kim Thatcher (R-Keizer). Oregonians favoring IRV are in the weird position of having the strongest possible legal basis for thinking that any city or county who chooses to could adopt IRV immediately, but then the local governments run into the ill-informed objections of Elections Director John Lindback, whose testimony to the House Government Operations committee went so far as to claim that IRV violated "one person, one vote," which is an absurd invention.

Meanwhile, to return to the topic at hand, the original post made a claim that the parties most damaged by M65 should actually favor it. IRV comes up tangentially because it's a reform that minor parties DO favor and that hurts the majors not at all because it simply helps voters overcome the principal problem with plurality: spoiling and the subsequent election of winners whom most voters opposed. M65's "fix" is to guarantee a majority winner in the second round by artificially limiting voter choices to two (while greatly increasing the cost and duration of campaigns, which only helps monied interests). The IRV alternative produces a majority winner and doesn't limit voter choices, and it has been shown to produce exactly the toning-down of rhetoric and reduction in negative campaigning that M65 proponents claim to want.

P.S.: Louisiana's primaries did have a 50% rule -- which is why most races were decided in the primary and there was no general at all.

P.P.S.: http://is.gd/4IZH (Alliance for Democracy piece.)

Sal - yup, I hear you. Looks like Civiletti speaks to LA being a reasonable test case for basic dynamics, and LT says that's apples and tangelos.

Never the twain, p'raps.

At any rate: I'm not for the measure, too complex for me to say yea or nay with confidence. And so I say look at what's in existence and reason it out from there.

Small party types, Libertarians and naddering Naderites need to get their comments in now, while there's still time left to take some abuse from the blog.

It would feel kind of like not having voted to not have been roundly bashed for throwing away my vote or costing the Dems the election! And this is the most depressing election I can remember in terms of the "oh, there's someone else running?" sentiment.

I'll take my shot. No danger of racism ruining Obama in the Valley, hence the State. Libertarians have MUCH BETTER positions on anything you care to name. Vote principle for once. Ron Paul.

Jiang: are you saying Naderites are ballsy? It would appear so, as "Nads" is a word that exists in specific in male lexicography...

Glad to read, "...in seeking their advice about implementing something, which would be wise,...".

Issues that a crowd tries to steamroller often have a harder time than issues which are arrived at by gaining input from all interested parties.

Which is why I would not jump on any bandwagon where advocates had attitudes like this,

"Anyway, if there's a voting system that would improve democracy but would be less convenient for county clerks, it should be funded to pay for extra personnel if needed, but benefit to democracy should trump county clerk convenience. "

My concern was that someone might say "OK, county clerks, maybe we will give you input on this and we'll try to get you some extra funding. But this is a powerful movement and if you don't like it, that is your problem".

That attitude is not the sort of democracy I grew up with. So call me a radical because I worry about implementation details.

Kari, the other point is how long lasting and well organized 3rd parties are. Didn't Tom Cox leave the 3rd party he once ran in?

A couple friends of mine became active with 3rd parties to the point of running for office. One became the 3rd party candidate to gain the most votes of any 3rd party candidate in a multi-candidate general election.

But not a year later, when I talked with him, he had left that party and joined another one after a power struggle.

I vote for the individual, not the party---although at times like now I hope all Democrats win because we need to turn the country around. That doesn't mean I have supported the Democrat in every election since I was old enough to vote.

The Founding Fathers didn't talk about parties (in Oregon or nationally), that came later.

LT - The greatest president ever -- in a comical juxtaposition, he was also named George -- was particularly opposed to them. "Later" came around in the very next administration.

KARI: I'm a former newspaper editor, and retired dean of the journalism school at the University of Oregon. I still follow political news closely. Your piece on the virtues of Measure 65 is absolutely the best argument I've read on it -- including Phil Keisling's.

<hr/>