Measure 65: aggressively progressive
By John Kitzhaber, former Governor of Oregon.
As a lifelong progressive democrat, I believe that Measure 65 – the open primary proposal -- is the one measure on the 2008 ballot that presents a truly progressive foundation for our representative form of government. This ballot measure offers an opportunity to undo a fundamental injustice in our voting system and lay the foundation for more effective governance in the future. It will immediately invite all Oregonian voters to meaningfully participate in elections and -- over the long term -- it will create a space in which Oregonians can rebuild their trust in government as a tool for positive progressive change in their communities.
In many legislative districts across Oregon, only members of the two dominant parties may help choose the nominee who – if elected in the general election – will represent all the citizens in the district.
I believe that this kind of exclusion is fundamentally wrong and is incompatible with the democratic and progressive cause. Our history has been one of expanding participation in the electoral process, not restricting it: from the 17th Amendment which provided for direct election of the United States Senate; to the 19th Amendment which granted women the right to vote; to the 24th Amendment which prohibited the restriction of voting rights due to the inability to pay poll taxes; to the 26th Amendment which lowered the national voting age from 21 to 18. This progressive record of inclusion is based on the belief that the people, not the parties they choose to join are best equipped to govern and to solve our problems.
The current closed system has practical consequences as well. When legislators are sent to Salem by the party members of their districts, rather than by all those who reside there, genuine interests go unrepresented and public trust in the legislature to represent its interests is diluted.
In a progressive democracy, we must always be attentive to the needs and concerns not only of the majority, but of those who don't have a prominent voice. Whether we are developing a framework for health care in Oregon, reworking the tax code, or improving the quality of our schools, we need to have input from all Oregonians if we hope to get it right.
But if an Oregonian never hears from their elected officials during a campaign, what reason do they have to trust the legislature to represent their interests? If we ask them to approve the expansion of a program within a government in which they have no meaningful stake, how should we expect them to respond?
The 2005 Oregon Legislature -- recognizing the low regard in which this institution is held by the general public -- convened the Public Commission on the Oregon Legislature to seek out and address the root causes of this problem. The commission’s first recommendation was to open the primary process to empowering voters without regard to their party affiliation.
Now is the time to heed this considered recommendation and pass Ballot Measure 65.
John A. Kitzhaber, M.D.
Oregon Governor
1995 - 2003
|
October 25, 2008 |
guest column | Comments (132 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: The Libertarian Guy | Oct 25, 2008 8:04:39 AM
Oregon should be discussing Instant Run-off Voting instead of Measure 65.
TLG
Posted by: Phil Barnhart | Oct 25, 2008 8:25:48 AM
Dr. K's arguments should be carefully considered. Unfortunately, this measure "opens" the primary while closing the general election where the election actually occurs. Fusion or Instant Run-off Voting or both would be better, by far.
In addition, if this measure passes, the legislature will have to fix glaring problems with the processes the measure contains for replacing nominees or officeholders and repair the election process for PCPs. See my earlier comment and others on the broken details of this measure.
I voted "No" and I hope you will as well.
Posted by: RW | Oct 25, 2008 8:26:29 AM
Mr. Kitzhaber: I am a pretty politically-ignorant human. So you might consider me a prime "teachable moment".
Could you explain to me what you believe will be the outcome of this measure if we see a propagation of splinter progressivist and other party candidates, but a continued, staunch core of conservative voting that stays to the arrowhead of "Republican"?
I suspect one of the fears is that diversity-tended social progressives will find our collective votes splintered out so severely that we will lose to that effect rather than any one conservative candidate truly having a following and a stand.
Can you speak to that?
Posted by: Leo Schuman | Oct 25, 2008 8:53:09 AM
Measure 65 is political union-busting.
Very few Oregonians have Kitzhaber's political influence. Most of us have to work together with many others, learn the art of compromise, and spend a lot of time and effort organizing to create change.
Measure 65 denies those who do the work getting organized the right to choose their candidate. The net result will be that those who own the media or have the money and influence to control it will call all the shots. Average folks will be silenced, because there will be no point in working together if you can't choose a candidate.
Posted by: Leo Schuman | Oct 25, 2008 8:54:07 AM
Measure 65 is political union-busting.
Very few Oregonians have Kitzhaber's political influence. Most of us have to work together with many others, learn the art of compromise, and spend a lot of time and effort organizing to create change.
Measure 65 denies those who do the work getting organized the right to choose their candidate. The net result will be that those who own the media or have the money and influence to control it will call all the shots. Average folks will be silenced, because there will be no point in working together if you can't choose a candidate.
Posted by: Leo Schuman | Oct 25, 2008 8:54:14 AM
Measure 65 is political union-busting.
Very few Oregonians have Kitzhaber's political influence. Most of us have to work together with many others, learn the art of compromise, and spend a lot of time and effort organizing to create change.
Measure 65 denies those who do the work getting organized the right to choose their candidate. The net result will be that those who own the media or have the money and influence to control it will call all the shots. Average folks will be silenced, because there will be no point in working together if you can't choose a candidate.
Posted by: Leo Schuman | Oct 25, 2008 8:54:19 AM
Measure 65 is political union-busting.
Very few Oregonians have Kitzhaber's political influence. Most of us have to work together with many others, learn the art of compromise, and spend a lot of time and effort organizing to create change.
Measure 65 denies those who do the work getting organized the right to choose their candidate. The net result will be that those who own the media or have the money and influence to control it will call all the shots. Average folks will be silenced, because there will be no point in working together if you can't choose a candidate.
Posted by: Leo Schuman | Oct 25, 2008 8:55:15 AM
(Sorry for the double post, the site's acting up. Please remove the double and this note if possible.)
Posted by: Joel H | Oct 25, 2008 9:20:16 AM
Gov. Kitzhaber,
The 2002 French Presidential election is a good example of Rebecca Whetstine's scenario. 9 left-wing candidates together and 5 right-wing candidates together each had about 45% of the vote; 1 centrist and 1 traditionalist candidate had about 10% of the vote together. The top two candidates were Chirac and Le Pen -- obviously not representative of the French people. Arguably, the second round should have had Chirac and Jospin, which would probably have been the result under IRV or approval voting.
Of course there are important differences between Oregon and France, but I don't know of any that would prevent this scenario. Neither the right wing nor the left wing is a monolith that likes to vote in lock-step, so this scenario might come out either way under M. 65, but either way would be a disservice to Oregon.
I voted no, but I'd easily vote yes on a proposal for instant runoff or approval voting.
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | Oct 25, 2008 9:25:05 AM
Rebecca,
Your concern is legitimate. But in recent Oregon history, there's only one race I can think of where party infighting appears to do significant damage: the fifth Congressional district. At least in that case, it's been Republicans, not Democrats damaging their chances. So I think the premise that Republicans will pick a candidate and fall into line is less certain than you suggest.
Like any new system, there will be some strategic adjustment compared to how things work now. This would happen under any kind of election reform.
Personally, I see lots of opportunity for using the ever-richer communications options for organizing and galvanizing public opinion around the best candidate. I suspect that whatever party or cause is best able to tap into those opportunities would do very well; not only at winning elections, but at tapping into the public's political will.
Imagine a campaign as distributed and volunteer-run as Barack Obama's under a system like this.
There are, of course, BlueOregon posters with a stronger grounding in political history than me, who take a different view. But I find myself wondering they don't seem to take into account the rapidly-changing communications landscape.
Posted by: k | Oct 25, 2008 9:32:46 AM
Leo -
I'm unclear on how M65 prevents unions or anyone else from having a voice or organizing. No where have I seen in M65 literature that says candidates may not be endorsed or supported by unions, parties or anyone else. Is it possible you are confusing M65 with M64 that basically prohibits fund-collecting?
And what of all of those Oregonians that do not belong to unions (who will still be able to organize & contribute vast amounts of time & money to candidates) and yet are not members of the media and do not have the money to contribute to political campaigns? If they are independents or have chosen a party that they do not truly align with just to vote in the primary, they are completely without a voice.
Currently 25% of Oregon's voters have no say in who ends up in the final election. Personally, I find that incredibly UN-democratic. The Bus Project registers voters to encourage participation. We have vote-by-mail, that allows many people to vote who might otherwise be unable to without difficulty whether it be disability, time or other. We talk about encouraging people to vote and we've gone part way. Let's go all of the way to encouraging true democracy and Vote YES on 65; let those 25% who currently have no say in primaries have a voice.
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 25, 2008 9:56:17 AM
This is the only measure that I left blank. I was leaning towards voting against it but just didn't feel enough conviction either way to vote one way or the other.
The present system has significant drawbacks, IMHO. I very strongly agree with Governor Kitzhaber that exclusion is fundamentally wrong. But I remain unconvinced that M65 would be a better system.
Given my druthers I'd have modified the existing system rather than dumping it. Let NAVs (and only NAVs) participate in any party's primary. Otherwise I'd leave the present system as is. Seems to me that this would both address the exclusion issue while at the same time preserving the party's right to choose it's own candidate however it wishes.
Posted by: rural resident | Oct 25, 2008 10:11:46 AM
M65 doesn't advance the interest of minor parties, and I don't see how it really helps members of those parties as individual citizens. Under the current system, smaller parties can effectively advance their candidates to the general election. (There are seldom competing candidates at the primary level in the Green Party, Libertarian Party, etc.)
That means that their candidates appear on the ballot at the time when people are focusing more of their attention on the candidates and issues. Excluding them in the general election (the usual result) isn't in their best interests, nor does it serve the interests of the general electorate well.
I hope the main goal of M65 isn't simply make the general election ballot tidier. Getting rid of the "clutter" (all of those minor party candidates) does reduce the number of things voters have to think about, but that's not necessarily in the best interests of democracy. I'm also bothered by the contention that, under M65, the winner will be that person with "majority" support. It doesn't. It only guarantees that, of those who choose to vote, one candidate will mathematically have at least 50.01% of the vote. But forcing people to hold their noses while voting for one of two bad alternatives -- or encouraging them not to cast a vote in certain races, which will surely result from limiting choices -- doesn't mean that the winner can claim a sort of mandate. Under the current system, if you dislike the D and R candidates, you can, in some cases, cast an otherwise meaningless protest vote by selecting a minor party candidate.
John Kitzhaber wrote:
When legislators are sent to Salem by the party members of their districts, rather than by all those who reside there, genuine interests go unrepresented and public trust in the legislature to represent its interests is diluted.
Wrong. Legislators aren't sent to Salem by the party members. They're advanced to the general election ballot by party members in those districts. They're only sent to Salem in an election the includes ALL registered voters in those districts.
This kind of muddleheaded thinking illustrates why I don't have much sympathy with the argument that "Independents" or "NAVs" suffer terrible injustices and are excluded from the primary process. They're making a conscious decision to lock themselves out. Most people know that by registering as an Independent, they won't be allowed to vote for candidates in the primaries. Since the purpose of primaries is to encourage parties to advance their best candidates to the general election, it makes sense that only party members should vote for their party's nominees.
Most NAVs are philosophically close to at least SOME party (even if it's not the two dominant ones). They're not going to be able to vote for BOTH the D and R nominees, so if they want to have a say in the process, they should register in that party for the primary. They don't have to change back right away, because party registration has little effect in the general election. Besides, it isn't that hard to re-register. Bill O'Reilly blathers at length about how he's an "Independent." Whatever his reason for so claiming (ego, commercial interest, self-delusion), he clearly isn't, and neither are most people who register this way.
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | Oct 25, 2008 10:32:40 AM
Rural Resident, you say:
- Wrong. Legislators aren't sent to Salem by the party members. They're advanced to the general election ballot by party members in those districts. They're only sent to Salem in an election the includes ALL registered voters in those districts.
I think you've missed the point. In general elections in East Portland, Democrats defeat Republicans with 75% of the vote and more. In Eastern Oregon, Democrats often don't even bother to run. These are not exceptional cases, but common outcomes; in 2006, half the legislative general elections were decided by over 60% of the vote, and a quarter were decided by over 70%. This cycle it looks to be even more lopsided, with 21 uncontested races in the House alone.
The meaningful decisions in these districts are made in the primary, when often a majority of voters in the district are excluded (anyone not registered with the majority party).
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Oct 25, 2008 10:38:46 AM
Generally, I am disinclined to post "THIS" type posts, since they really don't add anything. But rural resident really hit the nail on the head. This is perhaps the most muddle headed argument I've heard from Governor Kitzhaber, and his post clearly shows that he hasn't really thought all the implications of this law all the way through.
Posted by: rw | Oct 25, 2008 10:40:17 AM
All the years I lived in Oklahoma, I was denied the opportunity to vote in primaries, as I was not D or R. There never were any other options!
It was distressing to ultimately be "forced" into D party membership simply to gain access to the right to vote... in primaries.
However, the schisming of voter numbers across splintered possibilities can be a problem if you have a heavily-galvanized opposition that aggregates to fewer options.
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | Oct 25, 2008 10:44:58 AM
By the way, for anyone wanting to see the breakdown of 2006 or 2008 legislative races:
Posted by: rw | Oct 25, 2008 11:10:04 AM
And here, on NPR, an interactive map:
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/2008-election-map.html#/president-nprOvM/
Posted by: jeremyscorttrogers | Oct 25, 2008 11:17:24 AM
First of all, none of us should be here talking to each other on a Saturday before an election. We should be out talking to voters about electing progressive candidates and defeating regressive + passing progresive ballot measures. I'm about to head out. Defend Oregon is having a canvass, the Bus Project is heading out to help Jim Gilbert and there are lots of opportunities.
That being said, I think that folks should take a minute to stop thinking about mathematical "what ifs" and start thinking about what voters want. Up in Washington, 70% of voters in an independent poll said they loved the top two primary. An equal number said they hated the pick-a-party primary that I've seen folks here advocate for instead of the top-two.
While a small circle of us here on the blogs sit around and think about how elections could be rigged as if they occur in a vaccuum and as if candidates don't decide to run on their own and as if Republicans are so disciplined that they could control who runs in elections, all the rest of Oregon voters are out there thinking hell-i don't always agree with the Ds or the Rs, I don't like the fact that neither of them have the courage to challenge their interest group bases and I wish that I had more choices.
M65 is for those voters.
Thank you Dr. Kitzhaber for your post.
Posted by: rw | Oct 25, 2008 11:41:04 AM
hey there jeremy: i've a broken foot and a pretty bad flu. C'n I shake yer hand?
;)... point taken, if I can understand it.
Posted by: Sue Hagmeier | Oct 25, 2008 11:41:33 AM
Whatever you think about the good or bad effects this measure might have, it is all conjecture. We have seen arguments going both ways, for example, concerning its effects on minor parties, neither having solid evidence to offer. (My own take is that the opponents' arguments come closer to substantiation than the proponents, but that's me.)
This measure is a statewide experiment. While some of its features have been tried elsewhere, other significant details are entirely novel. Voting for this is taking a flyer based on the proponents' claims.
And you can't argue that instant runoff voting would be an improvement and also argue for this, as it actually moves us the other direction in terms of discerning the majority's preferences.
So, the proponents' argument comes down to: 1. We have a serious problem (arguable). 2. This measure would fix it (also arguable). We also have to worry about the possibility (probability?) that it could make matters worse. The answers to that question tend to beg it and recycle back to 1 and 2.
I just don't think the case has been made.
Posted by: rural resident | Oct 25, 2008 11:46:35 AM
Pete, I agree with you that many of our legislative races aren't very competitive. We either have incumbents who are so well regarded that nobody in either party feels it's worthwhile to run against them, or we have major parties that are so dominant that nobody from the oppositon party wants to take on the challenge.
How does M65 improve things? The best result you might get is to put up a sacrificial lamb who is a member of the same party, and then watch him get a small percentage of the vote. You still haven't changed the main dynamic of a one-sided election. In heavily Republican Eastern Oregon districts, for example, what are the Dems going to do -- try to upset the process by voting for a spoiler candidate. If there's a competitive race between two or more candidates of one party, the purpose of the primary is for that party to select their candidate. If "Independents" really care, they can temporarily change their registration.
The answer is to come up with a process that encourages a wide variety of qualified candidates to run so that there are choices in each race. Wouldn't it be better for the other parties to find such candidates, rather than limit choices in the general election? If we really want to improve the process and have better choices, let's do the following:
1) Make it less expensive and time-consuming to run, so more people -- with a wider variety of backgrounds -- can do so;
2) Understand the process better. The legislative process is complicated. Sometimes a "yes" vote on a bill doesn't mean approval, and a "no" vote doesn't mean that someone is against every facet of an issue. These ridiculous ads saying that "someone voted for a tax increase X number of times," for example, lead not only to legislators who are afraid of making decision, but also to people becoming disgusted with the process and not wanting to run for office;
3) Be less dogmatic. Yes, issues are important. But legislators considers lots of issues. Forcing someone to agree with you on every issue, or vote for your cause 100% of the time before you'll vote for them, discourages people from running; and
4) stop expecting our public officials to be perfect in every way. I don't care if Candidate X threw a water balloon at someone when they were in the second grade. Yes, character and competence matter. But what we want are good decision makers who carefully consider various points of view, treat others (including people in the opposing parties) with respect, and make the best judgments they can given the facts and time available. People have flaws. They have skeletons in their closets. Anyone who's been alive long enough to run for office has made a bad decision now and then. Unless it's really major, get over it. Look how annoyed most of us at BO are over the kerfuffle over the Obama-Ayers thing -- and with good reason.
M65 doesn't do anything to change the fundamental flaws of the system, and limiting choices in the general election isn't an improvement. We can come up with a less superficial solution.
Posted by: bird | Oct 25, 2008 11:52:58 AM
If this measure prevents there being but 2 candidates on the ballot, it is unconstitutional and our courts will eliminate it. I am deeply concerned because the measure appears to remove a third or fourth candidate from consideration.
For those of us independents that do not always believe there is a democrat or a gop candidate worthy of our vote, our choices have been taken from us. How do you justify disenfranchising us with a simple stroke? This is not the sort of thing I could imagine of a truly democratic society. I usually vote for democrats, but I would prefer a green party victory in many cases over someone entrenched in the politics of party. Party members do not change their stripes and are beholding to their backers. This places undue burden on other office seekers. ( I am not speaking of the governor, as he is one politician that I have deep respect for)
As long as we have 2 parties, we will have ultimate corruption. When we have parties that actually serve the interests of the people that vote, we will have considerations for others points of view.
I bring as an example, the fact that neither presidential candidate will speak of issues that are of extreme importance to the people of this country. No talk about the war, about infrastructure, of education, of medical coverage for all by our government, of safe food and water, or even the following of the rule of law as set forth in our constitution. And strangely, no talk about how to fix the economic disaster that is looting our treasury to pay bankers big dividends on their mistakes, and even perhaps RICO based conspiracy. I watched with awe as numerous democrats voted to commit treason on the floor of the senate by voting to abandon our constitution due to what can only guessed at as morbid fear. They voted to suspend habeas corpus when there is no war or other rational reason. No one talked about their violating their oath of office in all this time. Just sort of ignored it.
Alas, if you vote to limit democracy, you get what you pay for. And you will pay for it as ever more of these "rights" are eroded, and ignored, and crushed under foot.
I am ashamed to have to be a part of such a discussion in a country where democracy is supposed to be protected by a republican form of government. When our elected officials suggest we abandon our rights, we should all be deeply concerned. The 2 party system is what got us to this point. It has clearly failed in all respects. It deserves no trust.
Vote no, protect your children if not yourself.
Posted by: Joel H | Oct 25, 2008 12:24:16 PM
This morning, I compared perceived corruption in countries (from Transparency Interational) with their election methods for the head of state, which I got mostly from Wikipedia. I was surprised to find that runoff methods such as M. 65 were associated with governments with approximately the same average corruption perception as First Past The Post systems, which is what we use now. These had average scores of 3.47 and 3.44 respectively, which is about the level associated with Brazil, Mexico, China and India. However, (and what was not surprising) the systems I grouped together as "parliamentary" (where the head of state is elected by, and responsible to, the legislature) had average scores of 5.06, about the level of South Africa, Italy, and Costa Rica.
I don't know what this means, except that most world governments outside Europe are perceived as completely corrupt. But would Oregon consider a parliamentary election of the governor?
Posted by: cecil | Oct 25, 2008 12:29:26 PM
Overpopulation by high birth rate poor people will send not only this state into ruin, but the USA will not be recognizable in the second half of the 21st century. "Progressives" are simply utopianists. They are the reincarnation of the San Francisco "Diggers" from the late '60s. Only it is taking them longer to realize a failed dream. But the pending scale of failure will be irreversible. You will not be able to call off the party and send everybody home like the Diggers did when the dream failed. The poor will be here and they will stay here and there will be nothing you can do about it. They will only increase in higher rates. In the coming years you misguided dummies will realize that, but it will be far too late.
Posted by: Joel H | Oct 25, 2008 12:51:15 PM
Actually, the answer to that is so obvious I'm embarrassed to have asked it. It would be perceived as undemocratic.
Here's my spreadsheet (I've made a couple revisions): http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=peYcAWBxHC4kkWgoHCOBaLA
Posted by: Joel H | Oct 25, 2008 1:02:45 PM
Cecil: It occurred to me yesterday that, going by the McCain campaign's idea of "Real Americans" -- that is, people with rural, country, religious, close family values, who drive pickups and care about tradition, Mexico is way more American than the United States. Your thoughts?
Disclaimer: I also drive a pickup, but it wasn't made in Mexico.
Posted by: rw | Oct 25, 2008 1:49:07 PM
So today I voted. And I'm disappointed to find that nearly every single race in WA county has nobody to vote for but an incumbent, or a single person.
THere has to be a better way. There just has to.
Campaign finance reform is, effectively, sitting in the electric chair with the juice heading this way as of this election.
How is there any hope of lively and fruitful local-level elections in this climate?
Posted by: cecilo | Oct 25, 2008 1:49:39 PM
McCain campaign's idea of "Real Americans" -- that is, people with rural, country, religious, close family values, who drive pickups and care about tradition, Mexico is way more American than the United States. Your thoughts?>>>
Some of that is true, but the traditions, and therefore cultures, are different and have been tested long enough thus far to conclude there are growing signs of Balkanization, the strength of which is headed into uncharted territory. What then? Mexico is not America. At the time we first trekked cross this continent we were also poor, but we had something then that we do not have now. Free land. You cannot get 320- 640 acres for free anymore. There are no more gold, copper, and silver mines to lift us out of poverty. Too many poor give up now, and when there are too many suffering poor, the party will be over. And that is exactly where we are headed.
Posted by: LT | Oct 25, 2008 1:50:20 PM
Thank you Dr. John!
I believe that we have a healthier democracy when there are debates among party members rather than just the "Team D vs. Team R" stuff we've seen in recent years. Sen. President and then Gov. Kitzhaber was involved in some of those issue debates inside the Democratic Party. I was on his side of most of those debates.
Pete F., the interesting thing about the 5th District is what would have happened if there had been a single ballot when Jackie Winters ran against Zupancic for the chance to take on Darlene Hooley.
Zupancic ran an intellectually empty campaign--he hated her voting record, and she was "too old" (obviously he hadn't tried to keep up with her hectic schedule or he wouldn't have said that).
Suppose the primary ballot for 5th District had said, in alphabetical order,
Hooley
Winters
Zupancic
Zupancic might have won the nomination the year he ran against Jackie Winters, but he failed to carry Marion County in either the primary or the general. Perhaps the top 2 under this scenario might have been Hooley and Winters. In that case, a general election between 2 women former legislators might have been more intelligent than what we got with Zupancic vs. Hooley.
And here's where IRV runs into a problem in my mind. There are folks in Marion County who regard Zupancic as "the man who attacked Jackie" and know both Winters and Hooley as hard working legislators who made an impression on the people who met them.
Exactly why would IRV have been a better situation than One Ballot in the above scenario? Esp. among those who say "I respect (Darlene/ Jackie) but I would never want to vote for her"?
I hope Rep. Barnhart sponsors IRV legislation in the next session and there are lots of public hearings. That way we could hear more detail than "IRV is better than Measure 65" as we often read here.
Why? My impression of the IRV advocates here is that their answer is "because we said so, that's why".
Anyone who ever worked in sales knows that is no way to sell anything, esp. an idea or a proposed change to a current system.
Posted by: k | Oct 25, 2008 2:07:40 PM
"So, the proponents' argument comes down to: 1. We have a serious problem (arguable). 2. This measure would fix it (also arguable). We also have to worry about the possibility (probability?) that it could make matters worse. The answers to that question tend to beg it and recycle back to 1 and 2."
Sue - Let me offer the other side to your arguement.
So, the opponents' argument comes down to: 1. We don't have a problem even though 25% of Oregon's voters have NO say in the primary (false). 2. This measure would destroy democracy (since when does allowing MORE voters to participate destroy democracy?). The sky hasn't yet fallen in those states that do have open primaries which begs the question, WHY are certain organizations so fearful of it? Perhaps the answer is that despite claims, they don't really want everyone to vote, they want everyone to belong to a party and stick to that party line.
Seriously, the comments I am reading smack of the same type of fear-mongering and paranoia that the Rs, specifically the Christian Conservatives, try to induce in regards to electing a D for POTUS.
Posted by: LT | Oct 25, 2008 2:51:30 PM
Thanks, k.
What the opposition reminds me of is when the Measure 9 campaign finance reform landed on the ballot -- the opinion of "professionals" (lobbyists and others invested in the status quo) was that it didn't have a chance.
It got on the ballot with signatures in all 36 counties, but there were legislators who didn't want it to pass and were thrilled when it was overthrown by the Supreme Court. They liked the status quo, whether voters supported it or not.
What I believe is happening with M.65 is what sometimes happens when there is a political establishment which is convinced only they have the revealed truth.
40 years ago, in 1968, lots of those "always done it that way" ideas were challenged, which is why it was seen as such a revolutionary year.
Challenging orthodoxy is happening this year when Republicans, absolutely sure they spoke for anyone who mattered, are having their heads handed to them if polls are anywhere near accurate.
It happened in the primary of 1984 when the "good old boys and girls club", otherwise known as the Oregon Democratic Party establishment, supported Mondale and then Hart + Jackson won something close to 70% of the Democratic vote in that primary.
This measure challenges orthodoxy by saying people who don't make the effort to register with a party to vote in a primary and then re-register NAV after the primary if they so choose should have a role in choosing nominees.
As I understand it, there are states which require parties holding primaries to fund those primaries themselves.
Now that over 20% of Oregonians don't register with major parties, why should those voters be required to fund those closed primaries with their tax dollars?
"But we've always done it that way" is not an answer.
When Dr. Kitzhaber was Sen. President and then Gov., he did not strictly follow orthodoxy. That is why some of us were such fans of him.
Posted by: Bill R. | Oct 25, 2008 3:03:53 PM
One premise of those who support this measure is that it will drive wingnut extremists out of business in Oregon. If that were so, I would be be an enthusiastic supporter of M65. I'm just wondering if it is so. Would a new generation of that extinct species, the moderate Republican, burst onto the scene? A new generation in the mode of Norma Paulus, Dave Frohenmayer, or even a Tom McCall? Would the Republican Party join the reality based community? Would the militant fundies be cast into the outer darkness, where there is the weeping and gnashing of teeth? :-)
Posted by: Sue Hagmeier | Oct 25, 2008 3:14:53 PM
k:
I've seen a lot of well reasoned arguments against it, and the "fearful" claim is offensive. There's plenty of "fear-mongering" on the pro side of this measure, including the ones such as yours that impute dire ulterior motives to those who oppose it. To ask "why are certain organizations so fearful of it?" is to mock the motives of those organizations. I stand by the questions I asked, which did not reference the motives of the proponents, despite my curiosity.
I hope you can see the logical fallacy here: If you don't like this proposal, you must fear change. It's not an answer, it's a dodge.
I've posted repeatedly on this subject, citing, among other things, electoral theory put forward by Kenneth Arrow, 1972 Nobel Laureate in Economics. There is good electoral theory to support the idea that this scheme would lead to reduced confidence that the majority's will is expressed in the final outcome under several likely scenarios.
As I said, the case just has not been made for this complete and experimental overhaul of the electoral system. Given the extent of the change proposed, there should be a lot more evidence that it leads to improvement of some kind. We have only the proponents' assertions on that score.
I'll also point out, once again, that "saying no to the primary" is not the same as being disenfranchised. Everybody has an opportunity to opt in or out of any primary or other nominating process of a party. Registration is just the first step in the nominating process. And saying that this scheme leads to greater turnout is just a claim. There is no evidence connecting this cause to that effect.
Posted by: KC Hanson | Oct 25, 2008 3:28:50 PM
LT says:
"I believe that we have a healthier democracy when there are debates among party members rather than just the "Team D vs. Team R" stuff we've seen in recent years."
Problem is that while LT argues FOR M65,the debates between Party Members will be reduced under M65, at least any debates voters are privy to. Anyone who thinks there won't be enormous pressure from parties and from wealthy sources to limit candidacies PRIOR to the filing deadline is fooling themselves.
The upshot is this: there are a myriad of scenarios that could play out, and not even the proponents of this measure have a firm take on how it will transform our election system.
I chose to become a Democrat long ago; I consciously remain a Democrat in order to move a more progressive agenda from within the Party.
Every registered voter has made a personal choice as to their alignment.
M65 throws this into a disarray. With passage of M65, either I will have to play a strategic game, anticipating the vote of the Republican voter in order to be sure a Dem advances to the final round or I will have no choice at all since the most favored Democratic candidate has already been pre-selected and other Democratic candidates have been dissuaded from running.
Either way, I'll have less choice as a voter.
Minor parties may be split on the possible ramifications of this measure, but you can be sure of one thing: while the field may be wide open to voters, the choices will be limited, the discourse will be narrowed, and the top candidates' best friend will be the cash that they will desperately need in order to contend.
I'm sure Loren Parks would appreciate our passage of M65.
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 25, 2008 3:29:42 PM
One premise of those who support this measure is that it will drive wingnut extremists out of business in Oregon.
The implications of such a premise are deeply disturbing in light of the cosmic reality that what goes around comes around. Would progressives like Republicans trying to engineer internal Democratic party dynamics? I can guarantee that the vast bulk of wingnuts don't see themselves as extremists but do see progressives as extremists.
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Oct 25, 2008 3:33:07 PM
k, LT:
1) We don't have a problem because the 20% (not 25%) who have "no say" in a party's nomination do so by their own free will.
2) The phrase "destroy democracy" didn't come up about this measure until "K" mentioned it. Clearly you hope to delegitimize opposition to this measure by lying about people with whom you disagree. I think this says far more about you than it does your opponents.
3) What opponents of this measure do, legitimately, argue, is that it leads to pathological electoral results. We've given specific examples from history, which you refuse to acknowledge because you assert that Oregon is supposedly an exceptional place where the normal rules of politics don't apply (and you provide absolutely no evidence for this dubious assertion). This appeal to arrogance (bash the French) is not convincing.
4) You also seem to think the onus is on the opposition to prove that this dangerous, stupid, system, is dangerous and stupid. You're wrong. The onus is on you to show how this system is actually better, which is something you have failed to even mention, much less argue.
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Oct 25, 2008 3:33:42 PM
k, LT:
1) We don't have a problem because the 20% (not 25%) who have "no say" in a party's nomination do so by their own free will.
2) The phrase "destroy democracy" didn't come up about this measure until "K" mentioned it. Clearly you hope to delegitimize opposition to this measure by lying about people with whom you disagree. I think this says far more about you than it does your opponents.
3) What opponents of this measure do, legitimately, argue, is that it leads to pathological electoral results. We've given specific examples from history, which you refuse to acknowledge because you assert that Oregon is supposedly an exceptional place where the normal rules of politics don't apply (and you provide absolutely no evidence for this dubious assertion). This appeal to arrogance (bash the French) is not convincing.
4) You also seem to think the onus is on the opposition to prove that this dangerous, stupid, system, is dangerous and stupid. You're wrong. The onus is on you to show how this system is actually better, which is something you have failed to even mention, much less argue.
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 25, 2008 3:41:29 PM
Sue,
I largely agree with what you've been saying here, but there is one fundamental point of disagreement which I believe is very important.
It's true that "everybody has an opportunity to opt in or out of any primary or other nominating process of a party." But nobody has any opportunity to opt in or out of the tax dollars which pay for the party selection process.
I don't see a meaningful difference between an "they can opt in" hurdle and other means of restricting who can participate in public elections (birth certificates, poll taxes, etc).
A hurdle is a hurdle. If the parties want to restrict who can participate in their internal selection process then it seems to me that they are perfectly free to pay for their own selection processes.
Posted by: Dan Meek | Oct 25, 2008 3:55:47 PM
k says: "Currently 25% of Oregon's voters have no say in who ends up in the final election. Personally, I find that incredibly UN-democratic."
This is wrong for many reasons. First, as others have noted, any registered voter can join a party and vote in its primary. Second, as no one has mentioned, any voter can join a minor party and have very great influence on the party's nominations merely by participating in party processes. M 65 abolishes that route to the general election.
Third, as no one has mentioned, anyone can collect about 18,500 signatures statewide and put a candidate on the ballot for any statewide office. For a legislative district, the signature requirement is only about 300 for a House district and 600 for a Senate district. Under existing law, your rights as a voter includes the right to sign a petition to nominate your own candidate to the general election. M 65 abolishes that right completely.
Posted by: Dan Meek | Oct 25, 2008 4:05:13 PM
Sorry, but every new post on M 65 needs a reprint of the expanded version of my op-ed from the Oregonian (for those new to the conversation):
Measure 65 will destroy most of Oregon's minor political parties, reduce voter choices, confuse the ballots, reward dirty politicking, and fail to achieve the stated purpose of its sponsors: to elect more moderate candidates to partisan offices.
Measure 65 Destroys Most Minor Parties
Today, Oregon's six minor parties can provide good alternatives to Democratic and Republican candidates in the general election. But Measure 65, the "top two primary" on the November ballot, effectively abolishes the Pacific Green, Constitution, Working Families, and Peace parties by removing their legal basis (getting 1% of the vote in the previous statewide general election). Under Measure 65, these 4 minor parties will cease to exist as of November 2010. Each can continue to exist after that only if it has increased its registered membership to about 10,500 ( ½ of 1% of all Oregon registered voters). The Constitution and Working families would need to increase their memberships by a factor of 4 or 5. The Peace Party would need to increase by a factor of 100. The Pacific Green Party would need a 25% expansion of membership.
Measure 65 is intended by its sponsors to remove all minor-party and citizen-sponsored candidates from the general election ballot, including those supported by tens of thousands of voter signatures.
Remaining Parties Subject to Identify Theft
Under Measure 65, any resident can register as, say, a Democrat (up to the 70th day before the primary election) and immediately file as a candidate, with "Registered: Democratic" next to his name on the ballot. That person might be a Nazi, a Communist, a convicted child molester, you name it. Any political party can have its identity stolen in this way by complete strangers who suddenly take the party's name on the primary ballot.
Measure 65 will thus force minor parties to endorse candidates they don't agree with, just to oppose the strangers on the ballot suddenly displaying their party names. Minor parties currently don't field candidates for every partisan office, rarely nominating more than a few candidates for the 75 races for the Oregon Legislature, for example. To avoid having their party labels hijacked by strangers, each minor party will be forced to endorse major-party candidates in those races, even if they differ with the minor party on the issues. This will further erode the identity of each minor party, which is usually based on a coherent, but not “mainstream,” political philosophy.
Each major or minor party will fight the resulting confusion by endorsing a candidate in each race, since Measure 65 also allows party endorsements to appear on the ballot. No party would want to endorse more than one candidate per race, as that would split the votes of the party faithful and harm its endorsed candidates' chances to finish in the "top two" and advance to the general election. If voters were to follow these party endorsements, Measure 65 will, in effect, replace the major-party primaries with backroom endorsement deals.
The "Ringer" Primary
Under Measure 65, primary elections could become a game of "ringers," with political consultants recruiting candidates just to split the votes of the other parties. Republican consultants could recruit people to register and file as "Democratic" candidates, splitting the Democratic vote. Democrats could recruit phony "Republicans." Both of them could recruit phony "Independents" and phony "Libertarians," further increasing the party identity theft.
Expect a confusing ballot, with a dozen or more candidates for each major office who are "Registered" and/or "Endorsed" the surviving parties. In primary elections since 1979 in Louisiana, the only state where the Measure 65 system has operated for a full election cycle, there have been nine, nine, eight, 12, 16, 11, 17, and 12 candidates on the ballot for governor alone.
Not Necessarily Advance Moderate Candidates
Measure 65 will not necessarily achieve the stated goal of its supporters--to advance moderate candidates to the general election. In Louisiana, it has advanced extremists, as the moderate vote is split among several moderate candidates in the primary. Ku Klux Clan leader David Duke has twice advanced to the statewide Louisiana general election. Of the 16 candidates for Governor in 1995, the top two (with 26% and 19% of the vote in the primary) were the two considered most extreme by conventional political observers. The organization FairVote states:
A Republican state legislator, Duke ran a strong second in the 1990 U.S. Senate election and gained a spot in the runoff election in the governor's race in 1991. In that 1991 runoff, he faced Edwin Edwards, a former governor with a history of suspected corruption. Indicating the polarized nature of the choice between Duke and Edwards, a popular bumper sticker in favor of Edwards was: "Vote the Crook: It's Important."In the 1995 governor's race, sixteen candidates ran in the opening round, including four major candidates who ultimately won at least 18% of the vote. The two most ideologically extreme major candidates were Mike Foster, a conservative Republican who earned Pat Buchanan's endorsement and inherited much of David Duke's constituency, and Cleo Fields. a leading liberal Democrat in the Congressional Black Caucus. They advanced to the runoff election with a combined vote of only 45% of votes casts, with the more centrist vote split among other candidates. Foster ultimately was elected in the runoff election.
A Louisiana-style nonpartisan primary easily can produce these kind of results because in a large field of candidates, the top two vote-getters can have relatively few votes. In a multi-candidate field, this rule tends to favor non-moderate candidates with the strongest core support that can be narrow rather than broad.
Former Governor Edwards is currently serving a 10-year prison sentence for corruption.
For more reading on this subject, see:
http://www.nwprogressive.org/Special/Primary/
http://southerncrown.blogspot.com/2005/09/should-mississippi-change-its-primary.html
http://southerncrown.blogspot.com/2004/10/will-washington-and-california-cross.html
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/louisiana.htm
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Oct 25, 2008 4:12:28 PM
People like to bring up the cost, but the fact is that ballots would have to be printed and elections held even if we completely removed the partisan primaries from the election and made the parties handle their nomination process.
There are a number of non-partisan elections that happen in May every 2 years, not to mention president.
What would the effect of moving them off the ballot? You'd see much, much lower turnout in the May elections (which is an even bigger problem if the double majority item doesn't pass).
Plus, you'd have a much smaller population of people picking who the nominee for each party. For instance, in Multnomah County it could be a few hundred to maybe a thousand or two, as opposed to 85,000+.
There are plenty of problems with our current system, but M65 does nothing but bring in more problems. There are other solutions that are much better than this - and yes, I have been actively lobbying for some of those changes.
I just have a real hard time believing that the parties aren't going to do everything they can to limit the number of candidates on the May ballot. And once that happens, people will have even less choices than they do now.
Posted by: Dan Meek | Oct 25, 2008 4:23:34 PM
Particularly interesting is that some prominent Democrats support M 65, when I think it will hurt the D party most of all. Governor Arnold in California apparently agrees, as he is now puhing a nearly identical top-two primary proposal for 2010. See http://www.politickerca.com/node/See
How does it hurt Democrats the most? It degrades the value of "Democrat" on the ballot by allowing an unlimited number of candidates, including ringers (see my above long post), to display that label next to their names on the ballot. Voters now see "Democrat" only on the general election ballot and know that the person has been nominated via the primary election by members of the party. This is extremely valuable to the Democratic candidate, who is quite likely to be outspent by the R in any serious race. (For example, Governor Kulongoski was outspent by Ron Saxton by $9 million to $6 million.) Under M 65, any number of strangers can appear on the primary ballot with "Democrat" next to their names. Even worse, the label "Democrat" on the general election ballot will have far less significance, because that candidate will have been placed on the general election ballot not by "Democrats" but by the electorate as a whole. Does that candidate really have Democratic values and support the Democratic position on issues? Voters will not be able to know that, under Measure 65.
By devaluaing the label "Democrat" on both the primary and general election ballots, M 65 will greatly advantage Republicans, in my view. Maybe that is why it is Gov. Arnold's new project.
Posted by: Dan Meek | Oct 25, 2008 4:25:51 PM
In the above post, the link to Politicker did not work. Here is it: http://www.politickerca.com/node/2889
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Oct 25, 2008 4:59:00 PM
What would the effect of moving them off the ballot? You'd see much, much lower turnout in the May elections (which is an even bigger problem if the double majority item doesn't pass).
That's a false concern. Non-partisan ballots would be printed the same way that they are today. Under Measure 65, every Oregonian will receive the same ballot in both the primary and in the general election.
Election costs will go down under this measure, if the county clerks are to be believed.
Dan's suggestions about hijacking are equally applicable to current partisan primaries, and the notion of "ringers" is just not born out by Oregon's experience in non-partisan races.
What we saw in Portland and Eugene in the Mayoral races were a whole lot of candidates filed, and just a couple of credible candidates picking up the majority of votes.
At the end of the day, Dr. Kitzhaber pointed out the best reasons to vote for this measure in that it will to allow the 400,000 Oregonians who currently have no say in who appears on the general election ballot in Oregon's biggest races to have a say, and to ensure that there are fewer non-contested races in November. Parties will still have control their process of endorsement, they simply will no longer dominate Oregon's nominating process.
Posted by: Lou | Oct 25, 2008 6:25:32 PM
Whatever we do-- please let's maintain the status quo. I mean the two party system is so functional and predicatable. What's the problem? Measure 65 may not be the Anti-Christ, but it truly frightens me. Afer all, what could come next if it passed. This is not what our founding fathers imagined.
I have complete certainty that somewhere in the Federalist Papers there was an article about the Rights of Democracies to Independent Expenditure Campaigns---I think it was the last paper, in fact, it was written prior to Hamilton losing his last stand and was published postumously in the New York Post. I almost lose my breath imagining what a post Measure 65 world could mean for our democracy. Imagine the reality of denying free speech to the 3 or 4 people who get to sit around the table with millions of dollars of other peoples' money. Unbelievable!
There are religions based on things that were found buried in New York. These religions have nothing on the secret messages that were left buried for Chuck Schumer by our founding fathers. Measure 65 is true heresy and would lead us farther and farther away from the divine and enlightened path that the one and holy Democratic Party has established for us. All Hail Chuck! Vote No on 65.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Oct 25, 2008 7:35:57 PM
Sal:
You obviously didn't read my entire posting. I was responding to the person who said it wasn't fair for everyone to have to pay for partisan primaries. So I was talking about what would happen if we pull the partisan primaries entirely off the May ballot.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Oct 25, 2008 8:35:57 PM
Jenni, my point is simply that you have raised a false dilemma. The way to create equity in the system is to allow every voter to participate in elections for legislative and statewide office. There is no reason for private organizations to control the state's nominating process, and have that process paid for by the public dime.
And again, though it may be true that fewer people will participate in the Democratic or Republican endorsement process, it is not the case that fewer people will be selecting candidates who move on to the general election. If Paul G's assumption that there would be an increase in 3-5% of NAV's voting (Keisling and Paulus who have more experience with Oregon elections think it will be higher), we'd have an additional 150,000 people voting in primary elections that they are currently locked out of.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Oct 25, 2008 9:06:15 PM
No, I didn't raise a false dilemma. I was answering a concern someone brought up. A poster said it wasn't fair for everyone to pay for the party's nomination process. So I talked about what would happen if we took the system we have right now and removed the partisan primary (so taxpayers would no longer be paying for it). Then that partisan nomination process would be controlled by the parties, through whatever process they wanted to use.
The May primary would then only include the non-partisan races, ballot measures, levies, etc.
So you'd have a small number of people choosing who the Dem and who the Republican would be - which is much, much worse than what we have now. Those two candidates (one from each party) would then be on the general ballot.
By removing the races that bring out the greatest turnout, you'd see a much lower turnout in the May primary.
I want to see the most people possible voting in those nominations (which is why I would support opening up partisan primaries to NAV), but at the same time a Party should be able to choose who is allowed to nominate the person who will represent their Party.
But back to M65 - it has multiple major problems, including how it handles legislative vacancies, candidate vacancies, and PCP elections.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Bill R. | Oct 25, 2008 6:56:08 AM
Dr. Gov. John,
Thanks for weighing in. Your opinion will always have merit for me. I voted against this but believe it will probably pass. So I hope that your valuation of this measure proves to be true. We are likely to have the chance to test it out.