Keisling: Scrap the partisan primary
Kari Chisholm
Former Oregon Secretary of State Phil Keisling had an op-ed in Sunday's New York Times. He's continuing his campaign for open primaries:
Want to get serious about reducing the toxic levels of hyper-partisanship and legislative dysfunction now gripping American politics? Here’s a direct, simple fix: abolish party primary elections. ...States should scrap this anachronistic system and replace it with a “fully open/top two” primary. All candidates would run in a first round, “qualifying” election, with the top two finalists earning the chance to compete head-to-head in November. Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, Tea-Partiers, even “None of the Above’s” could all run in the first round. Voters would certainly know candidates’ party affiliations, but no political party would automatically be entitled to a spot on the November ballot.
This would create far more races that were truly competitive, especially across the vast majority of lopsided districts where winning the party primary essentially guarantees election. In those districts, both finalists might be from the same party, but there could be genuine differences between the two that would give voters a meaningful choice.
Of course, it’s likely that the finalists of most qualifying elections would still be a Democrat and a Republican. But these candidates often would be (or, at least, act) different than those produced by partisan primaries. Gone would be the ideological purity tests of primaries, which more and more punish the Republican concerned with global warming or the Democrat wrestling with eye-popping budget deficits. Candidates wouldn’t have to practice the dark arts of the “message zigzag,” securing the base then feinting to the center. A system without partisan primaries would reward candidates who work, from Day 1, to appeal openly and forthrightly to the broadest group of voters.
(Hat tip to Jack Bogdanski.) Discuss.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Mar 22, '10
This is a great idea!
My favorite example is House Dist. 25. In 2004, the ballot would have been Backlund, Pike, Thatcher (2 R, one D--listed there in alphabetical order) and this year it would be the incumbent Thatcher and one of each party: Heuer and Dyer.
Think of the possible combinations!
There are around 7800 people in that district not registered with major parties.
Now the 2nd question---does someone have to be registered with a major party to vote in this open primary?
If so, those 7800 folks not registered with a major party would still have the option they have now: register with the major party whose primary they want to vote in and then after the primary, re-register back NAV small party, etc.
Mar 22, '10
I, too, like the idea. But I don't believe it has a snowball's hell in chance of every becoming reality.
"Gone would be the ideological purity tests of primaries, which more and more punish the Republican concerned with global warming or the Democrat wrestling with eye-popping budget deficits."
This mentality has too much of a stronghold in both parties.
4:14 p.m.
Mar 22, '10
There are problems with this scheme that have nothing to do with ideological purity. The lack of evidence that this would address the problems identified to justify it has never been addressed. Also, it's getting ever harder to pretend that "partisanship" cuts equally both directions.
Mar 22, '10
Amendment 1 to the Constitution states (in part): "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Since that same Constitution sets up a representational form of democratic government, I have the right to join a political party that will choose a representative to plead our common concerns with the government. No one has the right to take away the ability of my group to choose its own candidates for office.
If you don't like how a party gets on the ballot, then form your own party or don't join one. You (I mean you Phil Keisling) don't have the right to dissolve a party you don't like. It's in the Constitution, dammit!
Mar 22, '10
I agree with LT that this might have saved Vic Backlund. But here's a practical problem: Suppose there are 2 equally matched Republicans one one side, and 3 equally matched Democrats on the other, in an evenly divided district. The two Republicans get 25% apiece; the Dems get 20-15-15. You wind up with 2 Republicans on the fall ballot because there were more Democrats on the ballot. Could work the same the other way, of course. It wouldn't happen very often, but I don't see why it would happen any less often that some saintly moderate (such as Backlund whom I really do like) winning, instead of an evil partisan, because of the change.
Mar 22, '10
Thanks, Steve.
But another question:
What if there were either an attempt to register those who aren't registered in a major party to vote in party primaries? In those districts with several thousand not in major parties, that could make a difference.
Or more radical---the M. 65 route, nonpartisan elections.
Outside the Portland metro area, how often are there more than 2 candidates in each party?
I believe the last time there was a large number of candidates in a Marion County legislative primary, it boiled down to one union backing one candidate, another union backing another candidate, and the rest being forgotten.
Mar 22, '10
Gone would be the ideological purity tests of primaries, which more and more punish [snip] Democrat wrestling with eye-popping budget deficits.
Say what? DEMOCRATS aren't averse to raising taxes or passing pay-as-you-go rules. And Democratic primary voters aren't about to punish a Democrat who talks about the need for higher taxes, restraint in spending, cutting the military budget, or even entitlement reform (since it's almost a given that a Democrat who talks about reforming Social Security is actually interested in saving the program instead of gutting it). Take a look at the "eye-popping deficits" of the past decade, and look which party was responsible for the tax cuts, wars, and massive unfunded entitlement programs that produced them. And then look at which party (mostly) opposed the reckless spending and dared to ask "how are we going to pay for this?"
I'm not sure which critical national issues are so toxic in a Democratic primary that you'll get tossed on your ear for offering ANY responsible solution, but "fiscal responsibility" certainly isn't one of them.
6:53 p.m.
Mar 22, '10
I can't imagine how this reduces "hyperpartisanship." Are Washington state's politics all lovey-dovey now? Don't seem so.
6:54 p.m.
Mar 22, '10
For the open primary to work, all voters would have to be eligible to vote for any candidate in the open primary, regardless of their party registration or lack thereof.
While political parties have a constitutional right to choose their own members and representatives if they wish, they do not have a constitutional right to use the taxpayer financed election process to facilitate these elections.
If they want to have closed elections where only registered members can vote to see who will represent them on the November ballot, then they can have caucuses open to registered members only.
But if they want to have open primaries funded by the state, then they would have to open them up to all voters. With an open primary, with multiple Democrats, Republicans, Greens, and Libertarians, etc, on the same ballot, you would still have most voters registered or sympathetic to each party voting among the candidates who seek to be affiliated with each party.
One problem with the open primary is that it would become a lot harder for third parties to maintain their ballot status. Currently, they have to get at least 1% of the vote in a statewide general election in order to maintain their ballot access, and place on voter registration cards. But under an open primary, they would be much less likely to have a candidate break through to the general election in a statewide race.
So in order to be fair to Greens and Libertarians and other third parties, the law should also be changed so they no longer would have to get at least 1% of the vote in a statewide general election. Instead, they should have to get a certain minimum percentage of the vote in any statewide open primary election.
With this change, I would think third party advocates should support the open primary idea.
7:06 p.m.
Mar 22, '10
Adam, that's exactly how the "open primary" would have worked. Anyone could vote for anybody on the ballot. The 1 percent thing is completely at odds with any democratic ideal. If you can vote for anybody, the minor parties don't have a right to special dispensation, because that gives minor parties two bites at the apple while major parties get only one. Minor parties have become major parties before, but the current ones have little chance, because they don't have an interest in appealing to a broad section of the electorate. If you want minor party representation, than we have to go to a proportional representation model.
Mar 22, '10
"If you want minor party representation, than we have to go to a proportional representation model. "
There are voters who choose among candidates, not among parties.
In a legislative election, the guy down the street may appeal to his neighbors as a good person. Or maybe "I knew ____ years ago, and I'll vote for someone else".
But as I understand proportional representation, it elects slates---Rs get this many, Ds get these many, etc., kind of like delegate selection in presidential years if I understand it correctly.
But what about the people who register outside of major parties because they don't agree with the "my caucus right or wrong" approach which they see as too powerful these days?
No change ever happens unless it can be explained to the Rotary, or City Club, or women's group, or the folks in the church basement, or whatever.
Open primary is a simple enough concept that people can either accept or reject.
And I suspect there is considerable sentiment among the folks who are not strong partisans with this statement,
"If they want to have closed elections where only registered members can vote to see who will represent them on the November ballot, then they can have caucuses open to registered members only. "
I'm the grandchild of someone who was nominated for statewide office in Michigan by a state party convention in the 1930s. He and his WWI buddies were tired of the local political machine--certainly not what they had fought for.
They got into a battle in the county party where an equal number of votes for permanent chair of the meeting went to both candidates, there was a near riot, and competing slates of delegates were sent to the state convention for their credentials committee straighten out. (Inheriting newspaper clippings is a great way to learn history!)
There is no guarantee that a proportional representation system would not be just as likely to run into problems as that system in Michigan in the 1930s (within years, Michigan had gone to a primary system).
I understand there are people who like the status quo.
But there were over 500,000 people who voted for Measure 65 (even though it lost) and there are several thousand people registered outside major parties in most state rep. districts.
It is time to have this debate.
8:57 p.m.
Mar 22, '10
I think it's interesting that people on right who don't like our electoral system try to change it to limit tax policy, and people on the left who don't like our electoral system try to change it with new ways to elect people.
I'd like to think that I'm fairly up on different electoral systems, and I think that each has advantages and disadvantages. But until the voters think that a new system will improve their representation, they will stick with the devil they know. That's why the "open primary" effort failed in 2006, and that's why it, and all the other systems, are more likely to remain theories in Oregon.
Mar 22, '10
I don't want candidates who have to be all things to all people. I want people with principles and passion. I think this idea is awful, as I have every time he's brought it up.
9:21 p.m.
Mar 22, '10
In general, I believe that more people voting and having more choices are good for democracy.
Consequently, I supported the concept at first.
I have since become convinced that there are alternative proposals that do a better job of expanding democracy without the negative effects that an open primary produces.
In particular, I believe we should have true fusion ballots and instant-runoff voting.
Certainly, we should move to IRV in nonpartisan races. It makes no sense, for example, that the Multnomah County District 2 race should have a primary that advances two of the eight candidates to a general election perhaps with as little as 15% pluralities.
Mar 22, '10
"Certainly, we should move to IRV in nonpartisan races. It makes no sense, for example, that the Multnomah County District 2 race should have a primary that advances two of the eight candidates to a general election perhaps with as little as 15% pluralities. "
If you firmly believe that, launch a grass roots campaign to get the idea discussed. It doesn't require a budget, a campaign manager, etc. to start a discussion. Have it added to the program at a Democratic group. Or a Bus Project event. Or a business group (in Portland, is there a social /networking group of web developers?). Or a Rotary or other such civic organization. Some churches have events where there is an informational discussion on some current event.
Mar 23, '10
Open primaries are idiotic. They are a trap. This has been proven time and again when they've been allowed in other states. What happens is that when one side (and you can guess it's usually the Republicans) are only running one candidate, they all jump over and vote for the most conservative (or weakest) candidate in the other party. You have to understand...there's this thing called the Internet, and talk radio. They organize these people and basically tell them, step by step, to do this.
The only value to an open primary is that Democrats who feel like their party isn't progressive enough can go register as Independents to sate their own self-righteous ego. Obviously, they still get to keep the option to vote in the primaries. But that's really not enough to avoid the risk of primary shenanigans that other states have had with open primaries.
Look...if the process and politic in this country were more civil and respectful, then open primaries would be fine. But until then, if you want reasonably clean primaries, you keep them closed and you register with one of the parties if you want to vote in them.
Mar 23, '10
OPEN PRIMARY: Wisconsin, 1972, George Wallace wins the Democratic primary because Republicans cross over to vote. Need I say more.
Mar 23, '10
Posted by: Connor Allen | Mar 22, 2010 9:14:05 PM
I don't want candidates who have to be all things to all people. I want people with principles and passion. I think this idea is awful, as I have every time he's brought it up.
Then you want parliamentary democracy. Hear, hear!
7:14 a.m.
Mar 23, '10
The point of an open primary is to allow every voter an equal opportunity to participate in determining what names will appear on the general election ballot.
The version envisioned by Mr Keisling allows political parties to maintain their nominating authority, but they do not allow such parties to control what names appear on the state-sponsored primary ballot.
Kari's point about other the potential efficacy of other electoral reforms is well-taken, but "fusion voting" is not incompatible with an open primary, and the strongest advocates for full fusion voting -- myself included -- tend to also be proponents of the open primary, as it allows a path for smaller parties to participate in the primary election where full electoral fusion does not.
8:06 a.m.
Mar 23, '10
Johnny one-note. Move on Phil, this is getting old.
Mar 23, '10
Ed Bickford:
Since that same Constitution sets up a representational form of democratic government, I have the right to join a political party that will choose a representative to plead our common concerns with the government. No one has the right to take away the ability of my group to choose its own candidates for office.
Bob T:
Exactly. The reform we really need is for every seat from dog-catcher to President to be non-partisan as with the Portland City Council and numerous other local legislative bodies, with an instant runoff system. The government (national, state, local) has for too long entrenched parties into the actual government when they should get no closer than, say, groups like Greenpeace or the Heritage Foundation. They can all choose their own candidates to run for the non-partican positions if they wish, but we need to repeal laws that favor major political parties' hold on elective positions.
Bob Tiernan Portland
10:14 a.m.
Mar 23, '10
Keisling is right as usual. The evidence is pretty clear that open primaries tend to promote moderate politics. Closed primaries promote adversarial politics. If you have a favorite team you like to root for, you probably prefer nasty rivalry. But if you think politics are a high calling aimed at solving collective problems with solutions that guarantee broad community support, then there is a lot to be said for moderation.
10:46 a.m.
Mar 23, '10
Fred,
Even though you allege "evidence" you provide none.
However I'm still rooting for you to knock off Bruun in the primary.
Imagine smiley face here.....
11:58 a.m.
Mar 23, '10
Echo what Sal said. This is one issue where I've long agreed with him.
I would like to suggest to the Dem. Party loyalists that this concept would break the stranglehold that the insane reichwing have on the GOP here in Oregon, potentially allowing another Tom McCall to actually survive to get to a general election. And I would like to further suggest if you are progressive then I think you'd have to agree that "R" or no, Tom McCall was one of the most policy-effective progressive politicians we Oregonians have ever produced. Conversely, Kevin Mannix used to be a "D" and look what he's tried to do to Oregon!
Making political contests about D's versus R's is the problem, not the solution.
Mar 23, '10
I knew I would be punished for spouting off in haste about this foolishly misdirected effort at election reform... now Bob T. is citing me! Gawd...
He thinks this is a good idea because he doesn't like the two major parties, and wants the law to discriminate against their access to the ballot. That is obviously a self-defeating means of redressing a perceived bias against his political association. Nice double-think, Bob.
Mar 23, '10
Kevin, how is changing the electoral infrastructure the answer to hyper-partisanship today if the structure hasn't changed since the venerable Gov. McCall used it to attain office? It seems to me this is a misdirected effort.
1:13 p.m.
Mar 23, '10
Ed,
Do you truly believe that a Tom McCall could survive a GOP primary today? I don't.
The existing system is what allowed hyperpartisanship to develope in the first place... It REWARDS hyperpartisanship.
Mar 23, '10
Kevin is right. Not only McCall but Vic Atiyeh, Clay Myers, Nancy Ryles, Mary Alice Ford (once defeated by a right wing primary challenger) could not win a primary today--even if they were all alive.
Republicans don't reward pragmatic politicians, they reward ideologues.
Mar 23, '10
"if you are progressive then I think you'd have to agree that "R" or no, Tom McCall was one of the most policy-effective progressive politicians we Oregonians have ever produced"
McCall and Westlund--both did a great service to this state, but when they were alive there were Republicans who had no use for them.
Mar 23, '10
"I have since become convinced that there are alternative proposals that do a better job of expanding democracy without the negative effects that an open primary produces.
In particular, I believe we should have true fusion ballots and instant-runoff voting."
i would likt to see a real progressive push for this kind of voting reform.
Mar 23, '10
Paulie, that comment is beneath you. If Phil thinks it's a good idea that will help our country, he is well-justified in continuing to promote it.
Should Democrats have stopped working for universal health care simply because the idea had been around for a long time without being implemented?
(Put that in the present tense if you think what just got passed doesn't qualify. It's the same question for the purpose of this comment.)
Mar 23, '10
Kevin, you have made no case for the infrastructure of elections, essentially unchanged in the last half-century, being the cause for the inability of a moderate like Gov. McCall to win high office these days. I am very leery of experimenting with the electoral infrastructure without evidence that it is the process that is the problem.
Mar 23, '10
LT:
Not only McCall but Vic Atiyeh, Clay Myers, Nancy Ryles, Mary Alice Ford (once defeated by a right wing primary challenger) could not win a primary today--even if they were all alive.
Republicans don't reward pragmatic politicians, they reward ideologues.
Bob T:
Actually, both major parties reward ideologues because only a fraction of the parties' registered voters participate in primnary elections, and these are usually those who are motivated by, well, the more extreme views.
This is a problem with voters, not the parties per se.
(As usual, you got it half wrong).
Bob Tiernan Portland
Mar 23, '10
Ed Bickford:
He thinks this is a good idea because he doesn't like the two major parties, and wants the law to discriminate against their access to the ballot. That is obviously a self-defeating means of redressing a perceived bias against his political association. Nice double-think, Bob.
Bob T:
Your summary of what I said bears no resemblance to what I said. I don't like open primaries because parties have a right to choose their candidates (as you've also stated), but I also want to see changes that repeal laws that were passed over time that protect the two major parties from open competition. Past legislators all across the country pretty much granted themselves protection with these laws and took it upon themselves to decide that we the people shouldn't have to be bothered with other parties. This further entrenched the major parties because if someone wants to enter politics s/he joins one of the other because having that D or R after your name means an automatic 40% of the vote (in most cases), and even more important, automatic access to the ballot without having to "prove" your electability as an individual the way many minor party candidates and independents have to.
I don't see where you disagree with that sentiment.
Bob Tiernan Portland
Mar 24, '10
Well Phil's various ideas to limit citizen participation haven't been very popular with Oregon voters-
He should be getting behind the GOP Rep from Texas who wants to repeal the 17th Amendment and abolishing direct election of U.S. Senators in favor of Senators selected by the State Legislators-
This is probably the best way for him to get back in office. hardy har.
Mar 24, '10
John Silvertooth:
Well Phil's various ideas to limit citizen participation haven't been very popular with Oregon voters-
He should be getting behind the GOP Rep from Texas who wants to repeal the 17th Amendment and abolishing direct election of U.S. Senators in favor of Senators selected by the State Legislators-
This is probably the best way for him to get back in office. hardy har.
Bob T:
The election of US Senators by the state governments had nothing to do with limiting citizen participation but was a structural check on centralized power. Our participation was indirect yet still there. It's been too easy for some people to mischaracterize this earlier system. With direct election the senators are bought off too easily and they in turn buy off their constituents (or just enough of them) with all kinds of pork and dependency programs. Centralization is then ignored and continues on its way.
Bob Tiernan Portland
8:33 a.m.
Mar 24, '10
Ed - Again, I believe that the strongest case for the Open Primary is that it allows every Oregon voter to participate in the candidate nominating process while respecting the rights of political parties to control who receives their party's nomination.
However, it is simply not true that the structure of Oregon's elections hasn't changed in 50 years.
One major structural reform is that we now have single-member legislative districts that draw from much smaller population areas.
Also, the science and technology of redistricting has dramatically increased the opportunity for the gerrymandering of districts.
Both of these structural changes would be mitigated by the open primary, which tends to reward candidates who have a broader appeal and punish those who appeal strictly to a partisan base.
Plus allowing every voter to participate in elections that are funded with taxpayer dollars is simply the right thing to do.
Mar 24, '10
Hello Bob Tiernan:
Some times I just don't know how to explain to people that the North won the Civil War and then they let Blacks vote and they they let Women vote then they let the cannon foder vote and now it's 2010 and it's not the 1700's anymore.
Did you know that Oregon pioneered the way for direct election of US Senators as part of the Oregon System movement that included initiative, referendum and recall? It was in large response to the corruption of the state legislators- are you shocked?
The US Senate is in of itself due to it's structure an undemocratic institution as for example Idaho has the same representation as California- this is great news I'm sure for those of you that prefer Mike Crappo and Larry Craig over Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer but some of us are left wondering why?
Mar 24, '10
Oh the Oregon system also includes the Partisan Primary Elections-
Sal Peralta: "the strongest case for the Open Primary is that it allows every Oregon voter to participate in the candidate nominating process..."
Every Oregonian can participate in the candidate nominating process today if you haven't noticed- one can speak out, donate and campaign which likely has more impact than a single vote.
What the so called Open Primary would do is strengthen the hand of the special interests and nothing else- why do somehow people who think of themselves as mainstream want to limit the voice of people they disgaree with? It's simple elitism.
3:14 p.m.
Mar 24, '10
John - How does giving every registered voter the opportunity to vote "cater to special interests".
If anything, I find your argument to be elitist. You claim that people can donate money, volunteer, speak out, etc. It's not always easy for the working poor to do any of those things. My mom worked 10-14 hours a day just to keep food on the table when I was a kid and there are hundreds of thousands of people in the same boat.
One thing that everyone can do is cast a vote -- unless of course you are one of the half million people in this state who isn't a member of one of the two major parties and the election you are talking about is the primary election.
Mar 24, '10
Sal Peralta:
Plus allowing every voter to participate in elections that are funded with taxpayer dollars is simply the right thing to do.
Bob T:
That would be following bad legislation with more bad legislation. The major parties (through their member who were elected) entrenched themselves by using tax dollars to pay for their nominating processes while other parties do it on their own. The major parties thus turned their private nominating procedures into something about as equal as the very elections required by the Constitution.
They are not.
Bob Tiernan Portland
Mar 24, '10
John Silvertooth:
The US Senate is in of itself due to
it's[its] structure an undemocratic institutionBob T:
So? The Bill of Rights is undemocratic, and very much so. Got a problem with that?
Bob Tiernan Portland
Mar 25, '10
Republicans don't reward pragmatic politicians, they reward ideologues.
Agreed, LT. But haven't Dems gone more than slightly overboard with practicality? Candidates used to run, fail, and try again, to win the Presidency. The Dem logic now seems to be, "you lost; go away". Both approaches leave us with poor choices. Cases in point would be Dole's Presidential campaign, or Gore's lack of one in 2004.
The last time the Dems ran a "loser" was in 1956, Adlai Stevenson. Not even in my lifetime! And before that it was Grover Clevland in 1892! That's it. Twice Dems have nominated the previous election cycle's loser for a second go around. That really calls BS on the claims made every election, no? "He's the best man to run our country for the next four years; totally competent". Yet, six months before that four years would have been up, he's not worthy of serious consideration by his own promoters!
Yeah, I know the GOP has only done it twice as well, Dewey and Nixon (and Nixon is the only pol in history to win, doing it in elections that were not back to back). But Dems should be better than that.
In contrast, the Whigs managed to do it twice as well, even though they only had national candidates in races between 1836 and 1860, both times with William Henry Harrison, who eventually won.
You've a great mind LT. I say that you should stop throwing your pearls after party swine!
Mar 25, '10
Kurt Hagadakis:
And before that it was Grover Clevland in 1892! That's it. Twice Dems have nominated the previous election cycle's loser for a second go around.
Bob T:
But Cleveland was already a proven winner for the same seat.
One of my favorite presidents, by the way. And the only Dem in the White House during a 44-year period.
Bob Tiernan Portland
<hr/>