Good news. I followed the advice posted in a comment to the original post and called my state rep and senator. Let's hope they get it passed quick;y.

I'm not enthused about this. I remember in '96 when we had an early primary a couple of weeks after New Hampshire, with the ballots mailed out right after New Hampshire. Bob DOle campaigned here for a day, while Buchanan, Forbes, Alexander, and the others totally ignored Oregon. This is what happens to states when they jump into the front loaded traffic jam of primaries/caucuses. In '88, the Southern states joined together for a massive "Super Tuesday", and candidates were reduced to briefly touching down at airports in the different states, with no real presence in any state.

When there has been any competitive race at all by May, Oregon has received more candidate time than the early states, especially when you look at the time/money spent per voter. I can remember in '84 when Gary Hart campaigned throughout Oregon for three or four days, even rafting the Deschutes. Jesse Jackson spent even more time in '88 ( I went his huge rally in Redmond) and Dukakis spent a couple of days here. Clinton and Brown both spent several days here in '92 and ran TV ads. If Oregon moves up, we will be ignored in favor of the South, NY, IL, OH, etc...

Also, states that have moved ahead in the past haven't influenced the process. South Dakota moved up to a week after NH in '88, and their voters picked Bob Dole and Dick Geopahrdt, as well as Bobby Kerrey in '92. All of them bit the dust int he states that followed.

One other problem with the idea. The early primary will be only for presidential candidates. We almost surely will keep the May primary for state/local candidates, as we did in '96, which will result in a much lower turnout local primary. The state will also then have to fund pay for two primary elections.

Looks like Nevada and SC opened the floodgates. Legislation is also afoot in Florida and California. But Florida must be delusional -- as if their state hasn't been important enough in recent presidential contests? What a silly system.

How would this affect the primarires for the congressional races? Would they stay in May?

Josh- In '96, the state/local primary remained in May, and that would more than likely happen again.

I think it was the '97 session that moved all local elections to the Primary date in May; prior to that, School Board and many other local offices were on a ballot in March. As it is now, School Board members are elected about 6 weeks before they take office. Making that preparation period longer would be a good thing.

Soooo, how much are the Democratic Party and the Republican Party going to pay the State of Oregon for the costs of running this primary?

Kari,

I addressed this comment to Jesse in the other thread:

Are you positive that the [Jesse's] voter turnout figure for the 1996 primary (66%) is correct? If that number is correct, it would certainly be a shocking one.

The Secretary of State's figures on the 1996 primary election show an overall turnout of 38%. Multnomah County's figures on turnout corroborate the state's data, and the turnout is even lower, at 33%.

If these numbers are correct, then there is more to the argument that an earlier presidential primary draws attention away from the May primary.

Or am I missing something?

It's about time!

Early primary elections favor party insiders who are worked up about the election while Ma and Pa Kettle will be still tucked into their beds reading 2007 Christmas Catalogs.

If you want candidates who are favored by party insiders, go for the early elections. I might qualify as an insider or at least as an early donor, but I prefer to hear from the unwashed masses who seem to have won the recent elections.

Stop the war NOW! Stope Hillary (bomb the brown people) NOW!

sorry "stop"

Couple points:

I agree that there ought to be a move toward something like the "California Plan". But that shouldn't be an excuse for relegating Oregon voters to last place under the current system.

As I said in the other thread, Oregon should pass a law that both endorses a longterm change but which also gets our primary date into the mix better for this election. I can't see any good excuse for forcing Oregon's voters onto the sideline just because hopefully there's something better coming someday.

Regarding the issue of candidates spending time in Oregon, I really think that's a secondary issue. It's nice if they focus their time here and take positions that will help Oregon, but whether they do or don't doesn't change the question for me.

I would simply like to have my vote tallied at a point in the process where it might make a difference. I would think we could all agree on at least on that much.

John

Kari,

You're right: even by correcting the numbers, the putatively thinned/depressed/lowered turnout of split primaries argument doesn't instantly grow legs. Jesse arrived at what is probably a tenable position, although the 66%-turnout over 54%-turnout reasoning wasn't correct.

And this is 1996 we're talking about - there was nothing ordinary about Oregon elections in 1996. So good luck to anyone hoping to draw any conclusions!

I believe the order of states' presidential primaries should be determined by ascertaining the spread of the previous national general election vote (say, 52/47 R/D), finding the states that most closely matched this spread in that same general election, and ranking their closeness. State one would then get the first primary, state two would get the second, etc. Perhaps after the fifth state they could go in Super Tuesday groups. That way, candidates would have to compete early in states that fairly represent the views of America at large -- states that also would likely be among the most important battleground states in the general.

I went through two presidential caucuses in Iowa, and it's such a different experience than being in Oregon. Even early on--John Edwards has been through Iowa, to quote some political friends of mine, almost every day since the 2004 campaign ended. I was in Iowa in November and saw Barack Obama speak; it was obvious then that he would make a presidential run--why else would anyone other than Iowans be in Iowa in November a full two years before the presidential elections? Hillary Clinton isn't hitting the state so hard, but Iowa political observers wonder if former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack isn't her stand-in (his delegates would vote for her at the state convention). It was lovely to meet the candidates face-to-face, ask them questions, be a delegate to the county or state conventions, help shape the platforms, etc. I miss feeling like part of the national scene! And I don't think moving Oregon primaries earlier will change that much, but perhaps I'm wrong. The difference is that the Iowa Caucuses are just that--NOT primaries, but caucuses. I'd like to see caucuses here. They're participatory and encourage a lot more engagement with the platforms of the various candidates. Takes more time, but Oregonians have patience for long discussions, I think. For more on how the whole shebang works, check out John Deeth's blog and see how very, very, very often Iowans meet those candidates (long before the ubiquitous State Fair butter cow shot, for sure).