for those who are not Democrats (or Repoobs), consider this: in how many cases will the Green, or Constitution, or Independence, or any "third" party survive a primary when the two major parties are running? what happens to these parties when they are no longer part of the general election? Dave Brownlow, Constitution Party candidate for Senate, may only pull 5-7% in the general — but he's there! under the open ("jungle") primary, Dave went home in May.

Oregon needs more than the two major parties. i say this as a devout Democrat. i believe my party is up to the challenge presented by other parties. but Kieling's idiot idea will be the death of those parties. Oregon will truly become a two-party state. what a horribly anti-democratic, non-progressive measure this is.

Those who pine for the 1970s can watch "That 70s Show" and can wear with pride their Nelson Rockefeller, Richard Nixon, and John Lindsay buttons.

This country has undergone tremendous political changes since the 1970s. These large scale changes have washed across the political landscape and Oregon has not been immune, much as we'd like to think we are.

One thing that has not changed is the primary system--it somehow successfully elected politicians that people liked in the 1970s but it is somehow failing now.

Do we see a problem here?

LT, to your specific question, under the current law, an individual must be a registered member of a political party for six months prior to claiming a party label on the ballot.

Under the proposed system, a candidate can declare a "party" 70 days out, the same day they declare their candidacy.

So essentially, candidates can party shop and party swap right up to the declaration date.

Marc, here's the Vote

My problem is that: a) it's a subjective standard. What is an "independent-minded" candidate to Marc, or LT, may not be to me. b) there's nothing in the other two states that have a system similar to this that has produced more independent minded candidates.

What also troubles me is the lack of ballot access in November, the election that really matters, for third parties. I thought a lot about this measure this year, and I just can't support it.

Marc, here's the Vote No on 65

What boils down to me is that the one thing I keep seeing stated in the voters guide and by the interviews I saw on Willamette Week between Phil and Barbara is that there is this claim that better candidates, and as Governor Kitzhaber states, "more independent-minded" people will run for office under this system.

My problem is that: a) it's a subjective standard. What is an "independent-minded" candidate to Marc, or LT, may not be to me. b) there's nothing in the other two states that have a system similar to this that has produced more independent minded candidates.

What also troubles me is the lack of ballot access in November, the election that really matters, for third parties. I thought a lot about this measure this year, and I just can't support it.

Also I haven't heard why this measure is not affecting the presidential race? Why should we leave the parties to decide the presidential nominee, but let everyone step up to the bar to decide senator, congress, etc?.?

Well looking at the numbers from 2004, of the three candidates you listed, Vic Backlund still would have lost had all three of them been on the same ballot (supposing no new voters cast votes) If you just took the three raw results, Backlund got the least.

Now that's not to say this system couldn't have helped, but clearly who's to say it would have? Vic Backlund had the option that he could have ran as an INDY if he disliked Thatcher's positions. Right now candidates have the option of saying, "hey, my party's been taken over by hooligans and brigands, I'm going to run as an Indy.

That's one of the big benefits to our system right now, is if you organize, and get people energized you can get on the November ballot without a political party. It's become a lot harder, and that's not a good thing. Right now though, you have the option, unlike the system being sought under Measure 65.

yeah, I'm not much of a fan of the sore loser law, and I was not a fan of the tougher restrictions that were placed to get your name on the ballot as an independent candidate that happened, I think in the last regular session.

There's the chance that this system might have helped, then again just equally the possibility it might have not.

I'm sure there are probably rural districts where the third party is the only party that challenges one of the major parties.

I voted no after reading through quite a bit of stuff on the measure. I wasn't swayed enough to vote for it. That was the one single ballot measure I wasn't sure how I was going to vote until I got my ballot.

It will be interesting to see the outcome on election day.

I would be interested to hear what Jack Roberts has to say.

Wow! That's something I didn't expect to read when I got up this morning.

That fact is that for decades I've opposed efforts to force political parties to open up their nomination process to include nonmembers or to otherwise weaken the party system. My views on this have been similar to those articulated by Marc in the main post.

This year I've finally decided to vote for Measure 65, not because I have changed my theoretical construct but because I've just become fed up with the current system and think its time to shake things up.

LT's example of Vic Baclund's ouster is a case of what frustrates me today. Every four years I'm afraid some crazies in Corvallis are going to do the same thing to Frank Morse.

I don't hold out a lot of hope that, even if enacted, Measure 65 will dramatically change things. I've long suspected most independents don't fail to vote in primaries because they are excluded from participating in partisan primaries; I think it is more likely that they are independent because they don't have that much interest and/or confidence in voting. So the results may not be very different in most cases (witness Gregoire v. Rossi in Washington).

In the end, my decision to vote for Measure 65 is pragmatic: Is the chance the system will be made better greater than the risk that the system will be made worse?

In my book the answer is, "Yes."

This is a disingenuous post from Marc, who surely understands that Measure 65 does not take away any free association rights from political parties.

Parties retain the right to endorse the candidates they support on the measure. What it does is prevents them from using taxpayer funds to pay for the nominating process of private organizations. And bear in mind, the only political parties that benefit from the state's largesse are the Democrats and Republicans, not the minor parties.

TA asks whether any minor parties will be on the November ballot? I'd argue a strong "yes". I'll take bets on the chances of a liberal Independent or a Green against a Republican in inner Portland, or a conservative Independent against a Democrat in Ontario or Pendleton any day of the week.

TA suggests that political parties won't be able to engage in grassroots activism if this measure passes. Why? Is there a prohibition on canvassing? Maintaining an office? Raising money in support of party activities? No.

I'd argue that the system will increase organizing opportunities for political parties, and make grassroots activism more important than it is today.

Under this system, candidates will have an incentive to bring their supporters into the party apparatus as precinct committee persons before the primary so that they can win the party's endorsement. No such incentive currently exists.

In my view, this measure will strengthen minor political parties and the Democratic process, especially in areas like Prineville, where the district is heavily tilted towards the Republicans, and where the Democratic Party has trouble recruiting candidates. As often as not, in a district like that, the general election is uncontested, and even when it is contested, it is usually not really a contest.

By creating a fairer elections calendar, the Independent Party or others can recruit credible candidates and guarantee those candidates a one-on-one race in November. Moreover, all political parties can endorse candidates and have those endorsements appear on the primary ballot -- that's an unprecedented level of access for minor parties in Oregon.

This business about "leaving the individual naked before government" is asinine. As I suggested before, this measure creates grassroots organizing opportunities for parties, and nothing about it prevents fundraising or other party activities.

One thing that has not changed is the primary system--it somehow successfully elected politicians that people liked in the 1970s but it is somehow failing now.

Paul, is this true? Do you have data that support this? There's a phenomenon of looking back at popular politicians and assuming they had wide support during elections. Oregon produced a phenomenal crop of leaders in the 70s, but did people like them during elections?

Even if they did, I find a causal relationship less convincing. So much has changed between the two periods that to find correlations isn't enough (sample sizes rarely support careful study, either). Lots has changed.

I'm a pretty strong anti-party guy philosophically (though under the current system I am a reliable and loyal Dem); I would love to see several viable parties emerge that would represent a variety of political philosophies. Measure 65 seems guaranteed to prevent that.

I would much rather see IRV or Approval voting. Both are far better than this measure.

Paul is simply wrong when he asserts that the primary election system in legislative races has not changed in Oregon since the 1970's.

One major structural change is that legislative elections changed to single-member districts, which carved up smaller districts, that are much more susceptible to partisan gerrymandering than was the case in the 1970's. Today, one can make a strong case that 50 out of 60 legislative districts reward hyper-partisanship -- a much higher number than was the case under the dual-member representation.

Additionally, the science of campaigns has become much more sophisticated, and the campaigns themselves are significantly more targeted than was the case in the 1970's.

The "problem" of a system that encourages candidates to speak to more voters, rather than just turning out a small, hyper-partisan niche in the primary, is not a problem at all. It's a solution to political campaigns that win by slicing and dicing the electorate and segmenting and widening cleavages within the electorate.

The answer to the gerrymandering problem is a non-partisan electoral commission to set district boundaries.

Jeff, thanks for calling paul on his unsupported assertion that we're failing to nominate candidates we like. i look around the state and see the Dems nominating all kinds of excellent people — people supported by active Dems and non-politicals alike.

and Sal, while in some areas like inner-Pdx or Corvallis, where one-party domination is not about Tammany Hall-style politics but a large majority of voters favoring one party, these areas are pretty much the exception. all it takes for the Repubs (in SE Pdx, for example) to shut out the Greens is to stand a candidate; the party-affiliation will be enough to grab second place. we might see 2 or 3 Greens or Constitutionals break thru each cycle, but their parties will be, as state-wide entities, pretty much shot to hell.

here's a long, very interesting post from "Green Party Watch" that indicates the Green Party opposes M65 for many of the reasons stated in this thread. it includes a long analysis from Seth Woolley, Secretary and Elections Administrator of the Pacific Green Party of Oregon and its nominee for Secretary of State; ultimately he not only states the Greens oppose M65 but, as Carl pointed out (and i've written about for several years now), the way we increase voter choice while allowing the parties to run their own affairs is Instant Runoff Voting along with voter-owned elections. i hope the new Oregon Leg will consider these reforms in 2009; it's up to those who want to see real electoral reform to push them to do so.

but first the voters need to be smart enough to tell Keisling his idea has, to paraphrase Peter Sellers, only one flaw: "It's stupid."

There is a difference between partisan polarization (nasty elections, unwillingness to cooperate because seen to be to partisan advantage) and ideological or policy polarization.

IMO a general problem with our electoral system, not just at the state level, is that our spectrum of ideas and policies is too narrow, not that it's characterized by the dominance of extremes. Basically you could put about 80% of the U.S. effective political spectrum within one European Christian Democratic party, with maybe 5% outliers to the right and 15% to the left.

Because of the dominance of center-right orthodoxy, we get nasty campaigns that focus on personalities or rely on lies and smears, the consequence of the narcissism of small differences.

The idea that things were closer and clustered more in the center in the past in terms of ideas just isn't so.

It's possible that the current crises will open things up again.

(BTW, on Jeff A.'s point about nostalgia for the '70s, a sort of inverse example of what he means might be Neil Goldschmidt.)

LT, you begin your reasoning by dismissing more common cases than yours because they aren't your particular case, and in effect asserting that it's the only case that matters. You're perfectly free to vote based on what you think would be good for your district. But if I reason the same way, your district is irrelevant to mine, so why should I pay any attention to it, or your demand that I address it? By beginning the way you do, you make it seem pointless to talk with you or reason about the common good.

and Sal, you talk about the sophisticated science of political campaigning. yet you give no basis for believing the jungle primary will solve that. we pass M65 and the campaign pros throw up their hands and leave the state? we pass M65 and the lobbyists and Loren Parks and pacs all close their bank accounts? we pass M65 and the 95% of people who pay no attention to political matters 95% of the time suddenly turn off "Amercan Idol" and start watching C-SPAN?

you make some decent points on the problems — gerrymandering is a very bad, anti-democratic process, no matter who is in charge of it — but M65 fixes that by magically electing people who will have no interest but the publics? how does M65 change human nature, Sal?

at root, the differences between parties is about policy. we lose track of that because of the way we run too many campaigns thru the media, but the Ds & Rs have real policy-based differences — unions, public education, a woman's right to choose, civil liberties, militarism, corporatism, and so much more. these differences are not going to go away. let's pretend M65 passes & we elect a "non-partisan" Leg. does the magic of M65 mean those who hate taxes and those who see them as a means to enable government to act do the Kumbayah thing? presumably a post-M65 Oregon will still have a majority of people who oppose "gay marriage" and a majority that supports a woman's right to choose. do the minorities relinquish their opposition and give up their fight to change law?

that's what partisanship is at root. it's not about promoting a party over the public interest; that's just the methodology. i can promise you this: those of us active in the Multnomah Democratic Party are busting our butts to elect Ds (and we feel zero sympathy for the whupping the Rs look about to receive) but the candidates we are working for are people we feel represent what is best about Oregon and their communities. Nick Kahl and Greg Matthews will be excellent state reps for East Multnomah County. Barack Obama will be a great president for the nation. Jeff Merkley will be a great Senator for Oregon. call that partisan if you must, but we are dedicated to the qualities these candidates bring to their races and to the party.

Greg Macpherson lost because too many Dems saw him lacking the qualities needed by a leader of the party; John Kroger was seen as possessing them and he won a deserved upset. (the Rs agreed and also nominated him.) M65 is not going to get rid of the bullshit from elections; that will be with us until human beings lose every reason to disagree with one another (no, we eat our toast with the butter side up!). M65 is the political equivalent of walking into a race riot with your eyes closed and demanding that everyone now looks the same & should get along. it's not a solution and will only make things far worse.

At this point I'm leaning no, because it seems most likely that either the change won't make much difference, or that it will make things worse for things I care about.

The main reason for thinking it won't change much is that I don't think it will affect the advantages of incumbency or the districting process.

Things it could make worse are decreasing the importance of organizations and deliberations within them still further, increasing the importance of big money recruited on an individual basis, and increasing the importance of short-form, low-content mass media in swaying the opinions of even more atomized individuals.

Sal makes some case that my fears about decreasing the importance of organizations could be wrong -- that it might increase incentives to organize. If it passes I guess I'll have to see what I can do to test that. But on balance the chances look greater to me that he's wrong than right.

I think this will increase the importance of the money-mass media nexus and decrease the accountability of both the money and the candidates to deliberative, deliberating constituencies.

Because of the dominance of center-right orthodoxy, we get nasty campaigns that focus on personalities or rely on lies and smears, the consequence of the narcissism of small differences.

This is exactly right. I would add one further note to your description, Chris. While I agree with your general equation of 80%, 15%, 5%, this seems largely the result of a self-fulfilling cycle. All issues are framed within that 80% window, so voters tend to live there, too. But periodically, we have intimations of what might be if there were other parties to expand the discussion.

I'm not sure that there's a large majority in the US who want single-payer health care, but there's a large plurality at the very least (if not an outright majority). But this proposal doesn't fit within the 80% window, so it's not politically viable.

Would M65 create the circumstances where the discussion grows or shrinks? Keisling says it will expand the discussion, but I have my strong doubts. My solution would involve weakening institutional power of the parties. (A proposal less likely to come about than other faves of the lefty 15%, like single-payer healthcare, free advertising for political elections, a robust public news station akin to the Beeb, etc.)

TA - Marc cites the fact that folks like him won't be able to target a small portion of the electorate in the primary as a reason to vote against M65. I take him at his word, but simply point out that this kind of targeting contributes to the polarization we are experiencing, so less of it is not necessarily a bad thing.

I do not claim that M65 will magically cure anything, but it seems very clear that under an Open Primary system, primary results in legislative races and the subsequent general election ballot will more accurately reflect the values of a given legislative district than is currently the case. Not only does it eliminate so-called "spoilers", it does not artificially prop up major parties in districts where they may be too weak to stand on their own.

Minor political parties that actually care about winning will benefit significantly from the opportunity to go head-to-head with major parties in districts that are currently considered "unwinnable", and voters will benefit from having an honest choice that accurately reflects the values of the district.

Take Chip Shields' legislative district. There are 28,000 Democrats and 2,500 Republicans. In what sense is the public interest served by guaranteeing a spot for a Republican, as opposed to two Democrats, or a Democrat and a Green?

I disagree, by the way, that Republicans will be able to shut greens out in such districts. There are more Republicans than Greens in San Francisco, yet it was a Green, Matt Gonzales, who made the final round in their IRV elections a few years back.

As to Chris' point about progressive reforms: I'd argue that most truly progressive reforms tend to be the ones that take into consideration the needs of multiple constituencies rather than just the interests that dominate the debate on one side or the other.

Does a discussion about universal health benefit from a debate among people who were primarily elected to represent labor, or do representatives who serve primarily employers have a constructive role to play?

When Oregon passed the bottle bill and state beaches, these were some of the most progressive reforms in the country, but they were the product of bi-partisanship and consensus, and not the product of one-side ignoring the other.

This measure is not a magic bullet, but it will help to foster true bi-partisanship by creating a primary system that rewards candidates who have a broader appeal than those who merely the partisan base on one side or the other.

At the end of the day, where you stand on this issue will depend on whether or not you believe that political parties should have absolute control over who appears on the general election ballot, or whether they should merely play an important, and not a dominant role in our elections.

I believe that political primaries are paid for by all Oregon taxpayers, not just Democrats and Republicans. There are 400,000 people in this state who have no voice in who will appear on the general election ballot, and 6 political parties that receive no public funding for their nominating process.

Jeff, my sentence was a rhetorical one. You got my point correctly--it is the political system nationally that has changed and that accounts for party polarization, not the primary system.

Keep in mind, by the way, that the proponents constantly claim party extremism but refuse to identify what extremists they have problems with. Ted Kulongoski? John Kitzhaber? Bill Bradbury? Hardy Myers? David Wu? Darlene Hooley?

No, this is all about the state legislature for them, and Chris Lowe is correct, we have a known solution for that problem--institute a non-partisan redistricting commission.

What has frustrated me about this debate is the reliance of the proponents on myths, anecdotes, or outright falsehoods. They claim that this measure will fix party polarization, legislative gridlock, youth turnout, mistrust of government--what problem WON'T this solve??

Sal claims without evidence that this will strengthen third parties, but facts matter: in Washington State the number of third parties on the ballot declined from 27 in 2004 to 5 in 2008. Zero third parties have been on the final ballot since Louisiana adopted this system.

Sal claims without evidence that this system forces candidate to speak to "all the voters" but fact matter: this system as it has historically operated results in multiple candidates clogging the middle and candidates slicing up the electorate into small bits of extreme, intensely committed supporters.

It's NOT just the David Duke example, there are multiple examples of this happening in LA, where candidates move onto the general with less than 15% of the vote; and in France; and in Peru; and in many presidential systems that use a "top two" primary.

There are other proposals that solve the problem of polarization: multimember districts and non partisan redistricting commissions.

There is another system that maintains the free association rights of parties AND allows non-affiliated participation: The "Montana" primary.

The top two is currently under litigation--the 9th Circuit is currently collecting evidence. Read Thomas's SC opinion. He said the top two failed a "facial" challenge in Washington, and that they needed more evidence before they could overturn it.

Why spend all this time and energy on a primary system that is currently used by JUST ONE STATE (Louisiana has had the wisdom to eliminate this system for federal elections) and is of questionable constitutionality, when we have tried and true solutions that address the problems identified by the proponents?

At the end of the day, where you stand on this issue will depend on whether or not you believe that political parties should have absolute control over who appears on the general election ballot, or whether they should merely play an important, and not a dominant role in our elections.

Sal, this is utterly misleading.

The party primaries are open to anyone who is a registered member of the party (the parties don't control who registers) and who can pay the filing fee or collect signatures.

At least this exposes what this measure is all about--the proponents are anti political party. Just making sure that is out there, since Phil routinely denies he is anti party.

Jeff, you're right about the self-fulfilling or self-reproducing quality of the distribution of votes and debates, linked partly to a feedback relationship with the way mass media function these days, IMO. Thanks for putting it so clearly.

Paul, I don't think anyone can make a credible claim that I am now, or have ever been, anti-party. I have served as chair of a county Democratic party having run offices for that party in 2 election cycles, and currently serve as Secretary for the state's third-largest political party.

What I object to is a primary system that is controlled by political parties, and particularly one where all taxpayers are being asked to bear the cost, but in which 25 percent of them receive no direct benefit.

Political parties will continue to function and remain powerful institutional players under an Open Primary system, but they will not control the process as they do now.

I take issue with the assertion that I "claim this will force candidates to speak with all voters". That's Marc Abrams claim, when he asserts that the open primary will drive up costs by forcing candidates to mail to every voter. I am merely taking him at his word.

I can't speak to the experiences in Argentina or Chile, nor do I care what you believe such de-contextualized examples from these very different systems with different historical and social contexts says about elections right here in Oregon. I am reminded of the fact that you have used similar examples to argue that night is day and black is white with regard to Oregon's vote by mail system.

One thing I can say very clearly is that if the Open Primary were in operation in Oregon today, it would increase the Independent Party's access to the ballot.

Jeff Merkley, Kate Brown, Ben Westlund, Vicki Berger, and others would appear on the ballot as registered Democrats or Republicans, and our endorsements of those candidates would appear on the primary and general election ballots. I don't need to look at Argentina or Louisiana to know that here in Oregon, in every legislative district and partisan commission race where we are currently running a candidate it would enhance the party's prospects by moving the elections calendar forward and guaranteeing our candidates a one-on-one general election.

If the Democrats and Republicants, the States two largest parties can't "guarantee" someone a place on the ballot, how in an open primary could an Independent Party?

44 percent of legislative districts, including more than half of all Senate races, are non-contested during the current election cycle yet we cannot guarantee a one-on-one race in such districts until mid-June or later, since that is when the primary election results are certified and the SOS reports the result of the write-in vote.

Under an Open Primary, we can tell people that they will be guaranteed a one-on-one race if they can win in the primary. That overcomes the #1 obstacle for people who want to run as an Independent and win - the prospect of running as a third wheel in a two party system.

Measure 65 is a truly flawed measure and will often present voters with very bad or no choices. Below is an excerpt of an article I wrote for the weekly newspapers in my district:

"Here are a few examples of seriously undemocratic outcomes that will result under Measure 65:

"Measure 65 promotes manipulation in the primary. Voters in safe Republican districts or safe Democratic districts might face a choice in the General Election with no member of the dominant party. Persuade enough members of the dominant party to run in the primary, split the primary vote, and two non-dominant party members running could win. Voters could only choose from those two in the General Election. This reality opens the opportunity to manipulation by insiders and big-money-players who will try to set up chances to steal an office. This and similar scams are why Louisiana recently limited its use of this type of primary. Louisiana once faced a choice between a racist and a crook in the general election for governor because the moderate and honest candidates split the centrist vote in the low-turnout primary.

"Another problem will happen in unexpected and grossly unfair ways. Let us suppose that a popular Democratic legislator in a Democratic district “wins” the primary and the two Republican candidates get the second and third most votes so that the Democratic incumbent moves on to the General Election along with one of the Republicans. Now suppose, as has happened many times, that the popular incumbent dies in office, moves, resigns. Under our current law, the precinct committee persons (PCP) from the Democratic Party in the district get together and nominate a replacement. Voters can vote for someone who is likely to be in general agreement on the big issues of the day, the candidate nominated in the PCP convention. How does Measure 65 handle that example? The candidate with the third most votes moves up! Now the election is between the two Republican candidates without a Democrat! How fair and “open” would that appear to the Democrats in the district? In the opposite case, how would Republicans feel about an election in which, by chance, only Democrats names appeared on their ballot? The majority will not be represented.

"What about the possibilities between elections? Representatives and Senators do resign mid-term for a host of reasons. This year, the newly appointed Labor Commissioner, Brad Avakian, resigned his Senate seat and was replaced by Representative Bonamici who was in turn replaced by Chris Harker all moderate to liberal Democrats as are the majority of voters in their districts. Under the current law, the county commissioners in the affected district choose a new legislator from a list of three to five nominees provided by that PCP nomination. The nominees must be from the same party as the legislator being replaced increasing the likelihood that the replacement will agree on the big issues with the elected legislator. Under Measure 65 county commissioners would appoint regardless of party affiliation. Republican legislators from East Multnomah County might be replaced by Democrats should they leave mid-term and Democratic legislators in other parts of the state might be replaced by Republicans. If it occurred during a legislative session the majority party may change, the Speaker or Senate President might be replaced and committees reconstituted, disrupting the work of the legislature and lengthening the session, Under Measure 65, incumbent legislators will hang on in their sick beds and refuse new jobs to prevent such an outcome. Under current law, as in my example from this year, an orderly transition is almost guaranteed.

"Measure 65 has other flaws and problems. The current laws have been amended and improved over time. While they are not perfect, they prevent the “accidents” I have described here.

Our two party system is not perfect, but it is the way we bring our policy differences into the open. Measure 65 not only obscures those differences, but more often than we might think, will lead to results with which a majority of voters in a district will strongly disagree.

Vote NO on Measure 65."

Rep Barhardt, if I understand your two main objections correctly, they are that:

1) Too many people will run for pulic office; and 2) County Commissioners will not make party affiliation a primary consideration when deciding how to fill vacancies in the legislature.

I just don't see these as persuasive arguments against measure 65.

I'm late to this conversation, but I'd like to directly answer TA's question up top:

In how many cases will the Green, or Constitution, or Independence, or any "third" party survive a primary when the two major parties are running?

All of them.

It's really, really, really critical to understand the difference between Measure 65 and the similar-but-not-identical measure that was proposed in 2006.

Measure 65, unlike the earlier version, allows the minor parties to run a candidate in the primary election and then - READ CAREFULLY - and then, if they're not successful, they get to endorse any other candidate and be listed on the general election ballot.

In other words, the Working Families Party could have run a candidate in the U.S. Senate primary election - and then, if unsuccessful, then could have endorsed Jeff Merkley for the general.

AND, unlike the present system, Measure 65 would ensure that all parties that endorse the candidates are listed on the ballot.

Today, Jeff Merkley is the nominee of three parties - the Democrats, the IPOs, and the Working Families Party. But he's only going to be listed as a Democrat. He should be listed with all three -- and Measure 65 will ensure that... even if some or all of those parties endorsed another candidate in the primary.

Measure 65 will strengthen the power of minor parties, not hurt them.

Frankly, in the future, I'd like to see us move to the next level and re-legalize fusion voting -- so that someone like Jeff Merkley would appear on three separate ballot lines, but totaling up all his votes in the winner calculation.

here is the wiki on Fusion voting

Kari, I agree with you about fusion voting.

However, Oregon has never had "true" fusion voting of the kind you describe. Prior to 1958, we had a sort of "aggregated fusion", which allowed multiple political parties to list their nominations on the candidate's ballot line. (i.e., Jeff Merkley Indpendent; Democratic)

As you may know, the Working Families Party and the Independent Party joined in a lawsuit to persuade the Secretary of State to recognize that the ballot design law was amended in 1995 to allow aggregated fusion. The SOS disagreed, a circuit court judge sided with them, and the case will continue moving through the appeals process if M65 fails.

I expect to see a group that includes members of the Independent Party, Working Families Party, and a bi-partisan coalition of legislators and (hopefully) some statewide officeholders to support this issue in the 2009 legislative session.

Sal is correct. Oregon never had a true New York style fusion. Instead, we had an aggregated fusion -- which is EXACTLY what Measure 65 will create if it passes for general elections.

Kisaja wrote...

Clearly T.A.'s point was that minor party candidates will not appear on the general election ballot under this measure. Your pathetic attempt to spin this and your babblings that they could endorse another party's candidate is typical of the vapidness of the people behind and supporting this measure.

Clearly, Kisaja has a lot of pent-up hostility and doesn't understand Measure 65.

I understand TA's point. And my "pathetic spin" was actually an on-point rebuttal of his specific point.

Under Measure 65, anybody can run in a primary and the top two vote-getters will run in the run-off. In both cases, the candidates will have their own party registration listed. Separately, they'll have all their party endorsements listed.

The parties, both major and minor, will have the right to endorse as many candidates as they like (from zero to all of them) in both races.

The minor parties (and the major ones, if need be) can shift their endorsement from one candidate in the primary to another candidate in the runoff.

Now, let me be clear: I am undecided on Measure 65. I'm still trying to sort out what the unknown unintended consequences might be. I'm know what the opponents say are the unintended consequences. But as they say, it's hard to know what the unknown unknowns are.

Kisaja, you have me convinced. In particular, I found the name-calling and denigrating comments towards state legislators, volunteers with the Democratic Party, myself, Kari, and everyone else who disagrees with you highly persuasive. Paul is very lucky to have someone with your acumen and intellectual vigor advocating for his point of view.

Measure 65 will destroy most of Oregon's minor political parties, reduce voter choices, confuse the ballots, reward dirty politicking, and likely fail its purpose of electing moderate candidates.

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). Even if a candidate registered in or endorsed by a minor party were somehow to qualify for the general election ballot, that candidate's vote total would not count toward the 1% requirement, because the only votes that count are those of candidates who are nominated by a minor party, and Measure 65 eliminates all party nominations.

Thus, under Measure 65, the 4 smallest 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 also removes all citiizen-sponsored candidates from the general election ballot, including those supported by tens or even hundreds 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 those candidates vehemently disagree 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 minor party will be forced to give up its philosophy and defensively endorse major party candidates, to avoid the strong implication of support for the stranger who suddenly hijacks the party's name on the primary ballot.

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 rationally endorse more than one candidate per race, as that would split the votes of the party faithful and actually harm its endorsed candidates' chances to finish in the "top two" and advance to the general election. If voters were to pay attention and tend to follow these party endorsements, Measure 65 will, in effect, replace the major-party primaries with backroom endorsement deals. I would expect voters to pay great attention to the party endorsements on the ballot, because that will be the only reliable indicator of which candidate is, for example, the "true Democrat" or the "true Republican" and not merely a stranger or, as noted below, a ringer. I would also expect, at least in all statewide races, that the single endorsed Democrat and the single endorsed Republican would be the "top two" in the primary and advance to the general election ballot. Thus, the end result of Measure 65 will be to replace each party's primary with an unknown backroom process for endorsing one candidate in each race who is virtually guaranteed to advance to the general election. Instead of voters deciding who is nominated by each major party, it will be party operatives and high-rollers who decide, with their party endorsement labels on the ballot, which candidates go to the general election.

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 Edwin 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

The most extensive web site arguing No on 65 is Save Oregon's Democracy, posted and maintained by Seth Wooley of the Pacific Green Party.

I'm going to be ignoring Kisaja from this point forward, since his arguments are entirely ad hominem.

Dan Meek -- Thanks for chiming in. As I said above, I'm undecided on M65.

I'd like to hear more details about this:

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).

If true, that does seem be a serious flaw in M65. After all, the aggregated fusion concept only works if there actually are minor parties.

I'm a Democrat, and unless something horrible happens, I'll always be a Democrat. But I believe that our democracy will be better off if we have MORE parties, not less.

Dan, could expand on how minor parties get their legal status, how they keep their legal status, and how M65 affects that? (Maybe this should be a guest column, rather than a buried comment.)

What keeps people running from office is not the party nominations, its that so much money is required to mount a campaign, and the "proctor scope" (as Nixon would say) of the media and opposition researchers.

There are districts right now where there are are only one candidate running. Not even the third parties, which would have been guaranteed a "one on one" contest put forth a candidate. If they aren't running now, they sure aren't going to run under the blanket primary or any other system.

Sal continues to write:

What I object to is a primary system that is controlled by political parties, and particularly one where all taxpayers are being asked to bear the cost, but in which 25 percent of them receive no direct benefit.

A little history: state funded party primaries is rooted in Progressive era reforms. Taxpayers are not "being asked to bear the cost," this is a provision in state law.

If the proponents really object to state run party primaries, they should change that part of the law.

And as I wrote before, Sal, the primary system is not controlled by the parties. This is a misleading statement and I wish you'd stop writing it.

I can run in a Democratic or Republican primary by simply affiliating with the party six months before the election by paying a fee or collecting signatures. The party has absolutely no say in the process.

Under Measure 65, in contrast, parties can file endorsements (something they do not do now) and these appear on the ballot.

Paul, I do not understand why you are trying to mislead people by entering into a discussion who is qualified to run for public office as the candidate of a political party in Oregon.

The point I am making is about who can VOTE in primary elections.

My point is that we should extend the franchise to the 400,000 people who help pay for the cost of these primary elections but who are not currently allowed to participate in them.

If you are suggesting that political parties do not control who can vote in partisan primary elections in Oregon, or that all Oregon taxpayers are not paying for a benefit that is granted only to members of these private membership organizations, then you are saying something that just isn't so... YET AGAIN.

Oregon law is very explicit about this:

      (3)(a) Not later than the 90th day before the date of the primary election, a major political party may file with the Secretary of State a certified copy of the current party rule allowing an elector not affiliated with any political party to vote in the party’s primary election. The party may not repeal the rule as filed during the 90 days before the primary election. The rule shall continue to be effective after the date of the primary election until the party gives written notice to the Secretary of State that the rule has been repealed. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a party rule under this subsection may limit the candidates for whom an elector who is not affiliated with any political party may vote.

      (b) The party rule shall allow any elector who is permitted to vote for the most numerous branch of the Legislative Assembly also to vote in federal legislative elections, consistent with section 2, Article I, and the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In other words, both the Democrats or the Republicans have complete control over who can vote in their primary elections, provided that their actions are consistent with the provisions of Section II, Article 1 of the US Constitution and with the seventeenth amendment.

All of this brings up an important point about one of Dan Meek's arguments. He raises the following objection:

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.

The provision that he complains about here is nearly identical to current Oregon law with the caveat that it will now apply equally to minor political parties, and that it changes the amount of time someone may take before registering to run as a member of a political party (70 versus 180 days).

Under Oregon law, neither Democrats nor Republicans have any way to prevent Bill Sizemore, Kevin Mannix, David Duke, nor anyone else from running for public office as a member of their party, and having that party identification appear on the ballot.

In other words, Dan's complaint on this issue applies equally to current Oregon law.

Apparently the behaviour of the 'pre' tag does not include wrapping on blue oregon. The section of Oregon code I quoted is 254.365(3)(a), and it basically says that the major political parties may set their own rules about who can vote in partisan primaries.

The point being that Paul is simply wrong to suggest that the state, not the political parties, controls who may vote in partisan elections in Oregon.

Ron nailed it.

Apparently the behaviour of the 'pre' tag does not include wrapping on blue oregon.

Yes, that's sort of the point. PRE: "The pre element defines preformatted text. The text enclosed in the pre element usually preserves spaces and line breaks. The text renders in a fixed-pitch font."

Ron Buel, I agree with your analysis but I do not see how it leads to support for Measure 65. I believe that the backroom party bosses will have more control under Measure 65 than they have now, as my long post above tries to explain. And Measure 65 will destroy the third parties, to boot.

Among the good solutions to the problems you list are campaign finance reform and instant runoff voting. The overwhelming need is for campaign finance reform. See FairElections Oregon

And, Sal, you say "In other words, Dan's complaint on this issue applies equally to current Oregon law." Not true.

Under M65, 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. Or that person can register with any other party and display that party's name on the primary ballot, thus stealing the party's identify for himself in a race involving competition with other parties. This leads to the "ringer" incentives outlined in my post above.

Under existing law, no one is allowed to steal a party's identity. The only "Democrat" in a race involving competition among the parties is the person nominated by Democratic voters in the Democratic primary. The only "Libertarian" is the person selected by the Libertarian Party, etc. Yes, anyone can run in the Democratic primary (if she has been a member of the party for at least 180 days), but that person is not listed on the ballot as a "Democrat" in competition with members of other parties. She is not listed on the ballot as a "Democrat" at all. Instead, she is listed on the Democratic primary ballot as a candidate, not as a "Democratic" candidate (since all of those appearing on the Democratic primary ballot are, by law, Democrats).

Thus, under existing law, no one can take a party's identity without earning it by winning the primary or prevailing in the minor party's nomination process. Under M65, anyone can steal any party's identity by filling out a form and paying $500.

Yes, someone can create a new party, with about 21,000 valid signatures of registered voters. The new party can also use the internet to allow every single member of the party to elect a board to make candidate nominations and endorsements. That party, of course, is the Independent Party.

It is the Legislature that stopped the use of the word "independent" by candidates who obtain ballot access by voter petition (all banned by Measure 65, by the way). Before 2006, any candidate who qualified for the ballot by collecting sufficient signatures of registered voters was identified on the ballot an "Independent." But the Republicans and Democrats in the Legislature thought that word sounded too good. After all, someone who is "independent" is strong, resourceful, and smart. So they changed the label on the ballot to "non-affiliated," which instead brings to mind someone who is a loner, misfit loser.

Jack, you are perfectly free to create a new political party in Oregon, at least until the next Legislature changes those laws as well.

Kari - By convention, visual HTML user agents wrap text lines to fit within the available margins. Doing so is an optional style to associate with the 'pre' tag, but probably not a terrible idea when publishing a web site that only gives 80 characters of visual space in the comment section -- far less than any text file you might find on the web including, apparently, the Oregon Revised Statutes.

If it were a terrible idea to wrap pre-formated text to fit a visual window, I suppose that the W3C wouldn't have bothered to create a 'pre-wrap' style element. \ If it's good enough for vi...

Sal writes:

My point is that we should extend the franchise to the 400,000 people who help pay for the cost of these primary elections but who are not currently allowed to participate in them.

Sal, if you want to attack publicly financed primary elections, fine. But you aren't doing that.

You conveniently ignore the fact that non affiliated voters can cast votes for more than half the races on the ballot currently.

You conveniently ignore that fact that they are not disallowed from participating--they merely need to affiliate. If you think this is such a huge burden, then propose the Montana primary.

<h2>And you, and the Oregonian, conveniently ignore the fact that the Top Two is a system used by only two states in the country (only for Susan Nielsen does "two"="many"), one of which is now pulling back, and which history shows will not address the problems you say it will.</h2>