Kari, HD 35 ought to say Tigard.

As usual, Kari hits it out of the park (inside joke). JG

Hi Kari,

Thanks for going out of your way to cherry-pick antiquated dead-end links from the web site.

It's a fair-and-balanced approach that would make Roger Ailes proud.

For the record, our conversation has taken place directly with our members. Prior to paying for this election entirely at our own expense, we have phoned and emailed about 14,000 of our members and invited them to participate in a survey that will drive the party's legislative agenda in 2011.

Step 2 of those surveys is happening right now as part of this election. It is a true statement that as of today -- 3 business days into this election -- that more people have participated in shaping the Independent Party's agenda than participated in the platform conventions for the DPO and Oregon GOP combined.

As to your voter participation comment...

Our assumption has always been that this will be a low turnout election. The Democrats spent millions on a similar election in Arizona in 2002 using internet, vote-by-mail and telephone and had a statewide turnout of 77,000 out of 843,000.

Comparing a first-time primary election to turnout for the statewide May election is really apples-to-oranges since people have been voting in the May Primary for decades, and the event is much better publicized, etc.

1reader likes this

One other comment: At what point will the party hacks who have been attacking us in our efforts recognize that what is driving the growth of the Independent Party more than anything is the ability of Democratic and Republican partisans to:

1) Engage in an honest conversation with voters about the problems facing this country.

2) Work collaboratively to solve the major issues of the day.

A recent poll by MSNBC and the Wall Street Journal shows that more than 80 percent of voters believe there are major problems with the two party system and 1 in 3 believe that a third party is necessary.

When you overlay that data with the fact that 40 percent self-referentially call themselves "independent", it is no surprise that for most months over the last 3 years that the Independent Party is the ONLY political party to experience ACTUAL growth here in Oregon.

In this climate, people like yourself should be thanking us for offering candidates a more moderate and collaborative path because that is what most voters really want.

Instead we are treated to attack after attack because the simple truth is that most partisans are more concerned with holding and maintaining power than they are with finding common ground and consensus in service to the public interest.

2 readers like this

Independent = not affiliated with a political party. Therefore anyone who aligns themselves with an established party regardless of the name it gives itself is not an independent.

Makes even less sense in a Blue state like Oregon where the majority of registered Democrats are progressives. Sure, why not further fragment yourselves into smaller groups like "Green", "Independent", etc. Brilliant!

Yet another good reason why I'll never pledge allegiance to a political party.

2 readers like this

sal, I applaud what you and your party of "independents" are attempting here. Well done. I NAV and plan to stay that way. Best of luck and don't let the democrat/republican elite pat you on the head and dismiss your efforts.

not sure if it was purposeful or not, but i was glad to see neither Sara Gelser nor my state rep, Jules Bailey, listed on this ballot. as far as i know, the IPO is non-functioning in my house district. i've never heard of any party function, any party activities, nothing. i find nothing on the IPO website showing anything going on.

meanwhile, Democrats in Mult Co meet regularly, holding political & social events, pitch in for all kinds of charities, and, as active members in our community, meet face-to-face with thousands of local citizens for conversation and the kind of dialogue that makes democracy thrive.

the Pacific Greens formed several decades ago (i attended some of those early meetings); they proved incapable of generating the kind of grassroots and activity to grow the party. the IPO is not doing anything, either, to demonstrate to Oregonians that they are anything other than a checkbox on the voter registration form.

you want to be taken seriously, Sal? commit yourself to a decade or two of hard slog where it matters: in the community. that's what most of the Democratic county committees do, and that's why the state votes, and registers, Dem: because this is not a party run by elites (although a few electeds would like to tell themselves they run things). this is a party run by activists and community members. no more true than here in Multnomah County or my former home, Benton County.

2 readers like this

Two comments. Upthread, Sal, you made this comment "At what point will the party hacks who have been attacking us..." I assume--correct me if I'm wrong--that you are referring to me as a party hack here since I earlier wrote about the IPO in a post Kari linked. For what it's worth, though I'm a registered Democrat, I've never been involved in party politics save going to one MultCo Dems meeting back in 2003.

This is relevant because I think you assume that the IPO is being attacked only by party insiders. But it doesn't take a hack (a word I use affectionately) to see some functional problems with the IPO. When you dismiss us as party hacks, I think you alienate possible voters (I've voted green in the past, frequently) and fail to take genuine criticism seriously. Who knows, it might strengthen your party to actually listen to constructive criticism. I won't get involved with the IPO until I see whether you tilt green or tea party when you finally get around to policy questions.

The second point is that there's a logical problem, it appears, with the entire conceit of the IPO. Either it's a party, willing to muddy itself in partisan politics--the nature of the beast--or it's an advocacy group seeking to undermine party power. It can't be both. I'm not sure what it wants to be.

3 readers like this

Kari, we've not met, but I think you may be a little harsh on the concept of being an "independent", whether affiliated with an actual party of that name or not.

For instance, when the Bus Project did it's high school class visits this past year, to register voters, some of the more savvy and intelligent kids, decided to register as "independents". Because they were willing to listen to BOTH sides of an issue. I thought that was very intelligent thinking for those young people in the community.

But then, I explained to those savvy and intelligent kids that it affected their primary vote in election races that could be won or lost based on who ended up becoming the nominee of the Democratic party.

And in a number of cases, I witnessed first hand the look on the faces of these young voters, who after the May primary, and a brief discussion with me, immediately went online, printed out a piece of paper, and changed their party to Democratic. By their own volition. It was pretty cool.

Sometimes I think declaring yourself an Independent is true zen-like bliss, but I'm certainly not there yet. I still have a lot of hope that pure partisanship gives way to results that help and change lives for the better.

I still think the Green Party cost us the 2000 election, and if we don't woo back those interested in third parties and the proclaimed indies, with strong concepts on where we want to take the state, and why we're best positioned to do so, we could be red-faced in November.

Don't make too big of a deal about the name of the Ind. Party. After all, forgetting about what we've come to know about the two major parties, based on dictionary definitions, what does "Democratic" or "Republican" really tell you about the philisosphy of a political party. That they support democracy (who doesn't), or a republican form of government (I bet most Democrats do as well) While you can draw some broad conclusions about the terms democratic and republican, likewise you can say the independent party favors independent objective policy analysis and thought, not subject or beholden to narrow special interests.

That being said, I do agree that becoming a party will require it adopt positions on many or most of the current fundamental political issues and a willingness to grow grass roots organizations that support those positions.

Good open government based on reason and the greater good, and resistance to special interest legislation that is contrary to these ideals can be a foundation for the Indy party. But If thats the end of the agenda, then it becomes more like an OSPIRG or Common Cause, and as a party, it will fail.

Jeff Alworth posed a good question when he asked whether the party would tilt Tea party, or green. I'd modify that and ask if it could become more like the British liberal democrats. A smaller centrist party that could elect a few representatives who could form a coalition and caucus with the D's or R's, as the case may be.

Kari, my Google Alert found my name in your last comments in this thread. I am surprised by the vehemence of your series of incorrect statements.

First, if someone wanted to express "independence from political parties," then why did that person check the box on the voter registration form clearly marked "Independent Party"? Why did that person not mark the box for "Not a member of a party" or merely mark no box at all?

Second, your reference to me is entirely gratuitous. Do Republcans intend to join the party created by John C. Fremont and friends?

Third, we are constantly urging anyone who is confused to leave the Independent Party. That invitation has been on the front page of the IPO website for quite a while.

Fourth, you make several incorrect statements, including:

We should go back to the way the law was just a few short years ago, and use "independent" to describe unaffiliated voters - and prohibit the use of the word "independent" in the name of political parties.

To my knowledge, the word "independent" has never been used to describe unaffiliated voters in Oregon. What evidence do you have of the use of the word "independent" for that purpose?

Prior to its change by the Legislature in 2005, the word "independent" was used on the ballot to describe a candidate who qualified for the ballot by petitioning, but that is not your statement. And it was the Democrats who decided to change that in 2005, because (I believe) they so feared petitioned-for candidates (e.g., Ralph Nader) that they did not want their name to appear on the ballot with the favorable word "independent." Instead, they wanted their names to appear, if at all, with the unfavorable word "non-affiliated," which implies a loner, misfit loser. This bill was the companion to HB 2614, which more than doubled the difficulty of collecting sufficient signatures to qualify such a candidate for the ballot.

Since you think this change was so bad, Kari, I assume you testified against those bills. Let's see . . . you did not.

CONTINUED ON NEXT POST DUE TO 3000-CHARACTER LIMIT

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

Further, any cursory glance at indparty.com easily disproves your statement that the Party has not taken positions on many issues other than "minor party election law." For example, the Party very adamantly supports limits on political campaign contributions -- for all candidates and all campaigns. Further, all but one of the issues from our 2009 Legislative Agenda (on the home page) were not "minor party election law." The agenda included getting electronic voter registration, vastly expanding disclosure of state revenue and spending, bypassing the Electoral College when electing the President, and reestablishing the ability of persons who vote in Oregon's primary election to sign petitions for non-affiliated candidates for public office. None of these issues are "minor party election law."

As for your advocacy of "fusion, IRV, and other reforms to give voters greater ability to communicate their preferences to the political system," I did not see you at the 2009 legislative hearings on those issues. I was there to testify for IRV and fusion. And do you not consider minor party internet voting to be a reform that vastly increases the opportunity of members "to communicate their preferences to the political system," compared with the usual minor party conventions? If the Independent Party does it, it must not be reform, because everything the Independent Party does is just stupid, right?

And that is why you advocate now retroactively abolishing the Independent Party by banning the use of the word "Independent" in the name of a political party in Oregon. You want the votes of Independent Party members to not count at all, yet you portray yourself as a advocate of greater opportunities for voters to "communicate their preferences."

Kari, please stop misrepresenting our webpage, indparty.com.

All of the issues I mentioned above have been prominently posted on our homepage for about 18 months (half of the life of the party). We updated the legislature agenda page over a year ago (June 29, 2009) to reflect what the Legislature had done with the bills we were advocating.

Your claim that our webpage has recently changed regarding issues is highly misleading. Yes, you could find an obsolete link under the Issues item in the menu structure. But you then falsely portray that as the entire discussion of issues on the site, disregarding the rest of even the home page, not to mention other pages.

I expect more from you that this sort of tactic.