What we need more than anything is instant run-off voting so that we can - finally! - get some true competition into our political system. We need more viable parties with more ideas that allow the electorate to more fully express their preferences.

Question: Why is Neel Pender, the salaried Executive Director of the DPO quoting a movie star line from a Hollywood movie about a fictitious president to make a "serious" political argument?

Question: If the Democratic Party has no official position who is the now serious Neel Pender, Executive Director of the Democratic Party representing when he posts an opinion signing as the Executive Director?

Question: If, as implied, to "engender robust debate" is such an ideal, where are the debates, why doesn't Pender want Kulongoski to debate candidate Pete Sorenson, why doesn't Pender want Sorenson to even be allowed to speak at the Oregon Summit, thus engendering robust debates?

Answers anyone?

The existing political parties don't represent the majority. As a registered NAV I'm all for open primaries.

I don't believe there is anything in our state or federal constitution that mandates a primary election for the Republican and Democratic parties. Yet all the taxpayers of Oregon pay for these elections, even though a significant plurality of them belong to other parties or no party.

Why should tax money subsidize these parties? And if so, why not subsidize a Green Party or Libertarian Party primary, as well?

The primary election as it now stands is just a tool to keep our stagnant two-party system entrenched.

Now the outcome of the open election system as proposed by Keisling, et al, may not be what we want, but I still think it would be a good idea to challenge the parties' "right" to conventional primaries.

We'll probably get a better perspective on this issue in about nine months to a year, when the City Club publishes its research study on the topic.

Gil Johnson

Wayne - I have heard you talk about this stuff before, and like before, I get lost at all the initials. STV, IRV, etc. In finance IRV means Income = Rate times Value. - I'm sure you didn't mean that. Please speak/write english or a reasonable equivalent.

This last session, the County Clerks had a proposal in the Legislature to do away with counting votes in Precinct positions. It was killed, and rightfully so, because the State can't have it both ways. It can't mandate the system, and then take the legs out from under it.

What I liked about Neel's approach was that it was informative of underlying constitutional issues we don't usually get to. We have the right of free assembly and free speech - at least until the robber barons take that away too. The State does not have the right to tell a political party how it will select its candidate for office. If the State pulls out of financing a primary election, fine, we can do County or regional caucus events - and make our party vibrant at the local level. Anyone can get their name on a general election ballot for office provided they jump through some hoops. I don't think the existing law sets too high of a standard, even if Ralph Nader failed to jump that high.

I think we should keep our elections simple. Until a simple proposal comes along, I think we should stick with what we have. At least most people understand the rules.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer or scholar, but I did go to Thomas Jefferson's alma mater so let me clarify a point or two.

First, Kari's suggestion that the "One Oregon, One Ballot" proposal successfully skirts constitutional concerns is wishful thinking by proponents.

The Oregonian again failed inexplicably to point this out, but this system was just thrown out in Washington state for this very reason. In fact, Secretary Reed unsuccessfully attempted to make Kari's argument that elections don't serve political parties. However, the Federal Court ruled that by identifying candidates on the ballot with party labels, the state is in effect conducting a "partisan" primary.

Perhaps this is an argument for Ringo's non-partisan idea but "One Ballot" advocates know that this isn't popular. Advocates want to have their cake and eat it too here. They want to be able to use the party labels b/c they know they are meaningful shorthand to voters, but they want to be unfettered by party rules or any formal association.

The state could certainly make a legitimate argument that taxpayers should not be required to subsidize partisan primaries to "serve" parties, but that is not the issue being debated here. As Bucknum notes, party run nomiminating caucuses would invigorate grassroots participation, but I do fear that overall voter turnout would plummet.

As to Mr. Gronke's "guffaw" award, my point about undermining fundamental tenets pertains to infringing on a party's right to freedom of association - not Duke. Duke just shows that "open primaries" don't always yield the "moderate" or progressive outcomes cited. Frankly, I do get a bit jittery when people get cavalier about throwing the 1st Amendment out the window.

On balance, I think the system we have works pretty well, but more importantly has little to no effect on the problems that advocates seem to hope to solve. Our collective money and energy is better used in taking back the House rather than trying change the rules seemingly to accommodate moderate Republicans who have been run out of their party by pushy social conservatives. Sorry but not my problem. Frankly, I don't hear anyone complaining about too few moderates in our party. Quite the opposite usually.

Primaries aren't keeping the next Tom McCall from emerging; it's just that like Mother Teresa, Michelangelo or Jerry Garcia, these exceptional talents just don't come along very often. If they did, they wouldn't be special and they wouldn't have as much impact. Rather than pining for Oregon's next political messiah, why don't we work with a singular focus to finally realize the possibility of a Democratic majority for a change. We're knocking at the door for the first time in over a decade. Let's not let the opportunity pass by.

First of all, when someone explains how proportional representation would have worked in 2004 House Dist. 19 (Doyle vs. Grisham) or House Dist. 25 primary (Backlund vs. Thatcher) then I will listen.

You folks are in love with theory of the sort 95% of the population could care less about. Imagine going to a county fair anywhere in this state and explaining your proposal. If you could sell your proposal in such a setting, you are on your way to serious change. But all the initials here are not going to win over the folks who pay attention in perhaps May and October of even numbered years and at no other time; people who see life as too confusing already (technology, work and family etc.)and the folks so busy with their own lives that they wouldn't recognize the numbers Meas. 28 & 30, much less know which was a legislative referral and which got on the ballot due to CSE signature collection.

Not to mention those who worry that people who spend all their spare time on this stuff would find a way to game the system of proportional representation while those who have full lives with work and family wouldn't know what hit them. And you think they would give you undying gratitude for that change?

I happen to agree with Kari on One Oregon One Ballot. In District 25 in 2004, who is to say that the top 2 candidates wouldn't have been Pike (Dem. nominee) and Backlund, with Thatcher never getting to the fall election?

What if the voters in Congressional Districts didn't want their system changed--what will you gain by trying to force it on them? Or is that too specific and down to earth for the folks who talk about the great use of STV in New Zealand? I can imagine the questions now "And that is going to get us open public discussions of school funding and tax reform by...........?"

The answer to redistricting is an open public process (Keisling did a good job of that as Sec. of State). In 2001, the Republicans hid away their maps so it was almost impossible to see the lines they had drawn and HOW DARE anyone ask why they put X county into Y district. Criticize Bradbury's lines all you want, but it was possible to contact his redistricting effort and find out where one's home address would end up, not to mention explanations of how the lines were drawn the way they were.

Who would appoint a "nonpartisan" redistricting board: the equivalent of Kulongoski, Courtney, Minnis and Scott? Unless it was something like retired Supreme Court Justices hiring professional staff, who is going to believe they are nonpartisan? And what happens if keeping "communities of interest" together while keeping down the + /- ratio of the same number of people per district is difficult? It is going to be controversial, no matter who does it: if there is more growth in the northern part of a county than the southern part, the geographic area in the northern part will be fewer square miles--and if you don't want the line drawn between 2 small towns which have a joint school system...

It really is complex even if there was no gerrymandering to get someone's home drawn into a particular district.

On balance, I think the system we have works pretty well, but more importantly has little to no effect on the problems that advocates seem to hope to solve. Our collective money and energy is better used in taking back the House rather than trying change the rules seemingly to accommodate moderate Republicans who have been run out of their party by pushy social conservatives. Sorry but not my problem. Frankly, I don't hear anyone complaining about too few moderates in our party. Quite the opposite usually.

As someone who was registered NAV for 6 years because both parties at that time seemed to think anyone registered with their party was supposed to sign up for "what the ---- believe" (not allowed to have a "one from column A and one from column B" philosophy?) and had been an active Democrat before registering NAV, I have some advice.

Don't you folks kid yourselves that everyone registered NAV is a former Republican. How many NAV have you ever spoken to, or are you just imagining you know why they registered NAV? I have known married couples (one of each party) who registered NAV because they got fed up with partisanship.

I hope the Democrats take the House in 2006, but one reason the nonpartisan idea is more popular than some posting here might realize is the perception that both House caucuses had the attitude "choose your team and then always agree with them". Talk about 1st Ammendment rights to freedom of speech and association, not to mention freedom of thought! Caucuses don't exist in the Constitution. And people have the right to bring up the cost of taxpayers paying for primaries!

Earlier this month I got an email from an old friend who served in the Democratic majority many long years ago. It included this:

"I am very serioously thinking about becoming a NAV. In fact I have always wondered why there should be government 'sponsored' primaries..all the tax payers end up doing is paying for everyone else's candidates to get on the general election ballot..let the parties use their own money to determine that."

Let that be a dose of reality when considering "great ideas". I have long believed that one attitude which really is asking for trouble is, "We have this great idea, therefore it will work".

People are allowed to be more concerned with logistics than with theory. And to vote for someone who says "Here is what I have accomplished in the last several years" over someone preaching a theory.

Discussing a theory is one thing. Implementation is something else.

LT -

You are right my point wasn't clear. I don't think NAVs are former Rs. Nor do I think they are the "moderate" pent up monolith that the open primary folks assume.

I was referring to the fact that many of the backers seem to yearn for glory days of bipartisanship defined as moderate Republicans like McCall in charge. I wish there were more moderate Republicans too, but that doesn't warrant support for a gimmick intended to force Republicans to make more rational decisions.

There are lots of other arguments about this topic but I'm checking out and am happy to defer to Wayne on other meaninful alternatives!

off-topic comment removed

I'll be quick (and barely sensical): I'll take a chance on anything that offers even the hope of changing the equation, whether it's changing the body that draws district lines or Kiesling's proposal.

Parties encourage orthodoxy and that's suffocating the system - especially under the current rules that allow actively elected partisans to draw the lines. I'd start there (along with, I think, Paul Gronke). The overall point about freedom of association does strike me as tricky, though.

As a veteran of a dozen or so hard-fought political campaigns in Oregon and Washington, and most recently the victorious Democratic campaign for Democrat Chet Edwards here in Bush's home Congressional District in Texas, I think most of you are missing the point.

Politics is DAMNED hard work and if you are at all progressive minded, the opposition is most often better funded, better organized, and more ruthless. You can piss and moan about election rules all you want but that really doesn't change anything. There is simply no magical set of rules that you can construct to tilt the field in your direction. You have to get out and fight those fights every place that they occur.

The fact of the matter is that progressive candidates can win in almost any setting and under almost any set of rules if the right candidate with the right energy and organization takes up the fight hard. Look at Lupe Valdez who recently beat a good old boy Republican for Sheriff of Dallas County Texas. Under rules drawn up by Republicans. That one caused a lot of old white Republicans to pee their pants I guarantee you. Even the Bug Man DeLay could be in for a hell of a fight this next election, and Sugarland Texas is as Republican of a place as they come.

I'm not saying I support the current system. In fact I think its disengenuous of the parties to claim a right of affiliation (and exclusion) and then expect taxpayers off all parties and no party to fund their primaries.

But for those of you who are whining about the Democratic party of Oregon. Let me ask you this. How do you expect to take over the entire State of Oregon if you can't even take over your own party? That's frankly where the fundie Republicans are smarter than progressive Democrats. They knew they had to take over their party first before moving forward. And they did. Ruthlessly and they did it precinct by precinct. These days here in Texas the Republican Party is owned and controlled by the fundamentalists. They've tossed every so-called moderate Republican aside like yesterday's garbage.

That said, my own personal idea on reform would be to tackle redistricting first because that's where the system is most rotten. I don't have the magic solution, but I think a non-partisan committee of experts who are given strict rules to follow regarding the continuity of districts and communities would be a lot better than what we have today.

The solutions like proportional representation I'm not so interested in. Primarily because I don't the state and federal constitutions will ever be amended to make it happen. And even if it did, I don't think it would really change legislative results. Because the ulimate objective is results not some demographic change in the composition of the legislature. If anything the legislature would only become more disfunctional and fractured because legislative majorities would be even harder to achieve. No matter how you change the election rules, American politics will never look like Sweden. Because Americans are not Swedes.

Dang. Kent's comment is a good one. I almost feel sheepish returning to Pender's original comments, but this whole thing has been on my mind this morning (so much that I had to actually link to this post and bloviate on it on my own site) and one of Pender's arguments really didn't add up:

"4.) Broadening the audience in the primary will not engender robust debate, as advocates suggest. Instead, messages will be further watered-down to appeal to the widest possible audience. Voters will get more pabulum than pulp."

As I put it in my post: Partisan gibberish, the coded-shorthand that protects a given party's various sacred cows is the epitome of 'pabulum.' Opening the process beyond two official perspectives ought to serve to broaden the dialogue, to compel both parties to respond to a wider range of ideas.

Jeff: Broader range of ideas! What a concept!

Yea Kent! The fact of the matter is that progressive candidates can win in almost any setting and under almost any set of rules if the right candidate with the right energy and organization takes up the fight hard.

I have worked on "impossible" campaigns that won. And we did it with hard work, talented leadership, excellent candidate able to attract an army of volunteers. NOT by changing the rules!

Look no farther than Paul Hackett winning 4 rural counties in Ohio in a special election, thus depriving Republicans of their favorite talking point "only Republicans understand rural American values".

But it really is about hard work, not about theorists or consultants saying there is a silver bullet, or about changing the rules.

No amount of rules or consultant advice convinced someone to wear a Tom Potter button on his jacket in Feb. 2004, or a resident of Jackson County who is not usually political (a relative of mine) who, when asked roughly a year ago how the state senate campaign was going down there, said "Everyone knows Dr. Bates!".

The point is that quality candidates and armies of volunteers cannot be bought and there is no silver bullet to create them. It is just plain simple hard work of the sort many understood back long before there were email and blogs.

The funny thing is that everyone who is pro-open primaries/non-partisan elected officials thinks that it the silver bullet for all of Oregon's problems.

Its not!

You can lose the (D) and (R) but our elected officials will still be getting the same money from the same special interest groups.

The worst part is that by breaking the party system you create a large heard of cats who will be unable to accomplish anything progressive because their won't be any accountability to larger goals for the state as a whole. (Partisanship: an inclination to favor one group or view or opinion over alternatives).

There is no magic solution to Oregon's problems and partisanship can be a very good thing.

Jeff:

Governing in a democratic system is all about building majorities. It doesn't matter what the system is, you still have to build a majority to govern.

Here in the US, majorities are most often built during the elections themselves. What this means is that during a close election there are going to be a few key voters in key locations who hold the power to sway the election one way or the other. Florida in 2000 (notwithstanding the fraud) and Ohio in 2004 are two examples where just a handful of voters tipped the balance.

In parliamentary proportional representation systems this out-size power to tip majorities generally falls to the minor parties. Look at how the ultra-right settler parties in Israel kept a death grip on that country's West Bank and Gaza policy for the past 35 years. The ruling party's policies and agendas get watered down or hijacked by the minority.

We can certainly debate whether its better to give this power directly to the voters as in the US, or to the parties as is the case in parliamentary systems. But one way or the other there is going to be a some sort of process of "watering down" and distorting the policies or message in order to create and maintain a governing majority. In Israel it was settlement policy. In the US its nonsense like ethanol and farm subsidies.

That said, it isn't necessarily the case that watering down the message is any sort of sound strategy regardless of the system. Personally I think Americans are desperately looking to be inspired and are desperately looking for real leadership. And those few candidates who really have it are going to win almost regardless of the details of their platforms. Barack Obama won because he inspired people. Paul Hackett almost stole a pure Republican seat in Ohio with a message of leadership and accountability. Lupe Valdez and Hubert Vo won here in the Republican heartland by sweat and blood, going door to door and meeting every voter in every language and listening to people. And just working 100-times harder than their opposition. Brian Schweitzer won in Red Montana because he has bigger cojones and more charisma than two of his opponents combined.

Long term I think the progressive movement in Oregon needs to do a MUCH better job of cultivating and supporting young talent. That's one thing Republicans are much better at. Josh Marshall has been beating this point at the national level for years.

Anyone familiar with the DPO knows that the executive director does not set policy. Neel affirms this in the statement. The official/nonofficial matter is a nonissue.

I oppose both nonpartisan elections - including the hybrid One Oregon idea - and proportionate representation for the same reason. They would make our already anti-democratic campaign funding system worse. After we have contribution limits - as in petitions 8 and 37 [Neel does not support this] and public campaign financing [Neel says he supports this], then such discussions would interest me.

I don't agree with Wayne Kinney that IRV gives minor parties too much power. It simply gives them some power beyond electing the candidate with whom they most disagree, a perverse situation if there ever was one.

Is it also true that Neel Pender decided to prohibit Pete Sorenson and Vicky Walker from speaking at the Dems summit in October because he is a Ted backer?

Kari,

I think Neel was correct when he wrote that state mandated open primaries are unconstitutional. The alternative, nonpartisan elections, is constitutional, but withholds inexpensively transmitted information [party affiliation], increasing campaigning cost.

I am in favor of the parties opening their primaries to NAV's. I don't believe they can be forced to do so.

Fusion is a worthwhile idea.

My understanding, from talking with someone in the Lane County Dems, is that Pete Sorenson is throwing a lot of sh*t at the wall and hoping something will stick.

Candidates don't get to speak at the Summit. Pete's acting like a child, and it is shredding what little credibility he has. And Vicki Walker (yeah, that's with an "i" Mr. Random Sorenson shill) wrote a letter to the county party saying Pete's totally out of line on this...

Uh, that's knowledgeable with an "ea", unless you mean the kinda "knowledge" you eat without thinking or fact-checking, Mr. Thoughtless Repeater.

And folks, why bother even discussing the DPO E.D.'s essay about (not)opening the Democrat primary, when the DPO won't even open its own biennial "Summit" to its OWN candidates.

The current DPO clampdown on Sorenson IS relevant to the original post and this invigorating thread.

Jenni was right. It's "On Topic."

As most know, the Oregon Demo's Summit is a newby mimic of the Oregon R's "Dorchester Summit", started some years ago by that ol' toe-steppin', girdle-hiker, Packwood:

What is the "Oregon Summit", anyway?

"The Oregon Summit was started in 2001 as a unique opportunity for Oregon Democrats to gather in the off-year, share experiences and hopes, and prepare for the upcoming election year.

Held in a gorgeous setting in central Oregon, the Oregon Summit brings active Democrats from all over the state together to share what it means to be an Oregon Democrat, to work on ways to improve our success, and to enjoy camaraderie with other people who have the same vision." dpo summit

In the very first Summit in 2001 where there was more than one declared candidate for Governor, the DPO hosted a "presidential style debate" that they marketed as a "Candidates Forum." dpo newsletter

The DPO lauded the debate as a "highlight of the weekend" -- naturally.

Note that in that Fall/Winter 2001 newsletter, the DPO congratulated Jim Hill on "his victory in the Summit's straw poll" among other pleasantries and comments higlighting the benefits of hosting such an event. Note also the newsletter ad: "Burns for Gov '02".

Ironically, now, the DPO trumpeted in the beginning of that inaugural post-Summit debate newsletter that:

"Needless to say our goals were ambitious....We know Oregonians are fed up with the failed Republican leadership model that continually seeks to divide people....Democrats from the grassroots up, now have an opportunity to lead by example, to engage our friends and neighbors in fostering a new era of civic responsibility, and to rebuild a progressive agenda that brings Oregonians together again. *** The response to the Oregon Summit surpassed all expectations and we'd like to thank all of those who participated as sponsors or attendees for helping to create a new Oregon Democratic tradition."

Oh well -- easy come, easy go. Eh, DPO?

Open the stage door, and let Sorenson participate in maintaining that Summit tradition.

If a debate with an incumbent running for re-election makes the DPO leaders queasy, provide a featured spot for Sorenson to share his views (for discussion among those gathered for the Summit, one of its primary purposes) on key, resonating issues such as: CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, GAMBLING, PUBLIC EDUCATION, PUBLIC POWER, or THE WAR IN IRAQ.

It's a shame that DPO leaders couldn't figure out how to maintain their Summit tradition in a way that would have benefitted their membership and especially the attendees, as well as honor the ideals of their group mission.

Consider also this, from DPO's Bylaws, as adopted earlier this year:

"The Democratic Party of Oregon shall ensure the widest and fairest representation of its members in its organization and activities."

Really? Show us.

Mojo,

Since none of the D's(Teddy K, Pete, Vicki, or Rick) have offical filed for the office of Governor--none should speak on running for governor at the Oregon Summit. If and only if any of them have filed by the date of the conference, then you might have a point on fairness.

Teddy K is the Governor and should be able to speak to a general body of Democrats about issues revolving around the State of Oregon.

aaron,

Sorry that you misread my comment that way. TK addressing the body is understood and to be expected. Vicki and others are talking about their stuff for the benefit of all, and Sorenson should be treated the same for the same, rather than shut out.

Sorenson doesn't have to speak "on running for governor" any more than Vicki or Ted might, if that's a hang-up (and I didn't state that in my prior comment). Though everyone will be playing make-believe on that one when Vicki's featured -- especially if Sorenson is still shut out.

Democrat Party behaviour like the DPO's now is one of the kinds of things driving people to third parties and is masochistic.

Forget Florida 2000, remember New Hampshire 2000 where the Democrat Party really screwed up, and cost the world -- Bigtime:

Bush: 273,559
Gore: 266,348 _ Diff: 7,211

Nader: 22,198 2000 results

The DPO's Sorenson Shutout is Stupid.

That's all.

mojo

P.S. -- Great discussion throughout. Thanks for kicking this off Andrew. It will be interesting what the Demos do in Sunriver about all of the things kicked around here in this thread. What's more, hopefully they'll really think about this stuff beforehand.

Kari wrote:

"But, anyone who is arguing that the proposed One Ballot primary is unconstitutional (and remember that it's vastly different than either Washington's or California's previous experiments) needs to do as all a favor and point to the place in the Oregon Constitution where they think they see the language that makes it so."

Like everyone else in the discussion, I'm no constitutional lawyer, but this is what I think will bring "One Ballot" down:

     <i>Section 8. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.—</i>

Why? Because "one Ballot" infringes the free speech rights of party members to express their choice for party nominee. It does this by giving non-party members - who are free to join the party if they wish - the ability to change the outcome of balloting.

Remember that the Oregon Constitution's free speech guarantee protects my right to dance naked in front of a paying customer. I don't think it is a stretch to apply it to my right to determine, along with other members, my party's nominated candidate.

Of course, the state can make elections nonpartisan, and parties can [and should] voluntarily open their primaries to unaffiliated voters.

Am I understanding this correctly? If the One Ballot measure had been in effect in 2004 and armies of people who may not be highly partisan turned out for both Backlund and Pike because they had known them as neighbors or whatever for years (remember Backlund only lost Marion County by about 300 votes)and Kim only had CSE to rely on which some folks saw as carpet baggers, isn't it possible that in the fall it would have been Backlund vs.Pike because in that scenario Kim Thatcher would have come in third?

If that is accurate, it might explain it for lots of people. If not, please correct what is wrong. Some seem so worried about a David Duke in Oregon. Seems to me that the above scenario would have been better for mainstream Oregonians than the current system. After all, how many knew Kim Thatcher before her Measure 30 days? I wonder how many other unknowns have ridden into the legislature on a ballot measure's coat tails.

Maybe I have misunderstood the proposed system. If it true that candidates would be able to identify with parties, but they don't need to, then I agree it would be constitutional. I still think it would increase the importance of money in campaigns, which almost always leads to worse governance, in my opinion.

Although I've worked with the Democrats for quite a while, I do think that the major parties receive preferential treatment from government. One Ballot offers an alternative to that, but one which, I fear, would lead to less democratic influence on government, not more. More than Democrats versus Republicans or liberals versus conservatives, politics today is about people with money using the smoke and mirrors of marketing and public relations to get their way with government. This is the filter through which I view all proposed election change.

This thread reminds me why I don't regularly post to Blue Oregon. While a fascinated and interesting debate, one might not get anything else done - so as addicting as it is, this will be my last post on the subject.

Paul, I appreciate your analysis and your siding with Kari the magnificent. My response is simply that while college professors are decidedly pro-Kari, the federal courts are with me. (btw "the fundamental tenets" were excerpted comments from a longer speech I gave on the subject.)

I agree that parties don't have a right to a state funded election and acknowledged that much earlier. However, the fact that there is one doesn't grant the state authority to force parties to allow non-members to select their nominees.

Look, as an official party hack, the strongest party system by far is a closed one with party run caucuses. If the law is changed to spare taxpayers this nominal subsidy, parties will accommodate and benefit by having even more control over who runs, support and allegiance to the platform.

The current system is more of a hybrid. As a voter, you have to be a registered member but you don't have to go through a party boss, you simply go to your mailbox. As a candidate, the only litmus test is to be a registered member. On balance, while not perfect, this system works well measured in openess, fairness, participation and representation.

In terms of constitutionality, here's a synopsis from the non-partisan Ballot Access News of what the 9th Circuit Court found in overturning Washington's top two system: "In essence, Judge Zilly wrote that when a state prints party labels on ballots, it is holding a partisan election, not a non-partisan election. And when a state uses partisan elections, it must respect the desires of political parties to let only their members (loosely defined) choose the party's nominees." Also, the right to free association is granted explicited in the US Constitution, not the Oregon Constitution.

Answer me: Why do top two advocates hate minor party candidates? And where are all the Naderites and Libertarians on this issue?

Kari is an advocate for more parties - a view I share. However, the undeniable effect of the top two system is to shut out minor party candidates in 99% of cases, i.e. the Democrat and Republican always advance to the general or worse two candidates of the same party. Nader and Ventura staunchly oppose. The rationale that this system would be easier than the major vs. minor party rules in place now strikes me as particularly weak and unfair to minor parties who will be silenced on the general election ballot. Plus, who said democracy should be easy anyway?

Mostly, I'm a pragmatist about this and an unanswered concern remains that expanding the primary to the entire electorate for all candidates will yield an explosion in campaign costs - thus, discouraging candidates of modest means and perhaps even ironically the "independent" and "moderate" candidates that advocates desire because they lack the organizational support from parties or special interests.

Attempting to change the rules, in my view, is just letting elected officials off the hook. If you are dissatisfied with their performance, let them know directly. If we want a new generation of leaders with political courage, we better pay more attention to candidates' records and actions than election processes.

Oh and to the Pete Sorenson fans, Pete was not shut out of anything. He was invited to participate like any other Democrat or paying guest. The Governor and all of our statewide elected officials plus members of Congress are speaking because they have been nominated by our party in a partisan primary and are the duly elected leaders of this state. As I told him, if Pete is elected governor, he'll be guaranteed a spot next time too. The argument that there has to be a debate because there was one at the inaugural Summit is a nonsequitur. The first Summit debate occured when there was an open seat and the field was set. Moreover, it's overlooked that there was no debate at the last Summit either - even with other candidates being challenged in the primary. A county commissioner simply is equal in stature to a sitting governor. Sorry. The event has evolved and matured. I'd suggest others do the same.

Part of the burden of our electoral success in claiming all the statewide offices is that we just have more elected leaders to speak now. And btw - Vicki doesn't have a speaking role either, she disagrees with Mr. Sorenson demands, and has graciously understood from the beginning that the Summit is not about individual candidates, but rather building a stronger party that can take back this country from dangerous right wing ideologues.

The poor Pete, "I'm being shut out" routine falls flat too because it assumes someone had agreed to debate in the first place. Pete is the ONLY candidate who agreed or even expressed an interest in his demand. We won't stand in the way of Pete debating himself but we don't think it makes good entertainment. The fact is that Mr. Sorenson is mad because the Summit is not about him. He hoped to co-opt our event to his own ends and I don't begrudge him for trying, but it's not going to get him or his supporters anywhere.

Pete is welcomed to participate, host a booth, hand out literature, place an ad in the program, talk to people etc., but he isn't entitled to commandeer the program. It's my understanding that he is coming and has reserved a table so I guess he has decided that he isn't all that shut out after all.

Now back to what I think we all agree on: stopping George Bush and getting rid of Karen Minnis.

Thanks for all the thoughtful comments on "open primaries." And keep in mind, in no way am I saying that parties shouldn't open their primaries, I'm just defending their right to make the decision. I suspect this will be debated more extensively in the party and our meetings are open - to the public. Stay tuned and hope to see some of you at a sold-out Oregon Summit!

Kari,

I wise person once pointed out that everything is connected. If we have a serious problem with how campaigns are funded [we do], and a proposed change will make the situation significantly worse [I believe One Ballot will], then the unintended consequences make the change inadvisable.

I feel the same way about proportional representation, which has some benefits. First we need contribution limits and public financing, then we can make changes that require candidates to campaign to more voters.

I was so utterly pissed at receiving that email that I seriously considered switching to independent just because of that. I am an ardent support of the Nonpartisan legislature proposal and the OneBallot proposal, and seeing a Party Official use party resources in what is at best superficially a Non-Party activity is disgusting.

I don't know if I'm the first, but i'm going to say it, and I mean it. Neel Pender should resign NOW.

Ok, I'm breaking my own pledge here but misinformation to create a false impression is just as annoying here as it is when George Bush does it.

Jenni, hello, Governor Kulongoski played exactly the same role as last time. He spoke at the last welcome reception. He was there with our other statewide elected officials.

I was a personal fan of Gov. Kitzhaber's but the fact is that Ted has shown up 10 fold relative to the good doctor. Perhaps you've forgotten that TK came to the last Celsi dinner plus he has done numerous events for us. You are free to critique his record but questioning his support of Democrats is just flat wrong.

It's also just not an accurate or valid criticism nor is there any basis to your assertion that more and more people are leaving the state and county parties. The empirical evidence is that there are almost 50,000 more registered Democrats today than in 2000. We have more volunteers showing up regularly, we communicate to vastly more people, we raise more money, and have greater participation at every level in our events.

The difference is I don't believe our role is merely to serve and/or react to the loudest agitators or critics. Sometimes that is frustrating to people who are very passionate about their perspective but they fail to appreciate or respect the diverse interests that make up our party. In this context, whenever you make decisions in the broader interest, there is always a minority that squawks. Again, this is how democracy works. If you don't like it, work to change the majority and leadership - myself included. In the meantime, I'm completely comfortable letting others organize the circular firing squads and I'll focus on getting more Democrats elected.

As Bill Clinton once famously said in a speech "There is no THEM, there is only US". Sometimes those who spend most of their lives in politics seem to forget this.

"Out in the real world" is a disparaging term used by those who work in fields like sales and customer service to describe anyone in politics (regardless of their views on issues) who seems to be apart from the reality of their daily life. Out in the real world, anyone caught sassing someone important to the operation (customer, client, boss) would be in deep trouble and subject to discipline.

I have known people who supported a candidate due to something gracious the candidate or a staffer had done (something as simple as treating a server at a campaign event as a potential supporter rather than as "the help")and those who changed their mind and decided not to vote for a candidate because the candidate or a staffer was rude, refused to answer a question, or otherwise treated the voter/ volunteer as not really worthy of the treatment most expect from those in sales/ customer service. "I have to answer every question, no matter how stupid, with a smile on my face. And this idiot wants my vote but won't answer my question?" is a common complaint among sales/ customer service people I have worked with.

But in politics, there are those who don't seem bound by the same rules--they think they are the answer to everything and how dare anyone question their wisdom. Nothing ever done in a party organization (aside from warning about the reality above) will influence the votes of those who decide their vote on such things as whether candidates are courteous and answer questions. And at a time when so many elections are close, every vote counts.

That is why I agree with those who say the most important poll question is how a candidate scores on "cares about people like me, understands my problems".

Jenni and Chris are right. Maybe without realizing it, there are times when the Democratic Party (to be polite) makes it very easy for long time activists/ volunteers to say "Sorry, but I now have other uses for my time".

That may not make a big bang, but it is an ongoing problem which existed off and on long before anyone ever heard of Neel Pender.

This quote from Chris is an example of that sort of thing: I was so utterly pissed at receiving that email that I seriously considered switching to independent just because of that. I am an ardent support of the Nonpartisan legislature proposal and the OneBallot proposal, and seeing a Party Official use party resources in what is at best superficially a Non-Party activity is disgusting.

The Democratic Party has a decision to make. They can be a "pure " party and those who support Nonpartisan and/ or One Ballot should be told their services are not wanted, or all can be welcome. I think it is unwise for party resources to be used for such things unless there has been a vote of the State Central Comm. to take a stand.

But then there were other unwise things over the years like a State Central Committee meeting in the 1980s where a resolution concerning "what all Democrats believe" was passed by a margin of 6 votes, and then those on the losing side were called "not real Democrats". In that case, a couple of National Convention delegates, at least one county chair (whose county passed a resolution at the next meeting disavowing the state resolution) and a sitting Democratic legislator were "not real Democrats". Is that really a wise thing to do? Is it any wonder those folks eventually found better use for their time than being insulted by those who were upset at how they voted on the resolution?

People who have been long time activists, held party positions, etc. do it on their own time. And if they feel they are not given respect and their concerns are not listened to, they don't have to do it any more. I have seen really smart presiding officers at party meetings (one I am thinking about was a 5th Dist. meeting years ago)proving they know the importance of all points of view being expressed. I recall a meeting where the chair said something like "I notice Joe stepped out of the room for a moment, and he has strong feelings on this issue so we won't vote until Joe has the chance to say something". Respecting the right of opposing views to be expressed: what a concept! Then the vote was taken, one side won and the other side was not publicly criticized, just went on to the next item on the agenda.

Contrast that with In this context, whenever you make decisions in the broader interest, there is always a minority that squawks.

It is one thing to say "we had the vote and the vote was 25-19, so the motion is agreed to". That is a dignified statement. "There is always a minority that squawks" makes anyone who doesn't agree sound like a whiner, and the DPO exec. dir. sound like he doesn't like dissent.

It is possible to treat minority views as respected but in the minority. But that is not done by language like "In this context, whenever you make decisions in the broader interest, there is always a minority that squawks."

I wonder if the creators of the Rural Caucus are considered people who did something constructive or just those that squawk. I wonder if those who worry that DPO too often seems like Democratic Portland Organization are "squawkers".

Contrast that crack about squawkers with some more diplomatic language in an email from someone at DPO and decide for yourself which is more likely to build an operation where volunteers are willing and eager to donate time and energy, by the same token the DPO should continue to reach out to non-traditional districts (ie, those ignored in the past) and hey, we might surprise ourselves (and the Rs) with success.

In my humble opinion, this quote shows the attitude which the DPO should show to all. And the crack about "squawkers" shows a sarcastic staffer who is giving party people with more communications skills a bad name.

If Democrats at the state level want to motivate volunteers, they should do the hard work of listening to and respecting all points of view. Aren't Democrats the party which admires debate? As I recall, someone left the Republican caucus in the 1991 session and eventually ran as a Democrat after announcing "I believe in debate and the right of dissent". Is that what today's Democratic Party stands for? Or do we need proposals like One Ballot and Nonpartisan to provide for debate and the right of dissent?

I'll try to do some more homework on the WA decision and on what basis it was thrown out. I know a law prof in CA who follows this closely and may get him to weigh in.

Heard on the radio this morning that the old Washington primary was a "bedsheet" primary of the sort tossed out when California tried it and the parties sued. That this week's Washington Primary was the Wisconsin system (in place for quite awhile). And thought I heard that the One Ballot proposal was the same as Louisiana, which is still in place.

I'll try to do some more homework on the WA decision and on what basis it was thrown out. I know a law prof in CA who follows this closely and may get him to weigh in.

Heard on the radio this morning that the old Washington primary was a "bedsheet" primary of the sort tossed out when California tried it and the parties sued. That this week's Washington Primary was the Wisconsin system (in place for quite awhile). And thought I heard that the One Ballot proposal was the same as Louisiana, which is still in place.

This is such a rich, meaty, flavorful gab-fiesta where I'd like to share a few bites of what's on my plate. Sheesh, it hit Tuesday afternoon (I think, I wish the posts at the top of the threads had time-stamps), and two flash-and-busy days later, here it is Friday morning and the whole travelling-feast shebang teeters on the verge of being swept off the deck and into the drink when the usual regularly scheduled weekend spate of sheeshes rushes in under deadline.

Is there some provision to re-circle it back to the top of the stack, and keep the party going?

Slip it back in at the top? With comments intact, or summarized somehow (if the length of them is too long)?

Is there a second?

Kari wrote that there would be only two candidates in the general elections. That suggests that parties who nominate through convention will not have general election access. Kari?

The present system of government sponsored party primaries exists because people complained that nomination by convention removed candidate choice too far from the average voter [cigar smoke-filled back rooms and all that]. The complaint now seems to be that the parties themselves are anachronistic.

I know I sound like a broken record [or a stratched CD for you kids], but I believe our opinion of parties has been poisoned by the campaign finance system that dictates almost every aspect of electoral politics. Fix election buying and I think parties may miraculously become effective vehicles for expressing voter values and interests.

Schemes to lessen the influence of parties are a lot like term limits: the wrong solution to a real problem. The problem is the systemic corruption of politics by money.

Jenni is right. Not everyone drops out after a major election with a promise to work for the next nominee whoever that is.

And I think the problem is more than just political.

Whatever the organization (social group, political group, alumni group, church group, social committee at work, whatever) individuals have the right to decide how they will fill their spare time and whether they feel comfortable. They alone judge whether an activity is worthwhile use of their spare time.

I have known people who worked on campaigns but didn't want to get involved in party politics because they wanted to think for themselves, and thought party politics was about following the party line. I know Howard Dean revived party politics with his "show up everywhere" philosophy, but there are those in Oregon politics who don't seem to have realized the old days of target districts and "rely on consultants because they know more than you" have been replaced by the Dean philosophy.

It may well be that there are those who think they are welcoming but others don't see it that way. It is hard to explain with the printed word, but it is like the situations where someone says "Of course everyone sees it that way" and then wondering why someone who doesn't see it that way (due to experience, upbringing, whatever) doesn't feel comfortable as part of the organization. Human nature can be complex.

Sometimes use of language gets in the way. Clarence Page had an example last night on NewsHour where a line in Bush's New Orleans speech was heard one way by some people and another way by others. Another example: do you talk about salvage logging in the Buscuit Fire area as timber policy or forest policy? I have friends who say they can tell a person's bias on the subject by which term they use. But in recent years it seems that polls, consultants, and other "professional" politics have downgraded the old grass roots tradition where such information ( like being careful of word use) was passed along.

I am not saying I have all the answers. What I am saying is that if a Dem. candidate has an event in a private home and gets 50 or 60 people but the Dem. county central committee is lucky to have 20 people attending, the problem is not disinterest in politics in the year after a presidential election. In that situation, that candidate has figured out something the party hasn't--and it would behoove the party to try to figure out what that is.

I have no doubt Kari sees it this way: "The Democratic Party of Oregon is more open to the public than I have ever experienced before"

But there is a difference between activists thinking something is open and the actual work of retaining old timers as well as recruiting new people. Part of it involves talking to people who leave and asking them why they left. If they are working more than 40 hours a week or have a new child, that could be the reason: less spare time. Or it could be not feeling needed (someone made a "we don't want your kind" remark which they may have seen as banter but the person it was addressed to saw it as demeaning) or some quarrel (being made fun of for asking for a quorum, feeling a proposal made in good faith was shot down). Or it could be a personality clash, just a feeling of "been there done that" or the feeling that discussions go nowhere.

I once went to a meeting of some good hearted people trying to figure out how to win more elections locally. Seems to me that the way to do that is to get more votes than the other side, perhaps by starting conversations with swing voters. Others thought the answer was recruiting more pct. people. Someone else may see that as a pointless discussion.

My bottom line is this: individuals make their own decisions, and no amount of "but the public believes..." will change that.

If someone decides that their spare time is better used becoming a Red Cross volunteer, or teaching a neighbor computer skills, or working with young people on some project, they have that right. If they see Democratic party politics as neither worthwhile nor fun, whether the Democratic Party sees itself as open to the public is not the final word on the subject.

I'm going to take a real chance here and say something that has to do with Party politics and the reason for it. The Dem and Rep Parties have both stated "what they stand for" and "what the other guy stands for" and their candidates are supposed to have some reflection of those statements. Now some of us have gone to pretty serious lengthes to affect the Dem Party's "Official Position" and that in itself is tough. It involves persuading people who give enough of a rat's patoot about issues and politics to be involved in a State Pary. Now the suggestion is that involving people who don't care enough about the Party to even bother putting a "D" next to their name in a Primary by State fiat is a good idea is mind boggling. I really prefer to be a "D" Democrat and work on this Party and it's winning Democratic not Independent. I don't know who those people are or what they stand for. I'm real sure who the Republicans are and I'd like to beat them.

If people would really like to do something about areas being swamped by a small geographical area then doing something about the Initiative and Constitutional Ammendment process would generate much larger returns. How about it takes majority vote of both voters and counties, or make it even tougher for the OR Constitution and follow the Federal model? That might be an actual reform in the spirit of fairness and let the Parties take care of themselves.

Is the DPO in fine shape? It is when it has realistic hopes of winning in my Eastside district, nobody's talking that way right now. Neel Pender is right in this particular issue, for the Democratic Party and those who care enough to think they can affect political outcome through Party politics.

First of all, it has been tried to change the initiative process, and those ballot measures have not succeeded.

2nd of all, does being a Democrat mean agreeing with the state platform even if that means losing a district? It has been tried (by a DPO campaign committee years ago) to say all candidate should agree on certain issues. But one of those issues involved coastal residents debating inland residents. Is it so important to have Democrats support "what the party stands for" that Democrats would be (in that case) willing to write off coastal seats because the party had taken a position for the inland side of the debate?

I wonder if Chuck B. has ever been to a State Central Committee meeting. Lots of people volunteer to do party volunteer work on the condition they are allowed to think for themselves. In the 1980s a ballot measure split the Central Committee. It was decided that a banner taking one side of that fight would fly over the State Fair booth. People campaigning on the other side of the ballot measure let it be known "sorry, I can't work my usual shift at the State Fair booth this year". Were they "not real Democrats" because they chose a side?
What of the people called and asked to volunteer who said "Sorry, I am on the other side of the ballot measure, but I can give you names to contact who are on that side of the ballot measure--let them do the work"?

I thought the goal was to elect legislative majorities, not to tell all registered Democrats "this is what we stand for and if you don't like it don't vote for our candidates".

As I understand it, the Rural Caucus was formed by those who don't always agree with urban Democrats but would like to elect Democratic legislators.

If candidates representing all 36 counties must agree to what is written into a platform at a Platform Convention and never deviate from it, then no wonder people who want to think for themselves register NAV and then campaign for candidates of their choice. No intelligent campaign would say they only want registered Democrats as volunteers, NAV need not contact them. Too many elections are decided by margins smaller than the number of NAV in any district.

Whats the state platform got to do with anything? Has there ever been a candidate punished or had support withdrawn cuz they failed to toe the line on the state platform?

Its always seemed to me that the state platform is a make-work project for all those folks who's idea of a good time is parliamentary procedure.

Whats the state platform got to do with anything?

The Dem and Rep Parties have both stated "what they stand for" and "what the other guy stands for" and their candidates are supposed to have some reflection of those statements.

How does a party say what it stands for other than a platform? That said, I think the only people who read platforms are those who want their ideas included and the folks in the other party looking for something to attack.

One time I think it really made a difference was the national platform of 1980. Oregon's Charles McNary was on the ticket in 1940 when a plank about equality of women was included in the Republican platform. 40 years later, Reagan had that plank removed. And lots of women ( I know this from personal experience) signed John Anderson petitions and worked on his campaign. He ended up getting 7% of the national vote.

The question is: in 2005, how many vote the party/ platform, and how many vote the person as in "I have known Sue for 20 years and I never before heard of that guy running against her, so I am voting for Sue"?

That seems to be the crux of this debate.

I'll bet he is a county chair and in that case more power to him. Didn't recognize the name.