Anne, are you saying the proponents (is this the Keisling measure? would a former Sec. of State do something unconstitutional?) are purposely putting something unconstitutional on the ballot?

Please do not insult us by talking about David Duke. Oregon is not Louisiana.

And there are other problems. Because primary election voters tend to be people who pay close attention to politics, opening the primary to all voters allows party faithful to game the system. Republicans who know that their party has a slight registration edge may vote for the weakest Democratic candidate in order to strengthen their hold on a district. Or vice versa. The parties themselves may even coordinate these gaming campaigns. Instead of creating universal participation, the top-two primary lets the top two parties game the system.

Are you making the mistake many who follow politics closely make of assuming you know how all individuals react? You say "the parties may...". Doesn't that presume that parties are more relevant in the 21st century than some believe? Is this based on fact or suspicion? Have you ever been to a state central comm. meeting? Parties are made up of individuals who often do not agree with each other. Or are you speaking as someone who has been registered in the same party your whole adult life and therefore think all Oregonians share your viewpoint?

Better to address this very Oregon question: Can you say with absolute certainty that if this system had been in place in 2004 that the District 25 November ballot would have still been Thatcher vs. Pike?

As I see this, in that situation there would have been 3 names on the primary ballot--Backlund the GOP incumbent, Kim Thatcher of Measure 30 fame, and Roger Pike the Democrat.

What evidence can you give us (esp. since Backlund lost Marion County by less than 300 votes) that we might not have seen a November ballot of Backlund and Thatcher (there are roughly 4000 more Republicans than Democrats in the district) or Backlund and Pike (if the 8761 not registered to a major party could have taken part)?

Anne, you may believe in major parties controlling the primary process. But I have been a McCall Republican, an Independent, and an active Democrat. 10 years ago this late Spring (after a primary) I registered Indep. and only re-registered Dem. in 2002 to vote for a friend in a primary. But my friends will tell you that I remained interested in politics as an Indep/NAV (even campaigning for a 1996 third party Senate candidate).

Political theories are nice, but not always persuasive.

"By golly, we need to keep the partisan primary because I believe in strong parties and you should too" would likely be a more persuasive argument for your side than threats of David Duke or parties gaming the system. "Gaming" of any kind requires a level of cooperation and of logistics that I doubt many are capable these days.

Just as a voter with no special insight into part power issues, I would likely welcome the proposed system if it were objectively presented with enough detail to analyze it further.

On this issue I agree with Gronke, and I think Meek but his argument is somewhat ambiguous with regard to his personal position. For folks like Marvinlee who seem geniunely interested in more perspective before making a decision, perhaps the following arguments against this measure will be useful.

First let's deal with the implied question in the previous posts as to why Keisling and Paulus would propose such a system: We can't know for sure, but a combination of the common desire by marginalized politicians (with large egos) to recapture the spotlight, an immature understanding of the role of political parties in a representative democracy, and general gullibility of the electorate in a state characterized by a populist political culture are at least reasonable hypotheses which most of our pathetic news media won't bother to explore. (At least 2 of the major dailies in the state have already editorially endorsed the system before the public debate even begins, as has a host of local rags.) Giving them the benefit of the doubt on personal motives, we can instead examine the particulars to argue that they simply don't have the best interests of Oregon at heart.

Next, in theory and frequently in practice, the purpose of a political party in a representative democracy is to articulate a set of values for people to organize around so as to send forward leaders to act on those values on their behalf (no one said they had to be "good" values.) The creation of the Republican Party as an anti-slavery party in the 1800s, and the re-definition of the modern Democratic Party as the party of economic justice by FDR in the early 1900s and by Johnson as the party of civil rights in the 1960s are the most relevant recent examples. The fatal defect of populism, and populist electoral reforms like this, is the overwhelming tendency for political life to organize around charismatic (and usually self-serving) leaders in what pretty much amount to personality cults.

In this conceptual framework, the argument that parties need to appeal to "the middle" really is an oxymoron. "The middle" generally can only be defined by those who don't collectively share a defined set of values, or cared enough to organize to gain leadership around those values, and usually both. There is no "middle" to appeal to in the affirmative (which explains a lot about our recent elections.). Whenever a "middle" exists that is defined by a set of values sufficient to exercise leadership in a representative democracy, they either create a new party or redefine an existing party to stand for election to represent them.

Second, primaries as we know them now were specifically designed in the 1970's as an attempt to open up the process by which parties select their standard bearers to more popular participation. People like the sponsors of this measure thus are at least susceptible to the assertion that they either really want to go back to the old party boss system. or are failures at achieving leadership in a representative system in which they must articulate and defend the core values of a group that has bothered to become politically active. Disgruntlement by a majority of the electorate with a political party in the modern primary system fundamentally reflects the failure of that majority to actually get active enough politically to define the party. (And Kiesling's vote-by-mail system arguably encourages that apathy since it fosters a consumer approach to political participation in which "voting is enough", when in reality it is nowhere near enough.)

Now why is this proposition so toxic to representative democracy in general and to actually improving the political culture? First, as Gronke has pointed out there are more effective ways. And has Meek has correctly pointed out, if Section 10(3) is found to be constitutional it would undo too 35 years of work to open up the nominating process. However, Meek's argument that this provision would be found constitutional arguably is not nearly the slam dunk he claims. The right of association in this context works two ways: The California and Washington primaries were struck down because in the absence of making a commitment to a political party the general electorate may not force a candidate on a party. However, the right of association also says that parties may not prevent candidates from self-identifying with the party. For a party to deny someone the right to state their party affiliation on a ballot in a partisan election the party must have a legal and constitutional independent nominating process in place. But that was the intent of modern primaries in the first place was to open up the nominating process to popular participation.

So what Kiesling and the nitwits behind this proposal are really trying to do is set up a two-stage general election in which the parties have their own private nominating process. And that leads to the real reason this system is susceptible to legal challenge at least for Federal offices (note I did not say constitutional challenge.) To understand why one needs to know first that the Louisiana primary system was actually struck down as a violation of Federal election law 2 USC 7 (Foster v. Love 522 U.S. 67) for Federal elections by the Fifth Circuit Court and that SCOTUS unanimously upheld that decision. In fact, in defiance of the courts, Louisiana has refused to change it's system and their Federal elections are now under the control of the Fifth Circuit. Their "primary" for Federal elections is not a nominating primary at all, but is actually just a first round of voting on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. They have a second round of voting in December if no one wins the primary. It is widely recognized to be a system no one likes. And if it became the norm in all states our Federal elections would become a nightmare. If you liked the 2000 or 2004 elections because we didn't know outcomes in some races until mid December, you'll love this system where even if there are no contests the elections wouldn't be decided until mid December. And if both the first round and second round voting was contested you would revel in 8 weeks or more of bickering, court fights, and tabloid-style journalism about the vote-counting battles to boost ratings. Perhaps another reason that some of the major dailies have jumped on the bandwagon?

You can read the SCOTUS decision

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=522&invol=67

to understand where this system likely will be susceptible to challenge. Namely, if the parties don't go to a closed nominating system for legal or strategic reasons, it will be possible for a party to have effectively won an election before the designated day in November. And that would violate at least the congressional intent of 2 USC 7 as articulated in that decision as cited by SCOTUS.

Since SCOTUS has not faced this particular issue in the over 130 years since 2 USC 7 was passed, we obviously can't be sure how they would actually rule. But if they were to let it stand, a party with a rigidly disciplined fanatical party (for instance the modern right-wing Republicans) will almost always be able to win against a slate of diverse parties, or even just a single party of diverse viewpoints, by exercising enough discipline to put up two equally popular candidates. Exanding on Meek's argument, if one assumes those two candidates split the 45%-55% of the vote about down the middle, and the remaining candidates split the remaining 45%-55% of the vote roughly 4 or more ways, we will always end up with those two candidates from the rigidly disciplined fanatical party. And note here that "rigidly disciplined fanatical" only means realative to the discipline of the other 45%-55%; arguably not a high bar in the Northwest. Contrary to Meek's argument, however, if one assumes that a party either inherently or legally can't exercise enough discipline to only advance one candidate <it>and also prevent all other parties from putting candidates on the first round ballot</it>, it is winning bet to put two equally good candidates on the ballot. (In effect this is a result from mathematical game theory.)

In the end, as Meek's argument and this further analysis demonstrates, under this system political parties will end up spending a lot of time and resources on ballot strategy rather than focusing on issues and reaching voters, directly contradicting the claims of the sponsors. Of course, it is also possible they have spent so much time on the minutia of tactics to avoid obvious constitutional challenges that they don't really understand what they have created. In short, they may either be extremely devious or just plain dumb. Either way, for progressives and third parties this system is a disaster because minority views will have significantly diminished chances to seriously contest for office on the final ballot. And there is at least a strong argument that that will result in marginalization by the media, which in turn will result in marginalization by the electorate.

Thank you Kari for the qualifying question.

It seems to me that if P 86 is written the way Dan Meek says it is, it can't be the Louisiana system.

And a system which produced Mary Landrieu can't be all bad--how many other Southern states have elected women to the US Senate?

I would like someone to explain how P 86 (Keisling / Paulus, 2 people I have admired over the years as better legislators than many we have had recently, and people I have had the pleasure to know ) is different than the non-partisan legislature which I believe Charlie Ringo backs.

That is, of course, if those who know more about these issues than the average person would share such detailed information with us and not just make snide, vague remarks.

This was in the original post "And if the voters decide against a moderate candidate, is it really democratic to change the election system to invalidate the voters' preference? " but no one has responded to my question about District 25 in 2004.

And I don't think it solves anything to talk about ambiguities like "the voters' preference". I heard enough about how "the voters have spoken " in the past couple years that I am sick of it. Are there people in politics claiming to be mind readers--they know what "the voters want" based only on election results? Esp. when Republicans using that phrase really mean "the voters have spoken when we like the results--like measure 30---but not when we dislike the results like min. wage".

The electoral system needs redress, but I'm sure this "Top Two" revamp is not what is needed. We need to ensure that the balloting is truly and fairly counted, and this petition will surely distract from that most important reform. Without fair and secure balloting, all is lost for democracy. Where is Ginny on this?

This "open primary" is pie-in-the-sky posturing (from OneBallot.com):

"Imagine receiving your ballot and having real choices among candidates that actually represent your values and beliefs."

There is no way this measure would ensure the integrity of candidates.

In the real world, here in the good ol' US of A, we don't have a parliamentary system to empower minor parties. If that's your aim, you misdirect your efforts and may destabilize the system we do have. Currently the majority party can just take the football and run with it. You can see how the R's have done everything they can to shut the D's out of the legislative process. Now is the worst possible time to fragment the Democrats' power base. You know the R's won't allow significant desertions. Their current ethics meltdown may cause a bloodbath within the party, but they know discipline like an S&M master!

My fear is that with the "Top Two" primary and defrauded election systems promulgated under the 'Help America Vote' (how's that for condescending?) Act in place, liberal candidates of all affiliations will have no chance to even appear on most general election ballots.

Not to be repetitive or overbearing, but it must be pointed out again that while most of the posters keep talking about constitutional issues concerning this ballot measure, as pointed out earlier the Louisiana primary system was invalidated for Federal elections on statutory grounds (2 USC 7) concerning the Congress' right to override the rights of the states in running their elections when it comes to regulating the time of election (as opposed to manner) . Understanding the difference, and why SCOTUS emphasized a system which potentially settles partisan Federal elections before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November is critical to understanding why this system is susceptible to legal challenge.

The only question that SCOTUS will have to decide, giving the proponents the benefit of the doubt that they have met their obligations in overcoming 1st and 14th Amendment challenges, is whether a "primary" that occurs before November that could plausibly result in two candidates from the same party contending for a Federal office in November in effect settles the election before the designated day. For purposes of determining the composition, and therefore the control of Congress, it would. And preventing that result seems to have been part of the intent behind 2 USC 7.

If SCOTUS decided this system was constitutional, and statutorily permitted under 2 USC 7, and Don Meek's prediction is correct about the reaction of political parties, than SCOTUS may find itself having to decide whether or not political parties in this system have the right to prevent candidates from self-identifying with a party on the ballot. SCOTUS has long recognized the states and the Federal government have a legitimate interest in insuring the viability of political parties both for 1st and 14th amendment reasons, and to insure the orderliness of elections and the peaceful transition of power. Furthermore, the Court has repeatedly found that this interest is so strong that the highest level of scrutiny applies to most electoral law cases.

Like Don Meek, I am not aware of any one case that squarely addresses the issue of whether parties must conduct primaries to nominate candidates. But that is not really what I said nor what matters here. What I argued is that the party must have some process for selecting candidates in place to prevent a candidate from self-identifying his or her party affiliation on the ballot and that a state must have a compelling reason to do so on it's own. SCOTUS' reasoning in virtually every case about ballot access has taken as predicate that a state has in place constitutional laws that parties must have an orderly, non-discriminatory, and open process for nominating candidates to find that restrictions on ballot access, whether against a party or a candidate, are reasonable and constitutional.

In addition, it generally seems fair to argue that SCOTUS' reasoning has been that for a party to de-affiliate a candidate, the party has to prove the candidate has de-affiliated with the party in some affirmative way such as not being registered with the party or voting in another party's primary. To find that parties can prevent candidates from self-identifying on the ballot as being affiliated with a party in the absence of a primary or a nominating convention open to public participation, or for a state to prevent a candidate from declaring a party affiliation on the ballot for a partisan office, would require that SCOTUS largely abandon the predicates for that string of decisions.

I'm also not quite sure what Don Meek precisely means when he says that P86 would designate just about all currently partisan offices as "voter choice," not partisan, only because "voter choice" doesn't have an established meaning when it comes to current election law. Federal offices are partisan by custom and precedent, so it is at least unlikely Oregon would be able to have anything but partisan elections for Congressional seats and Presidential electors. Which also raises the question why we would want a system which both splits the time and manner of State and Federal elections as in Louisiana, and then goes beyond the Louisiana to split the nature of party affiliation in State and Federal elections?

Of course, some might point out that we now have an activist right wing judiciary that has in fact gone out of the way to invite cases which have enabled them to reverse or otherwise limit long standing precedents which had become foundational to our culture in the last 50 years. So if you support this petition and it passes, you just might get your wish that SCOTUS sees it your way on 2 USC 7.

Don Meek and Ed Bickford are spot on about the likely consequences of P86 for liberal and progressive candidates, and to small parties in general. And Ed's concerns highlight why, as Don Meek seems to be suggesting, we need the kind of open debate that didn't happen in 2004 in Washington State (there was no organized opposition in Washington because the parties are already weak since voters are not required to declare party affiliation when they register), and that the editorial boards seem to not want to happen here, to fully understand the real nature of P86 before voting on it.

At the bottom line, isn't this precisely the waste of time and political energy when there is so much real work to be done that has characterized our dysfunctional state and national political system for the last several years?

I haven’t fully made up my mind about the One Ballot Open Primary yet. Although the thing that strikes me about its intent, the more I have reflected on it, the more I like the principle it is trying to implement: increase effective enfranchisement of the electorate. (The devil is in the details as to whether it does it effectively.)

But first, I think a tremendous amount of the discussion around this topic area is focused on party issues, and it is important to separate the election process from the party process. By this I mean, many people are defending (and I am a vigorous Democrat, make no mistake) the “rights” of parties. But parties have no constitutional rights, nor even exist in the constitution. They exist because people have the right of assembly and therefore can chose to organize themselves if they wish. And they have, as parties. But parties aren’t formally part of the constitutional system. Because they are so strong however, they are regulated in law. We have written laws that favor a winner-take all system, which it rurns out tends to make for a two-party system.

And second, a lot of discussion centers around partisan advantage or disadvantage and whether it would make candidates more or less partisan or moderate and things like that. I think all those are beside the principle here.

I believe deeply in enfranchisement as a cornerstone of our democracy -- getting more people the ability to participate in the excersize of their opportunities to vote. This is much of what the framers were trying to do by providing the right to speech, assembly, etc. was to ensure we could participate and have a government by, of and for the people. The enfranchisement of more people is more important than party politics ... but it isn’t clear to me that it is necessarily in conflict.

I believe the simple principle of the One Ballot is to try and open the process so that more people can participate more meaningfully in the election process, such as the one-third of independents who have no voice in narrowing the field to the final two ... and are more and more cynical about the selections offered up by the two parties, while, because of the election system, having no real ability to form a viable alternative (especially as they may not be a cohesive political philosophy for forming a party themselves) even though they have opinons about who they most would like to represent them.

For America to have a Republican form of government, meaning one with elected representatives, we need to look periodically at whether our election system is in fact helping to elect representative representatives or not -- and remember there is nothing in the constitution that says how we should elect people. The math and electoral system show they aren’t: when you multiple the eligible voters times the registered percent, by the turn-out percent of registered, times the party percent etc. the winner of most elections was elected by a very small percent of the total electorate.

(BTW, I would not argue that One Ballot is the only possible thing to change here -- quite the contrary, especially in places like Texas redistricting gerrymandering may be a bigger issue than the primary system. But this isn’t Texas, not even a Democratic version of Texas.)

So I strongly endorse the principle of One Ballot’s effort to make a way to try to substantially increase enfranchisement -- to get more people voting. (As I said, I don’t yet understand if, in the details, it does that.)

And as for the party, I am confident that good Democratic Party candidates will continue to get elected in the preponderance because I think they much more closly reflect what Oregonians want their government to do for the common good -- improve healthcare, steward the environment, provide opportunity for all not just the super wealthy, etc. We will win the battle of ideas anyway!

The “rights” of the parties (assembly) to has to come “below” the enfranchisement of voters since that is a key reason for having the right to assemble (in parties). If the party system as implemented in our laws is preventing participation, we need to adapt the system to improve it.

A variant of this same logic is the federal basis for why campaign finance reform was found to be constititional in spite of “violating” the constitutional right of free speech and assembly (to donate, collect and spend as much as you want) -- if that right interferes with the ability to have a representative democracy of, by and for the people, then you have to allow some middle ground that may limit the “free speech” or “right of assembly” to achieve it. (I would highly recommend reading Active Liberty, by Stephen Breyer for more on this ... and more broadly a philosophy of constitutional interpretation that counters the conservative “originalist” and “textualist” hokum.)

As to motives, I have known Phil for some time, and believe that he has the highest motives for this, as when he introduced Vote-By-Mail, which is perhaps the best voting system in America, over party fears. The simplicity is admirable (all ballots are the same), it gets more people to participate, and it is easier to manage with only one counting place per county, and if there is a question about your signature and you voted early enough the county clerk will ask you to come verify so your vote isn't thrown out because your signature has changed.

I would suggest that those who oppose One Ballot cite the wording/ notation (article,section) in the Constitution where parties are given any power. I looked for that one day when Karen Minnis was saying "our caucus has decided on a number for this budget" and couldn't find any such authority.

Parties operate under law and party rule, but they are traditional groups, not constitutional groups.

And I would remind those of you who are upset at the party structure being challenged that there have been quiet questions for years about how useful parties are except for some organizational things (replacing on a ballot if someone dies or drops out of an election, majority and minority in legislative bodies, etc.). More than a decade ago I had dinner with a friend who used to live in Oregon and was visiting. His wife had a job in the office of a state chair in a large state, and even she had heard discussions of why/ whether parties were relevant as the end of the 20th century approached.

I am always glad when I hear of a Democratic group which outgrows meeting space and moves to a larger space. But why must everyone pick one party or the other when most of life is full of choices rather than either/or?

One Ballot opponents might grace us with a defense of parties in the 21st century which is more than "we've always done it that way". Those of us who have been registered outside major parties at any time in the last decade would like to know why party registration is needed to be represented in public debates. Once Indep/NAV registration went over 20% some of us were hoping there would be more respect for those of us who have not spent our whole lives in a party.

What do parties do? They inform voters. They mobilize activists. They mobilize voters. They simplify the act of voting. They help structure the electoral process. They structure legislative decision making. They provide a mechanism for collective responsibility. If you were to choose one factor that most offsets the severe socioeconomic bias in the American political system, it is whether an individual has been contacted by a political party

Paul, do you really believe that the generations born after Carter was elected president really believe that? Or do they get many / all of the party services you describe from groups like the Oregon Bus Project (see topic: Rebooting Democracy).

As far as you telling me I have a burden to explain: Why, because you are prof and are treating me like a student in your class?

I have been a pct. person, a National Convention delegate, a member of the 5th District and State Central Comm. and a member of one of the standing committees. My knowledge of party structure comes from experience, not just reading. My reading of political science texts during and after the time I was actively involved in the Oregon Democratic Party shows the texts don't mirror reality as I experienced it.

If you wish to post your experience with an actual party (Oregon or elsewhere) including positions you have held, then we can talk. But it seems to me you are quoting a textbook/ historical definition of parties.

Howard Dean has revived many state and local party organizations to the point they are more alive than they have been for over a decade. But that happened at a time when "the fastest growing party is no party at all".

I think it would be great if someone were elected to the legislature as an Independent, and was part of the exploratory process for someone who considered running. I realize there are some partisans who consider such conduct heresy. But I don't see how telling those not registered in a major party that they are not allowed to have a voice unless they choose a "side" doesn't cut it in 2006.

You love to deal in statistics. Answer these questions:

How many legislative districts have more registered outside major parties than the margin between R and D in the district?

How many 2005 legislators won office by a margin of victory not only over their only/ major opponent, but a larger margin than the number registered outside a major party? (My state rep. Vicki Berger, for instance, won by about 6000 votes in a district with about 8000 registered outside a major party, there are others who won in multi-candidate races.)

I was born in Michigan, and some older members of my family believed in voting straight party ticket (in the old days when it was possible to pull the party lever rather than voting in each indiv. race that was a lot easier). There were those who said that people born in Michigan were born into not only a family and a religion but a political party and an attitude towards unions.

I believe those straight party days vanished years ago. I registered to vote (I'm old enough to have had to wait until I was 21) by choosing between 2 equally attractive primaries (one party for US Senate, one party for Pres.--I chose to vote in the Pres. primary although I was upset when the incumbent I supported lost the Senate primary in the other party).

There are political scientists who don't want to admit that people like me exist. But I have also talked to people of my parent's generation who were active Democrats who said "In our day, you chose a party depending on what you thought of FDR--Democrats loved him, Republicans hated him".

You may have read the book MEGATRENDS. One idea from the book is that black/white is a thing of the past to be replaced by multiple option: Baskin Robbins has more than 30 flavors and no one is required to choose only between chocolate and vanilla. And in all aspects of life we are not required to make binary, either/ or choices.

Scholars may not like that attitude, but the reality of 2006 is that it exists, and esp. young people and ticket splitting voters (Bush/ Hooley, for instance in 2004) don't want to have to swear unquestioning allegiance to a party. If someone believes (as some of my friends did) that Bush and Hooley were incumbents deserving re-election, how are contacts by a political party going to change that? What if the voters develop the attitude "oh, shut up--I know how I am going to vote"? And many don't have time (except maybe for a short period of time) to get involved in party governance. But they do have time to vote and many prefer uncomplicated voting. That is the appeal of vote by mail.

In Oregon, if you don't like the GOP which opposes abortion and has someone from FreedomWorks as one of their state officers, but you aren't really a straight partyline Democrat either, which party should one join and why?

What do parties do? They inform voters. They mobilize activists. They mobilize voters. They simplify the act of voting. They help structure the electoral process. They structure legislative decision making. They provide a mechanism for collective responsibility. If you were to choose one factor that most offsets the severe socioeconomic bias in the American political system, it is whether an individual has been contacted by a political party

Paul, do you really believe that the generations born after Carter was elected president really believe that? Or do they get many / all of the party services you describe from groups like the Oregon Bus Project (see topic: Rebooting Democracy).

As far as you telling me I have a burden to explain: Why, because you are prof and are treating me like a student in your class?

I have been a pct. person, a National Convention delegate, a member of the 5th District and State Central Comm. and a member of one of the standing committees. My knowledge of party structure comes from experience, not just reading. My reading of political science texts during and after the time I was actively involved in the Oregon Democratic Party shows the texts don't mirror reality as I experienced it.

If you wish to post your experience with an actual party (Oregon or elsewhere) including positions you have held, then we can talk. But it seems to me you are quoting a textbook/ historical definition of parties.

Howard Dean has revived many state and local party organizations to the point they are more alive than they have been for over a decade. But that happened at a time when "the fastest growing party is no party at all".

I think it would be great if someone were elected to the legislature as an Independent, and was part of the exploratory process for someone who considered running. I realize there are some partisans who consider such conduct heresy. But I don't see how telling those not registered in a major party that they are not allowed to have a voice unless they choose a "side" doesn't cut it in 2006.

You love to deal in statistics. Answer these questions:

How many legislative districts have more registered outside major parties than the margin between R and D in the district?

How many 2005 legislators won office by a margin of victory not only over their only/ major opponent, but a larger margin than the number registered outside a major party? (My state rep. Vicki Berger, for instance, won by about 6000 votes in a district with about 8000 registered outside a major party, there are others who won in multi-candidate races.)

I was born in Michigan, and some older members of my family believed in voting straight party ticket (in the old days when it was possible to pull the party lever rather than voting in each indiv. race that was a lot easier). There were those who said that people born in Michigan were born into not only a family and a religion but a political party and an attitude towards unions.

I believe those straight party days vanished years ago. I registered to vote (I'm old enough to have had to wait until I was 21) by choosing between 2 equally attractive primaries (one party for US Senate, one party for Pres.--I chose to vote in the Pres. primary although I was upset when the incumbent I supported lost the Senate primary in the other party).

There are political scientists who don't want to admit that people like me exist. But I have also talked to people of my parent's generation who were active Democrats who said "In our day, you chose a party depending on what you thought of FDR--Democrats loved him, Republicans hated him".

You may have read the book MEGATRENDS. One idea from the book is that black/white is a thing of the past to be replaced by multiple option: Baskin Robbins has more than 30 flavors and no one is required to choose only between chocolate and vanilla. And in all aspects of life we are not required to make binary, either/ or choices.

Scholars may not like that attitude, but the reality of 2006 is that it exists, and esp. young people and ticket splitting voters (Bush/ Hooley, for instance in 2004) don't want to have to swear unquestioning allegiance to a party. If someone believes (as some of my friends did) that Bush and Hooley were incumbents deserving re-election, how are contacts by a political party going to change that? What if the voters develop the attitude "oh, shut up--I know how I am going to vote"? And many don't have time (except maybe for a short period of time) to get involved in party governance. But they do have time to vote and many prefer uncomplicated voting. That is the appeal of vote by mail.

In Oregon, if you don't like the GOP which opposes abortion and has someone from FreedomWorks as one of their state officers, but you aren't really a straight partyline Democrat either, which party should one join and why?

LT: You wrote One Ballot opponents might grace us with a defense of parties in the 21st century which is more than "we've always done it that way". I don't think I'm "treating you like a student" if I point out that this argues again 200 years of American history and virtually every other democratic system in the world--I'd like to think I'm treating you like an intelligent individual.

It's funny- I don't know the first thing about what you do for a living, but you feel fine constantly attacking my profession as some evidence that I am uninformed. If you take issue with the content of what I say, please let me know. But the continued ad hominem is tiresome and it only makes you look closed minded.

Your refusal to consider quantitative or statistical evidence that contradicts your own idiosyncratic experiences astounds me. Just to take the most recent instance, you believe that the "straight party days vanished years ago".

Well, I already know that you ignore statistics, but statistics (and most poltical commentators) recognize that the number of straight ticket voters in this country is higher than it has been for a half century. The number of partisan affiilators who report never voting for a candidate of the opposition party has been rising for 20 years.
Source: http://www.fairvote.org/reports/monopoly/ticket.html CQ Weekly, May 12, 2001. "Split Ticket Voting Lowest in 48 years." Why Americans Split their Tickets. Burden and Kimball (Michigan 2002)

By the way, scholars could care less if there are more or fewer split ticket voters (your comments about what scholars want aside). Most are trying to document trends, trace cause, and provide some insight into the state of the political system from a dispassionate perspective.

As to your last question, you make a choice. Which issues are more important to you and why. If you don't like chocolate or vanilla, you have every right to choose strawberry or peach. They may not win, but you can still express your preference for them.

If you don't like the duopoly of parties, then please advocate for fusion voting (something you have opposed on other discussion fora) or PR or something else that will really encourage third party growth.

Paul, I don't care what CQ says about the country, I am concerned about electing a common sense Oregon House.

My degree is in Social Science, I was a certified social studies substitute teacher and I completed Standard preparation in Social Studies for the Standard Certificate, but because of the decline in the number of available teaching jobs in Oregon was never able to get a full time job.

You want statistics?

R to D ratios -- March 2005 registration numbers For comparison, a not at all close district: Dist. 56, Klamath County. Rep. Garrard won by a victory margin of 8642 votes. There are 7163 more registered R than D. Voter registration R div by D is 1.763 to 1 ratio of R to D There are 6931 NAV + other registered voters in District 56.

DISTRICT 25 R--14356 R div by D is 1.415 to 1 ratio of R to D (NAV+ other 7381 ) D--10145 More R than D registered: 4211 Kim Thatcher’s victory margin: 7517

Dist. 18, 19,20, 21, 22 18 D-10848 R div by D is 1.33 to 1 ratio of R to D (NAV+ other 8070 ) R- 14449 Sumner’s victory margin over Gilbert (D) 3547 (L candidate got 518) More R than D registered: 3601 19 D- 11439 R div by D is 1.28 to 1 ratio of R to D (NAV+ other 7610 )
R- 14683 Doyle’s victory margin over Grisham 3280 More R than D registered: 3244 20 D-12809 R div by D is 1.167 to 1 ratio of R to D (NAV+ other 8761 ) R- 14951 Berger’s victory over Deane 6195 More R than D registered: 2142

21 D--10575 D div by R is 1.154 to 1 ratio of D to R (NAV+ other 5840 ) R----9156 Dalto’s victory over Howells 825 More D than R registered: 1419 22

D---7686 D div by R is 1.145 to 1 ratio of D to R (NAV+ other 4939 ) R--- 6712 Komp victory over Shannon 1750 More D than R registered: 974 Very close districts

Flores, Dist. 51 D- 13389 R div by D is 1.037 to 1 ratio of R to D R- 13887 (NAV+ other 9494 ) More R than D registered 498 Victory margin: 1863

Galazio, Dist 35 D div by R is 1.0256 to 1 ratio of D to R

D---13296 R---13637
(NAV+ other 9027 ) More R than D registered 591 Victory margin 815 (that’s D-R, there were 3 other candidates)

Why do Republicans win districts with more Democrats? Patti Smith, Dist 52 D div by R 1.00627 to 1 is ratio of D to R
D—13944 R---13857

(NAV+other 10359 ) 4492 Victory margin

Minnis, Dist 49 D div by R 1.244 to 1 is ratio of D to R D—12233 R---9827 (NAV+other 8415 ) More registered D than R 2406 1524 Victory margin

Alan Brown, Dist 10 D div by R 1.3 to 1 is ratio of D to R D—15359 R---11812 (NAV + other 9832 )

More registered D than R : 3547
414 Victory margin

That is something I put together for a friend contemplating running for a legislative seat.

I understand it is not CQ, nor a peer reviewed scholarly journal. But why is the above not valid?

Now you have to answer my question about your political involvement. To paraphrase a question a legislator once asked, is this question some sort of historical construct, or are you talking about what could happen in the future? You said "I point out that this argues again 200 years of American history and virtually every other democratic system in the world"

I don't care about 200 years of American history and virtually every other democratic system in the world, I care about Oregon elections in 2006.

Perhaps you can explain to me why caring more about Oregon 2006 elections than scholarly political science research is "continued ad hominem is tiresome and it only makes you look closed minded."

On another topic, Jenni was talking about seeking more information. Why is asking you about your practical political experience an attack?

Because the system essentially holds two general elections, it may weary an already weary electorate, and further dampen turnout.

Paul, if you want to examine the classic case of a weary electorate, study the May, 1996 US Senate primary. That is worth some serious academic study. The replacement election for Packwood had been primary in December, general election in January (good thing there was vote by mail, snow could have been a problem with polling place elections in January in some places).

The DSCC (not publicly, which would have been more honorable, more like word of mouth and communicating with national reporters and such) chose "Kerrey millionaires" to run in several states (Bob Kerrey then DSCC chair). In Oregon, it was a founder of Mentor Graphics who had minimal public speaking ability, was not able in private conversation to speak in more detail than had been in the speech text, had no clue about some issues, but by golly had money and powerful friends.

Opposing him were 2 elected officials and a previous nominee. I wished I could have split myself between the campaigns of 2 friends (worked for the one who asked me first) and knew the third one as a legislator.
The man from Mentor Graphics whose name most of us had never heard prior to that year outspent his nearest rival 10-1 and the next 100-1. He was helped by nationally famous reporters saying (before the primary) "And in Oregon, the candidate is Tom Bruggere" as if there was no one else running. Local press did not do thorough investigation of him until the general election. I know there was a weary electorate because when many of us tried to interest our friends in the campaign, they said "didn't we just vote for US Senate"?

Of course he lost the general--Gordon Smith was more charming and had a voting record. And those of us who did not wish to choose between what one friend called the choice between "the slick one and the chinless one" voted 3rd party.

That was the year I registered Indep/NAV and stayed that way for 6 years. My experience was that people register that way because the I in Independent means "I think for myself, thank you very much" so the idea that NAV is any sort of a bloc is silly. More like the old joke that if 5 of them are in a room there are 4 factions and a moderator. And whether they vote depends on the quality of the candidates and outreach to voters, regardless of any studies to the contrary. After the Bus Project helped change the control of the State Senate, I haven't heard many people saying "young people don't matter because young people don't vote", have you? Regardless of historic studies, ask Ringo/Witt, Devlin/ Tiernan, and the other Sen. candidates where the Bus folks made a difference if they will ever again discount the votes of those under 30.

BTW, I am not stating a position on One Ballot--I don't know all the details and also like the Nonpartisan idea (Ringo is a backer, I think the Senate passed a bill).

Paul, if you have never experienced actual volunteer work on an Oregon campaign, this would be a great year to do it. And you would meet other actual volunteers, rather than just thinking of them as statistics.

Have I missed a cogent rebuttal of Dan Meek's reading of P86, that it would allow, and probably motivate parties to allow only one candidate each to use their party names? If Dan is correct, this may return us to the old days when party conventions picked candidates. The modern primary system was a reaction to the small cigar-smoke-filled room decision making process.

As noted, this proposal essentially moves the general election to May, and closes the nomination processes.

Maybe the authors figure that viable-yet-spurned challengers for party nominations are more likely to mount an independent challenge in an earlier election. If the show hasn't been unfolding for months, and the media haven't focused solely on the D and R nominee, then maybe you'll see independents sneak into the final two more often than you might imagine.

That's the best rationale I can invent. In reality: the media focus will get hot and heavy just as soon as the nomination processes (whatever they are) get started.

Maybe these guys sincerely believe that parties won't insist on a single standard bearer; section 10(3) allows it but doesn't require it.

Bottom line: section 10(3) is a duct taped, ad hoc reaction to the constitutionality problems from WA and CA. Whatever it is party haters hope to accomplish: you need to go back to the drawing board.

I think Keisling mentioned "simplicity" as one of this proposals virtues. Sure it is....

The data from California's experience with blanket primaries, and Washington state's experience with blanket primaries, shows that independents would not sneak into the run-off. In 408 partisan elections in California with the blanket primary, there was not one instance when someone other than a Democrat or a Republican polled first or second. Even Audie Bock, the Green who was actually elected to the California legislature in 1999, didn't come in first or second in the first round. She was in the run-off because the blanket primary let the top vote-getter from each party advance, but she did come in a weak 3rd in the first round.

Also Jesse Ventura only got 3% of the vote in Minnesota's open primary in September 1998. As the Reform Party nominee, he still was permitted into the November election, but under top-two, he would have been eliminated. That's why Jesse Ventura, John B. Anderson and Ralph Nader all came out against "top-two" when it was on the ballot in California and Washington in November 2004.

As to the question about why Louisiana's system hasn't been declared unconstitutional, it's because no political party in Louisiana has chosen to file a lawsuit against it. The Love v Foster litigation only affected congressional elections and had nothing to do with the First Amendment freedom of association for parties. Louisiana has been using "top-two" for state office since 1975, and for congress since 1978.

Most interesting thing I have read here is that Jesse Ventura and John B. Anderson came out against "top-two" when it was on the ballot in California and Washington in November 2004.

This sounds like one of those measures where the general idea sounds good but the specific details raise questions.