I need more information here. I read the initiative and was able to find the section in question. However, I don't know what it means. I'm hoping that someone from the Open Primary campaign can post here and explain the intent and likely result of section 10 (3) of the Measure. Also, I hope that someone from each party can comment as well (thanks John. can you address below language?)

Thanks.

Section 10. Printing of ballot for voter choice offices. (1)This section is intended to give Oregon electors direct access to information in the public record about candidates for voter choice offices without infringing on the rights of political parties and their members to organize and associate.

(3) Not later than the 63rd day before the date of the primary election, apolitical party may notify the chief elections officer that a candidate for nomination to a voter choice office has been determined by the party to be ineldigible to be listed on the ballot as a member of the political party in accordance with party rules. Note later than the 90th day before the date of the primary election, a political party shall file with the SEcretary of State a certified copy of the current party rule specifying additional qualifications, if any, a candidate must satsify to be eligible to be listed on the ballot as a member of the political party.

From a closer reading, note that the language refers to qualifications for membership to the party, not qualifications to be listed as a candidate endorsed by the party. Therefore, it seems to me that any rule changes would prohibit someone from being a member, not just a candidate, of the party.

This doesn't seem likely to me. Am I missing something. Can someone elaborate on what types of new rules could actually prohibit a candidate from using their own party label that they selected on their voter registration card (i.e. if I am already a registered D, what new rules could prevent me from maintaining that status? "No short curly haired guys who live in Woodstock can be Democrats?")

I've got to be missing something here, or else I just don't understand the Meek article.

Thanks

I think we should keep comments focused directly on the language and its intent/effect (Section 10 (3)). The law refers to membership to the party, not candidates running under the party label. Paul, could you re-post and relate your (and Dan's) comments back to the language in question?

Thanks!

Jeremy

Section 10:

(3) Not later than the 63rd day before the date of the primary election, a political party may notify the chief elections officer that a candidate for nomination to a voter choice office has been determined by the party to be ineligible to be listed on the ballot as a member of the political party in accordance with party rules. Not later than the 90th day before the date of the primary election, a political party shall file with the Secretary of State a certified copy of the current party rule specifying additional qualifications, if any, a candidate must satisfy to be eligible to be listed on the ballot as a member of the political party.

Jeremy,

It's quite clear from this clause that parties can specify additional qualifications before a candidate can use the party name. There is no reason I can see that endorsement by a party convention could not be such a rule. The logistics laid out by Dan Meek should make us realize that such a rule would almost certainly be adopted by any party who wants to win the election. Am I missing something, or will One Ballot most likely take us back to the bad old days before primary elections?

There is a history of non-partisan elections that would indicate Meek is partially correct. The Minnesota legislature was non-partisan until the 1960's. There was a "liberal" caucus and a "conservative" caucus, but on the ballot no one was identified. Nonetheless there were almost always only two viable candidates - one conservative and one liberal - with the exception of where there was one, the incumbent. There were a lot in that latter category. Without a party label the elections were largely around name recognition and organization. Support of one of the caucuses was all but required. There were exceptions, just as Oregon had Wayne Morse, there were occasional eccentrics who won on the basis of their personalities.

However I'm not sure Meek is entirely correct, the candidates that will be able to participate without party support will be the guys with bucks. But you won't see three or four candidates duking it out in a primary even in safe D and R districts.

"They can not pick and choose one definition of membership in one county and another in a different location."

Its really not that tough to exclude extra candidates from claiming the party label - they can simply require public support of the endorsed candidate as a condition of membership in the party. If you run against an endorsed candidate, you don't qualify for party membership. There are no federal election laws or national rules that define party membership.

Charlie B, What do you mean about Measure 6 campaign finance reform?

Do you mean the one which said "It is a felony to send money to any candidate who you can't vote for because you live in another district"? It basically said if one of your relatives lived in a different area of the state you would be guilty of a felony for writing them a contribution check. As I recall, that one was overturned by federal court (it was constit. amm.) while Measure 9 (the campaign finance reform measure which was law when those like Ryan Deckert first ran and were elected under contribution limits--before OR Supreme Court threw it out) was still in effect. I campaigned for and voted for Measure 9, but never had any use for Measure 6.

Or are you talking about a different Measure 6?

"Can you imagine the Republican or Democratic party telling a Pete Sorensen or Kevin Mannix that they cannot put a D or R behind their name because they failed some sort of litmus test?"

I can imagine it pretty easily if the litmus test is party endorsement.

If the party sets up a process for choosing its candidate why should it allow other candidates to claim they are members as a qualification for office?

Can Mannix run as both Republican and Democrat? Can Sorenson run as both Democrat and Green? Its ridiculous to suggest the parties will let people run for office as party members against party endorsed candidates. It makes the party irrelevant. Mannix could run as both Democrat and Republican and if the parties let him, he probably would.

I think people need to live in other states to understand that the Oregon system where the parties do not endorse in the primary, is not universal or even common. Minnesota has open primaries, voters are not registered by party at all, in which people choose which party they are going to vote for when they get to the polls. But they can only vote in one party's primary, they can't decide to vote in the Republican governors primary and the Democrats Senate primary. Both parties endorse candidates through a series of precinct level caucuses well before the primary. Then if someone loses at the caucuses, they can still run in the primary and sometimes they win.

Once you throw out the pirmaries, the parties will create some similar system for selecting their candidates. But its likely they will make support of endorsed candidates a requirement for anyone wanting to label themselves as Democrat, Republican, Green or Libertarian. And I would guess there will be more than a few other parties that make endorsements as well.

The pattern to me seems more like Democrats benefitting from a steady menu of wing-nut Republican nominations for statewide office.

I think that's right. And I think these measures are supported mostly by non-partisan ideologues who don't approve of parties. They don't approve of collective action, so they spend their time trying to make rules to prevent people from acting together collectively.

And I think these measures are supported mostly by non-partisan ideologues who don't approve of parties. They don't approve of collective action, so they spend their time trying to make rules to prevent people from acting together collectively. That is a major assumption!

There are over 50,000 registered Democrats in Marion County. Last month about 60 people showed up at the Marion County Democrats meeting to see a statewide candidate speak and answer questions. That's a fraction of a percent of the registered Democrats in the county. Does that mean most registered Democrats "don't approve of collective action"?

Or could it mean they have no time or energy because of work and family?

Please don't forget that when there is a close election (state rep. or above decided by less than 1000 votes) that it is the folks more interested the actions of the people they know than strangers running for office or involved in ballot measures who decide elections. These are the people whose activities and thoughts are about what their kids are doing, or cooking a pot of soup for a neighbor who just got home from the hospital, or planning a going away party for someone who got a better job and is moving out of state who decide that election.

NOT the folks who not only know there is a One Ballot petition out there but know who the sponsors are and are willing and able to debate the fine points of the measure in a forum like this.

I can certainly imagine a system where corps (that outspend labor 5-1) pour money into two canditates coffers, ultra-right and medium-right. Then spend independent expenditure money to attack all-commers in the "primary," locking the office to hand-picked candidates. Much cheaper for them than the current system.

Also, Can someone explain what the following means?

Posted by: Salvador Peralta | Mar 20, 2006 8:16:56 PM

[off-topic comment deleted -editor.]

Posted by: Salvador Peralta | Mar 20, 2006 8:18:03 PM

[correction to off-topic comment deleted -editor.]

Posted by: Salvador Peralta | Mar 20, 2006 8:19:04 PM

[correction to correction to off-topic comment deleted -editor.]

Posted by: Salvador Peralta | Mar 20, 2006 8:29:50 PM

[explanation of correction to correction to off-topic comment deleted -editor.]

Jeremy Wright wrote:

"Specifically as it relates to Section 10 (3) it is important to note that the language is clear that we are talking about the right to place a D or R or G behind your name on the ballot. It is not related not does it regulate the right for parties to nominate a particular candidate as the 'endorsed' candidate through a process. It also would not stop a candidate from indentifing his or herself as a Democrat or Republican in their literature or the Voters Pamphlet.

The parties must submit to the Secretary of States office 90 days before the Open Primary the process through which they will determine eligibility for individuals affiliating with the party. The idea that this eligibility process will be anything more than the current rules for affiliation with a political party (basically affiliating oneself in a timely manner) is far-fetched and fails to address the bigger picture of why we need this change."

Jeremy,

Law often becomes very different that its drafters intend. Section 10 (3) may have been written to address party affiliation of candidates, but it opens the door to party nomination. You are concerned with "why we need this change." The parties will be concerned with having their candidates win elections. Believe me, thats the way it works. There is nothing "far-fetched" about it. Since limiting the number of Republican identified candidates to one and only one will be the best insurance of a Republican making it to the general election, there WILL be only one Republican identified candidate in the first round. It will be the same for Democrats. Greens may allow more candidates because they aren't very concerned with winning.

Please remember the unintended consequences are just as real as intended ones.

Folks, I think you are mis-estimating the way voters think. If independent expenditures decide all elections, how come the Swifties didn't carry Oregon for Kerry?

Rep. Barker was elected by something like 40 votes. Was that because corporations poured money into his campaign? Did Rep. Komp win because she spent more money? Or because people liked her (she'd almost won the previous time) and Al Shannon alienated people as an overly partisan Republican?

There are people very upset about partisanship and legislators who seem to pay more attention to their caucus leadership than to local voters. Open Primary or nonpartisan legislature would solve the problem of closed partisan caucuses (never mentioned in the Oregon Constitution). Most people have enough on their plate getting thru the week that they aren't likely to be discussing such things as "non-partisan ideologues who don't believe in parties". There are lots of ordinary citzens who don't believe in parties, or at least major parties. That is why over 20% of the population refuses to choose a major party when they register to vote. That is how Joe Keating got nominated by the Greens and Westlund may be an independent candidate.

I know there are some who would love to try out proportional or instant runoff voting, and those who have strong feelings for or against One Ballot.

But blogs are not the entire voting population, and until the various voting ideas get discussed in the larger population, we really won't know what ordinary folks think--any more than Rep. Knopp knew what he was talking about that time he said he understood why each and every voter who cast a no vote on Measure 28 voted that way, and that it was an easy decision for them. Do you think he made any friends among people who voted no for different reasons and agonized over the vote?

That should be a lesson to those here who "know" where voters stand on One Ballot or anything else. There are people who vote for someone they've known for decades, or because the opponent alienated them at some point. There are those who vote for or against anything simply because Sizemore or McIntire is one of the sponsors.

You never know when someone might tell friends "I was going to vote for him because his experience makes him more qualified, and then I heard his ad. I will not vote for a person who slams their opponent like that, I'll vote for the opponent to show what I think of that ad".

Voters DO think for themselves, and don't always support who "conventional wisdom" says they will support. If CW was always correct, what would Mayor Francesconi be doing these days?

That is a major assumption!

No. Its a deduction from the available evidence.

Please don't forget that when there is a close election (state rep. or above decided by less than 1000 votes) that it is the folks more interested the actions of the people they know than strangers running for office or involved in ballot measures who decide elections.

Even when the election isn't close that is true since it applies to about 90% of the people who vote.

But this statement is just more evidence of how dismissive the non-partisan ideologues are of the vast majority of people who have made up their minds. The fact is that small minority group in the middle has way more influence than its numbers warrant. Its that small group that votes to cut taxes the same day they are voting to maintain or increase government services.

The crafters of Petition 86 did not need to take this approach.

Actually, I think they did. What purpose does forcing voters to declare a party label serve if the primaries are open to anybody? In essence, it becomes little more than a semi-public statement of philosophy.

The purpose of political parties is to group together to elect people to public office and to govern once elected. Party endorsements matter for the same reason labor endorsements matter or environmental endorsements or AOI endorsements or NARAL matter. They tell people how a candidate is philosophically aligned with them. Its silly to suggest a party would or should endorse multiple candidates in a race where both might lose or to allow someone to claim the loyalty of party members without having gone through any process to vett them beyond declaring themselves democrats.

I think people forget, the purpose of partisan primaries is to let people who share a philosophy choose their candidate. It took the decision out of a handful of activists meeting in the backroom somewhere and gave it to everyone who declared themselves a party member. What the non-partisan ideologues appear to want to do is prevent the party from making that choide at all. Its as if we said anyone can claim to be a NARAL candidate just by saying they are pro-choice and NARAL has no right to limit their freedom to use the NARAL label when campaigning for votes.

". Open Primary or nonpartisan legislature would solve the problem of closed partisan caucuses (never mentioned in the Oregon Constitution)."

This is naive nonsense. It will just create closed non-partisan caucuses. Legislative leaders still need to be elected. People will still create voting blocs. And they will still want to meet behind closed doors to discuss their legislative strategies.

Its non-partisan ideologues who are trying to convince people that somehow the problem isn't fundamental differences among the people of Oregon, but political technicalities, that is keeping the legislature from functioning. That it isn't that they keep electing partisan jerks to office, its that other people mistakenly elect partisan jerks to office. And that if you just declare them non-partisan the partisan jerks on both sides will stop acting like jerks.

You are right - caucuses aren't part of the constitution. How is a constitutional amendment going to eliminate them.

LT,

Some voter do, indeed, think and act the ways you suggest, but it's fairly clear that party identification is a key factor to most voters. More importantly, it is a key factor to party activists. They are the ones who will make the rules referred to in Section 10 (3), and who will decide who gets to wear the party label. The voters get their choice after that.

One Ballot would be a political backfire. Parties would become more influential, not less.

After 1996 May US Senate primary, where is the evidence that this is true: I think people forget, the purpose of partisan primaries is to let people who share a philosophy choose their candidate.

I was proud to be friends of Rust, Lonsdale and Dwyer, with whom I did share a philosophy. Bruggere's philosophy seemed to be "I've got money, powerful friends, and short snappy slogans--what more do I need".

I don't think the rise in registration outside major parties is about "nonpartisan ideologues". I think it is a statement against the "money is all that matters and only professionals know how the game is played" attitude which infects too many campaigns in both major parties.

As a friend of Jerry, Harry, and Bill, I wondered what had happened to the party I once knew (was once on Dem. state and dist. central comm. in a previous decade) when Bruggere bought the primary by outspending his nearest opponent 10-1 and his next nearest opponent 100-1. He had the blessing of the DSCC (some of the same disheartening DSCC attitude as what happened with Paul Hackett this year)--is that philosophy or just political games and raw power?

I registered NAV after that primary and stayed that way for 6 years, until I wanted to vote in a contested primary. Does that make me a "nonpartisan ideologue"? I have not made up my mind about One Ballot, but nothing here has convinced me it is an evil plot.

I do wonder what the philosphy of the Democratic party is sometimes. What that philosphy is supposed to be and what happens in actual politics can be 2 diff. things.

Today at lunch I was telling a new friend an old story--about 20 years ago, someone filed for state rep. in my district, and then the House Majority Leader recruited someone else to run in the primary. The first candidate won--primary and general. What philosophy was the House Majority Leader following in recruiting the 2nd candidate--other than power and perhaps personal whim?

Tom, Having been involved in a state party rule revision, I have a comment about this: ..a key factor to party activists. They are the ones who will make the rules referred to in Section 10 (3), and who will decide who gets to wear the party label.

Rules revision is not done by some organism called "party activists" but by individuals. When I was involved in rules revision, it made a difference that a particular person was chair and some others were on the committee. I think if someone else had been chair and the members of the committee had all been different people, the rules might have been written differently.

And that is why I don't think anyone knows for sure what would happen with One Ballot, even if everyone here were to agree what 10 (3) means. Whatever happens, if One Ballot passes, it will be implemented by humans. And this being Oregon, anyone who pays close attention could probably go sit in the meetings and see what happens.

Look at what happened in the past year or so with the creation of the Rural Caucus and Chuck B passing that 2nd Amendment resolution in State Central Comm. Did anyone see that coming?

Anyone reading this, if you are interested in such things, try to arrange to attend a district or state Rules Comm. meeting. They can be most interesting. And as I understand it, all Standing Committee meetings are to be open to the public.

"I don't think the rise in registration outside major parties is about "nonpartisan ideologues". "

They aren't the ones who are proposing changing the way we elect people. I suspect the majority of them want to know where candidates stand and don't really have the time to carefully investigate every one of them. So they use party labels to give them a starting point and then look for where those folks diverge from their party's norm.

"it's not clear what the implications would be."

No one really does and it will obviously vary by election.

But take a look at an open primary with all the current candidates for Governor running against one another. Close to 80% of the voters are partisans who will be voting for the more partisan candidates. The guys in the middle will have slivers of that 80% and be competing with one another for the remaining 20% who are spread all over the politial spectrum. I think the most likely outcome is that the partisan candidates win, especially in a primary election where motivated voters are such a huge factor. But depending on how splintered the vote is you could end up with two partisans from one side. Mannix versus Atkinson? What a choice.

Of course, Mannix would still be a Democrat if this were the system we had. I guess thats what's meant by helping moderates.

LT,

I have also been involved with the DPO, as chair of the campaign committee. Committees do have have leeway on what they write and what they take to the central committee. I was able to win support for some strong resolutions on campaign finance reform, but, of course, the DPO has little power to actualize such resolutions. When an issue is perceived to have profound consequences for the party's electoral success, however, the officers of the party and the central committee as a whole will not let the rules committee, or any other committee, lead the way. The matter of how many candidates wear the party label in the first round of One Ballot elections would be so electorally potent that it would not matter if Jesus Christ were chair of the rules committee. The DPO would adopt a rule leading to only one candidate identified as "Democrat" on the ballot.

By the way, I think Rust, Lonsdale and Dwyer were good guys too.

Very interesting comment, Tom.

When an issue is perceived to have profound consequences for the party's electoral success, however, the officers of the party and the central committee as a whole will not let the rules committee, or any other committee, lead the way.

Are you saying that individuals can't make a difference in that situation? Whose perception of "profound consequences" will make all members of the central comm. shut up and take orders? Not the way it was when I was on state central committee--have things changed that much in 20 years? The party and the rules committee in 1986 was faced with a vacancy in the US Senate nomination when the nominee ran into ethics charges and dropped out. Talk about "consequences for the party's electoral success"!

The rules committee wrote rules --including an elder statesman, a former St. Sen. President, and another legislator.

The former St. Sen. Pres. gave one of the great speeches of his life. The lesser known legislator gave an OK speech. But, as the man standing next to me said, "Rick called every voting delegate in this room and asked for their vote, and Ed at some time in his life alienated every person in this room. "

Rick got the replacement slot on the ballot. Packwood was re-elected (with some union support, as I recall).

The point of my story is this--the "officers of the party" (for that matter maybe even the DSCC) may have wanted Ed as the stronger candidate. But human dynamics took over.

For a more recent example, look at the recent debate here over Nathanson and House Dist. 13. Do you know for a fact that if One Ballot were in effect "officers of the party" or the Central Comm. would have the power to give or deny Nathanson the D after her name, no questions asked? If One Ballot says "as few as 1 candidate" do you know that there would be only Nathanson (or only one person not named Nathanson) with the D? Would OLCV have the power in the party to deny her the D because she didn't score well on their scorecard? Or would all those who lept to Nathanson's defense here have more power in the party?

My point is that I don't know the answers, and don't think anyone does.

Whose perception of "profound consequences" will make all members of the central comm. shut up and take orders?

They get to give the orders not take them. The question is why party members would select a candidate and then let anyone who wanted to claim the title Democrat. Why would they abandon entirely the purpose of the party which is to come together to elect the people of their choice? Of course they will fight over who to endorse and they may even decide to endorse more than one candidate. But why would they then let other candidates they hadn't endorsed use the D or R or Green or Libertarian label? I can't think of a good reason, can anyone else?

I think this is all a very interesting discussion. After reading Mr. Meek's piece in the Oregonian, I have to say that he presents a very compelling argument. This would not be the first time that an initiative had been written to do something other than its proponents claimed, and would not be the first time that people misunderstood the effects of an initiative. It seems like a critical eye and suspicious nature are necessary to examine such proposed ballot measures. Given the recent attempts by the main parties in this state to consolidate power and shut out independents, the scenario that Meek lays it out is very plausible.

Another question I would raise is this: The stated intent of the bill is to help moderates get elected to the legislature and statewide positions. On what basis do we believe that this would help the process? It seems to me that it would inevitably hurt representation in the legislature, though it may aid functionability and efficiency.

Our legislature is in need of a number of reforms, but I don't think that this initiative represents one of them.

Are you suggesting that the other doesn't have the right to run?

No, I am suggesting they don't have the right to imply they are supported by OLCV if OLCV has endorsed their opponent and not them. And if they are allowed to put Democrat or Republican next to their name on the ballot they are essentially implying they have the support of the party. And I am suggesting it is not in the interests of the parties to allow candidates to declare themselves as members when they are running against an endorsedd candidate so they will very likely make supporting the party's candidates a requirement for using the party name.

There is no litmus test to calling yourself a Dem or an R when you register.

What public purpose is served by having people declare a party at all when they register if everyone votes in the same primary? And what does that have to do with the question of whether a candidate can claim to be a member while running against the party's endorsed candidate?

People seemed to be quite focused on restricting the rights of parties to assemble and endorse a candidate of their choosing. This intiative does nothing to inhibit that right.

I agree. But the claim seems to be that they won't exercise it to the full extent they can. The result if they do will be the "party" candidates will be selected by a small group of party activists rather than a large group of primary voters as they are now. There will be a democratic candidate, a republican candidate ( and perhaps green and libertarian candidates) chosen by party activists and then anyone else will have to run as an independents.

Again - why is this system fine for our local counties and cities here in Oregon but not for the entire states?

But this isn't the same system. Candidates run without any party affiliation in non-partisan races. And there are strange results sometimes, but no one pays much attention since they are local offices.

Wow, I think we need an expert on game theory to figure out the optimal number of candidates for each party to endorse.

I am not an expert, Dan Meek's editorial got me thinking:

Since the essential function of a political party is to elect its candidates, the unavoidable response of each major party will be to limit, to one, the number of candidates allowed to list the party label in each race on the primary ballot.

Assuming a competitive district, if each (major) party listed two candidates, it seems unlikely that one party would win the top two spots, unless both parties split their internal vote 50/50.

For example:

Doe-R 15% Joe-R 35% Moe-D 26% Flo-D 24%

In this case, Joe and Moe go on to the general election.

Another:

Doe-R 24 Joe-R 26 Moe-D 23 Flo-D 22 Nader-G 5

In this case, the dems get left off the ballot.

However, if either the dems' race or the repubs' race isn't this close, Moe passes Doe and we still get D vs. R in the general:

Doe-R 35 Joe-R 15 Moe-D 23 Flo-D 22 Nader-G 5

In light of this, what I don't understand is why the parties would feel they should only list one candidate. In this case, they will always have to run against another party in the general election. Why not list a 2nd candidate if the other party is only going to list 1? You'll likely still come in at least 2nd, and there's a slight possibility the other candidate will get caught in bed with Abramoff and you'll take both spots.

I guess my point is, the logic works real well that 10 candidates vs. 2 encourages fewer primary candidates. However, when you get down to 1's and 2's, having a 2nd candidate may actually be a bright idea, and then the voters do have a choice.

That being said, I'm still undecided. As a liberal non-affiliated voter (because I hate the concept of pledging to a party), I feel like I want to have more influence on the Democratic Party. However, I'm one of those who voted for the more-moderate Republican in the 2000 presidential primaries (from California, where I could pick which primary ballot to fill out when I voted), to sabotage Bush. And, I don't think that's a good thing to allow, since each party's members should have the right to choose their own representative.

Just wanted to get the game-theory math geeks something to ponder.

Forget game theory--revisit a 2004 primary.

Suppose this had been in effect in House District 25 in 2004. Backlund (R- incumbent) Pike (D-challenger Thatcher (representing Measure 30 people, registered as R).

Given the number of people who were still saying a year later how they missed Vic Backlund in the legislature, do you folks really think Thatcher would have won in that situation? Everyone talks about "the parties" as if they are monolithic. In this scenario, if Minnis and Scott supported Backlund (not sure, but I think they supported their caucus member) would ORGOP really have had more power than the legislative leadership to determine who was the real Repub.?

There has been discussion about whether R or D could be in front of someone's name--but what about showing who is the incumbent? Some people vote on "does the incumbent deserve re-election--yes/no". That's how we got Bush/ Hooley voters in 2004. The trouble with trying to game this is that we have no idea who the individuals involved would be. Just as Jenny Greenleaf upset a long term incumbent DNC member, the same is possible for party chair.

Way back before most/ any of us were born, with the same old boring party system we have today (but before some of the progressive reforms), Charles McNary was running for re-election to the US Senate. I don't recall the story in detail or where I read it, but it went something like this. McNary was in DC and the KKK captured the Oregon legislature. Was this before the Direct Election of Senators provided by the 17th Amendment? The KKK demanded that he come back to Oregon to campaign. He didn't want to be in the same state with them and said so. The KKK or someone said "you could lose the election if you don't come back to campaign" and he said "If they have that kind of power I don't want to be in a state which would tolerate that". Now THAT's my kind of leadership.

For those who don't know, McNary was Oregon's longest serving US Senator--never defeated and he died in office following surgery which led to complications. Hatfield passed McNary's record maybe a year or so before retiring himself.

My point is this--game theory not withstanding, I still think humans control this process. And I don't think we can predict for certain which humans would make what decisions if this measure passed.

Interesting juxtaposition in Charlie's comment: 1) Re: giving progressives a greater voice... I think that's a good goal and one I share, but wonder if fusion voting might be a better way of going about this. Fusion solves the spoiler problem under our current system while allowing votes to have a double impact. And most importantly, it brings more people into the process in a meaningful way.

Re: general debate. I think that it makes sense to really think through how a measure like this will affect our elections in real, transactional terms before enacting such a change. Yes, people dislike Salem. They dislike partisanship. But we should look at other solutions and measures before a change to our electoral system as fundamental as Init 86.

"really think through how a measure like this will affect our elections in real, transactional terms before enacting such a change. Yes, people dislike Salem. They dislike partisanship. But we should look at other solutions and measures before a change to our electoral system as fundamental as " captures my view of fusion voting.

I hope those of you who support fusion have discussed it at a family reunion or other gathering of non-political people. If you can convince such folks of the virtue of fusion voting, it has a chance. But I don't see how the people whose lives are full of work, family, and challenges will go "whoppee! a new way to vote". I think they are more likely to say "why do you want to complicate voting?".

If they feel that way about One Ballot, it will either never get on the ballot or never pass. I don't see how fusion voting (or proportional representation) wins over the folks who think voting is complicated now. That isn't just uneducated people, it is people with their lives so full of work, family, church, outside interests that they don't pay the same sort of attention to politics (here we are discussing politics in March) that folks here do.

Talked with a friend tonite who just started going door to door as a candidate. His first day out in a community other than his own was on a very nice day recently when most people weren't home--maybe out enjoying the weather. He encountered people at their door asking "election time already?". Just why do you fusion voting supporters think such folks would welcome fusion voting?

This is really not that complicated. It has little to do with the problems of our electoral system. It has little to do with the intentions of the One Ballot authors. It's all about the language of the petition and how political players will act on that language.

I still don't see anything that would disallow parties deciding just what qualifies a candidate to use the party label on the ballot. Given that, I don't see any plausible reason that the parties would not limit use of their name to one [or possibly two if independent or third party candidates are not seen as viable] candidates. LT argues above that party behavior would not be so predictable, but the aim of political parties is to get their candidates into office - I hear this all the time. Limiting candidates is clearly an advantage, so the parties will inevitably do it.

This would seem to be a retrograde development for folks who are looking to deemphasize political parties. Non-affiliated voters would get a ballot in the "primary", but the major candidates on that ballot will have been chosen by party conventions, just like in the good old days.

Personally, I think there would be an upside to this. It would certainly make filling precinct person positions a lot easier. Of course, election of central committee delegates would become big time politics. Democrats might be able to extract pledges of feality to the party platform from eager candidates. Republican candidates already seem to tow the party line. On the other hand, independents will feel even more left out of the process.

Tom, the question of electing pct. people brings up an interesting point. A friend who I met at a State Central Comm. election of officers meeting 21 years ago was once really active in party politics, has had leadership positions, got fed up and registered NAV. He got fed up with consultants as much as anything. He says he has no objection to primaries--they should just be paid for by party members and not the general public. Isn't there a state which in 2004 one of the major parties had to do big time fundrasising so they could hold a party primary (I think it had been a one party state but the other party started getting members.)?

You bring up a good question--would One Ballot change the laws about pct. people? Since one of the duties of pct. people is to elect a replacement on the ballot after a nomination has taken place, would that still remain in law?

But about this: "Democrats might be able to extract pledges of feality to the party platform from eager candidates"--did all the 2004 legislative candidates agree to the entire Dem. platform? If given a choice, would you rather win back the House or tell some of this year's challengers "sorry, you're great on labor issues but we don't like your stand on...." or "You're great on ----, but we don't like your stand on labor issues"? Shouldn't legislative elections be about the district and not about a bunch of people in a room somewhere writing a platform?

Tom, do you agree with every sentence in the Democratic Platform?

I have no problem with "taking a look" at all sorts of ideas.

I just think a blog is not the whole universe, and even if everyone on a blog agreed, that wouldn't take the issue beyond theoretical debate.

The question "but how will it work?" is valid for One Ballot, or fusion, or any other idea.

LT,

I mentioned some plausible effects of One Ballot, should it become law. I don't think this string is the place to get into them, but I will mention that, although I don't agree with every sentence inthe DPO platform, I think it's much closer to my stance on issues than the voting records of elected Democrats in Oregon.