Dear Sarah,

As a PCP from Washington County, I'm not sure I have all the answers to your questions, but I can give them a good stab.

Why doesn't anybody want to take part in the prevailing party structure?

I say it boils down to commitment, and responsibility. It's a lot easier to point the finger - "why don't Democrats ever...? - than it is to sign up to do the work yourself.

Who ARE the self-nominating few PCPs

If you're really interested, you can find them at www.multdems.org and go to one of their meetings. Or come to one of ours: www.washcodems.org. As you so rightly noted, Portland is a bastion of the Democratic party. But WE (and a few other counties) are the battleground.

Is it necessary (even legal) to save separate races for men and women

It's legal, or else it wouldn't be done, and part of the Democratic Party bylaws.

Wouldn't all of us be far better off with a non-partisan primary

Making primaries "non-partisan" would make them more partisan than ever, because it would allow a dominant party in the district to literally prevent other parties from advancing their own candidates. You may love the idea of only having to choose between Democrats in Portland, but isn't disenfranchising Democratic voters in the rest of the state - by making them have to choose between two Republicans in the general election - a bit of a high price to pay?

Why is our county elections office running the party precinct person selection process anyway?

Short answer: an open, public process, is better than the proverbial smoke-filled room.

As you so rightly noted, in heavily partisan districts, the "primary" election is really more like the General. Whoever wins becomes an officeholder. While a Precint Captain's power is much more limited than a State legislator (unless you live in Iowa or New Hampshire, in which case you can influence who becomes President), it is a matter of principal that party decisions should not be limited to whoever has the time and inclination to show up at internal party meetings. That is the whole concept of a "Primary" in the first place.

And there are a few places where PCP is actually contested outside of N.H. and Iowa. In "What's the Matter With Kansas", Thomas Frank noted that in that State, Republican PCP elections can be bitter intra-party fights between theocrat "conservatives" and plutocrat "moderates", complete with campaign signs and dirty tricks. All over whether evolution should be taught in schools.

Around these parts where people are sane, you can be a PCP simply by being a registered Democrat and filling out a form before the election. OR if you didn't fill out the form, if you can get THREE Democrats in your neighborhood (including yourself) to spell your name right in the write-in space on the ballot, you can become an elected PCP. (Yes - write ins for PCP often get people elected.) OR, if you can't do that, you can go to the local party meeting, and get yourself APPOINTED a PCP, if they have a vacancy - which they always do. Appointed PCPs can't vote in the reorganization election (for local party leaders) every 2 years, but other than that, are indistinguishable from elected PCPs.

You may love the idea of only having to choose between Democrats in Portland, but isn't disenfranchising Democratic voters in the rest of the state - by making them have to choose between two Republicans in the general election - a bit of a high price to pay?

Wait just a minute there... Under the existing system, Democrats in rural Oregon and Republicans in inner Portland are ALREADY disenfranchised. They get ZERO say over who their legislator will be.

Under the One Ballot Open Primary system, they would not be disenfranchised. First, they get to vote in the spring "primary" (i.e. all-comers general election) from amongst all filed candidates. Second, they get to to vote in the fall "general" (i.e. top-two run-off election) from amongst the top-two.

In rural Oregon, it's plausible (though not guaranteed) that two R's will come out of the spring election - and Democrats would help select the more moderate one. In inner Portland, the same may be true in reverse.

More likely, however, is that when you change the rules, the game gets played differently.

Some people support the Open Primary because they feel it will weaken parties and produce moderates. Others (like me) support it because they feel it will strengthen parties and produce an overall leftward shift in the legislature.

Hard to know. The law of unintended consequences still applies. Here's what I do know: allowing every voter to vote in every race in every election is pro-democracy.

Sarah and Steve,

Actually it's state law, ORS 248.015, not the party bylaws, that require precinct committee people to be elected by gender.

Wayne, I stand corrected. As my excuse, I only offer that it is in our bylaws too - though they're probably there just as a reminder to obey state law.

Kari, being outvoted is not disenfranchisement. You may be in the minority, but you did have your say. Not even being able to vote for your preferred candidate and/or party is disenfranchisement, which in many cases is what the "Open Primary" will do to the general election.

But my objection to the Open Primary as a system is not based on which election, primary or general, is the real one. It has to do with fundimental principals of Constitutionality and the form of our government.

Political parties, in their essence, are simply clubs of like-minded individuals. If we, as Americans, have the right to free assembly, how does the government get to dictate how we make decisions? I don't get to vote for leader of the NRA, or the local Union hall. So why is it Constitutional that who represents a group I spend a lot of time and money supporing be dictated by people who won't even check a stupid box on their voter registration guide?

But even if I could get past that, I'd oppose it on purely practical grouds. It would result in a fundamental rightward shift in our elected representatives. The reason is obvious. For better or ill, average Democratic voters (as opposed to activists) aren't as interested in politics as average Republicans. We can barely get them to vote in General Elections as it is. So now you're going to shift the real decision making to a "why bother" Primary, in which they'd have to go out of their way to know who actually shares their values?

Party labels are a convienent shorthand for the uninvolved electorate. Taking that away makes it harder for them to cast a knowlegable vote. And we all know what happens if you do that - conservatives win.

If you REALLY want a (legal) law that would further progressive governance, there's something a lot simpler than an Open Primary: have the Voter Reply Envelope be Postage Prepaid. That way, you don't even have the excuse of needing a stamp to vote in State elections. It could boost the turnout above 50% mark in a lot of Tax Bond measure races as well.

I keep thinking about David Dukes (Grand Krackpot of Krazy Kalliteration) getting the nod in an open primary in Louisiana a few cycles back.

Of course that was in the reality based world........

I'll also note that I've heard from numerous people who for whatever reason (out of town, forgot, etc.) just didn't get their paperwork into the county elections office in time. They're going to be trying the write-in method.

In the past we'd have numerous precincts where we've had more people than slots available. This was definitely true in 2004. So many of those people who voted on this year's endorsements didn't just get their slots by default-- they acually went out and campaigned for people's votes. I also know some people who do that anyway, even though they don't have to.

This year people just seem to have lost track of time and didn't realize the primary filing deadline was coming up so soon.

It's going to be interesting to see how many people get elected via write-in.

If you're interested in becoming a precinct committeeperson, please let us know. If you have questions, you can check out the web site at www.multdems.org, call the office at 503-248-0826 or drop me an e-mail at field [-at-] multdems.org. We'll be more than glad to help you out, as I'm sure all the other county parties will as well.

Many people think being a PCP would be too much work, and therefore don't apply. However, it's not as hard or time consuming as you may think.

The most important thing you do as a PCP is talking about the Party and its candidates to your neighbors. You don't have to talk to the entire county, your entire house district, or even your entire precinct. You basically just talk to those Dems in the blocks surrounding your house (depending on the concentration of Dems in the area, that may only be a handful of blocks). This can be done via phone, canvassing, or even letter writing.

Other things PCPs do include coming to our monthly meetings (this month's is May 11th, 7pm at the Hollywood Senior Center, 1820 NE 40th Ave.), participate in a committee, volunteer for activities, come to our events, etc.

We realize that not everyone has the time to do everything. That's why we try to match people's availability and skills up to what is available.

Some may be really good on the phone, so we'd match them up to answering phones or calling through our volunteer list.

Some may be good with the computer and typing, so we'd match them up to data entry.

There's something for everyone.

On a side note, I encourage everyone to check out the House of Blues fundraising dinner the Multnomah County Dems is having this weekend. In addition to great food and music (not your standard "rubber chicken" and potatoes), we have a long list of GREAT auction items. Those include a villa in Italy, a bike ride with Mayor Tom Potter, an Edgefield progressive dinner, breakfast or lunch with Jeff Merkley, and more. There's also two great raffles-- one for a package of several good bottles of wine and one for a book of gift certificates for nice restaurants here in town. We're going to be having lots of fun at the downtown Hilton this Saturday, and I hope to see everyone there.

Kari, being outvoted is not disenfranchisement. You may be in the minority, but you did have your say. Not even being able to vote for your preferred candidate and/or party is disenfranchisement, which in many cases is what the "Open Primary" will do to the general election.

Yeah, exactly my point - but you're drawing the backwards conclusion. In an open primary, everyone gets to vote in every election -- and no one is disenfranchised, even though they might be outvoted.

In a closed primary, a full third (or so) of the voters ARE disenfranchised completely (the unaffiliated voters).

Political parties, in their essence, are simply clubs of like-minded individuals. If we, as Americans, have the right to free assembly, how does the government get to dictate how we make decisions?

And the open primary does absolutely nothing to hinder the rights of the parties to nominate/endorse their own candidates. It just says that we're not going to use taxpayer dollars and the power of the state to do so.

Instead, the parties will be welcome to have caucuses or nominating conventions. To get a full explanation of this, see Dan Meek's editorial decrying the strengthening of major parties caused by the Open Primary.

I happen to think that this strengthens the parties also, but that it's a good thing.

I'd like to get back on topic for the main thrust of Sarah's piece - and the rest of her questions.

It seems that the Democratic party does a decent enough job (but far from great) recruiting PCPs, but fails to do much to motivate those people to show up for meaningful activities.

What should the party do with the PCPs? How can that job be a meaningful one in the governance of the party? Or, better yet, should it be?

In the past month here in Sandy, PCPs have:

prepared the literature packs for canvass canvassed over a thousand homes registered voters established personal contact with the editors of the local papers written op-eds and letters to the local weekly and monthlies phonebanked another couple of thousand houses entered the data gathered in Astro participated in numerous fundraisers done a Drive Time Visiblilty "name recognition" on hwy 26 arranged candidate appearances at high visiblity local events put up lawn signs recruited friends and neighbors to join the effort run errands for the three candidates that we're working participated in demonstrations in PDX

<hr/>

It's all in the many, many, many manuals, books, etcetera generated by the DPO, FuturePAC, DFA/DFO, Emily's List, and on and on.

<hr/>

The organizers (House District Leaders, working under county chairs) just need to find the right fit for time available and level of commitment.

They also need to foster "community" and make it fun for volunteers.

<hr/>

Warning: Voluneers are all at least as smart and well read as you are, and for the most part, will not put up with busywork. They can tell the difference as easily as you can.

Kari: In an open primary, everyone gets to vote in every election -- and no one is disenfranchised, even though they might be outvoted.

Except that most people don't vote in Primaries, which leads to the result that in Portland, many Republicans won't have a Republican candidate to vote for, and in the rest of Oregon, many Democrats won't be able to vote for a Democrat in the General election.

Oh, you say - but they COULD have voted. Therefore they're enfranchised. Well guess what? Under our current system they CAN vote for a party's primary simply by marking a little registration checkbox. It's not that hard.

...the open primary does absolutely nothing to hinder the rights of the parties to nominate/endorse their own candidates. It just says that we're not going to use taxpayer dollars and the power of the state to do so.

So-called "open" primaries both simultaneously hinder the ability of political parties to restrict their "brand" - anyone can pretend to be a Democrat when they're not - while at the same time, provide major incentives for party bosses to make back-room deals - so as not to dilute the remainder of the Party's power.

In other words, the only thing that "taxpayer dollars and the power of the state" are being used for is to keep party endorsement something that is open to all members of the party - not just political insiders. And it works too. It's no accident that the States with pure Open Primaries tend to be those with major problems with Legislative corruption. California for instance (hate to admit it, but true) and Louisiana.

Actually, there is a lot more to the party than just debating a platform or sitting through business meetings. That may be the way it used to be, but a good number of us have been working to change that.

Much of that is handled at platform meetings where people who are interested in the platform attend. Much of the discussion and debate has already happened. Some happens at the general meetings, but here in Mult Co that is typically near the end of the meeting.

Do you know how the bulk of the April Multnomah County Dems meeting was spent? We heard from Gene Hallman, who is running for the State Supreme Court, and candidates for the county's circuit court seat.

It was very informative and gave us the chance to hear from the candidates and ask them questions.

These are seats that regularly have a 50%+ undervote (people who skip those races on the ballot). Normally, you might get a piece of mail from these people and see them in the voter pamphlet. This allowed us to get a greater sense of who the candidates are and why we should vote for them.

There were more than 20 people at the endorsement meetings, it just happened to be there weren't many left by the time the votes came on the statewides (I thought the number of voters was actually close to 30, but I can't say for sure-- I had no childcare that day and couldn't attend).

That doesn't mean the party is irrelevant.

Two years ago there were a few hundred people at the endorsement meeting. It's an "off year election" (I don't like that term, personally). That means you don't have near as many people involved at this time of year. I've heard some people talking about how to improve the process for next time.

Being a PCP is about more than just being involved in politics or helping a candidate. You are your neighbors' elected representative to the Party. You're supposed to be listening to your neighbors and reporting back to the Party on major issues, problems, concerns, etc.

The reason why people feel so disconnected from the party is because for too long PCPs have misunderstood the basic part of their job-- being the link between the people and the Party. While yes, campaigning is quite important, even more important is building a connection with the voters in your neighborhood. Doing so keeps them in the loop and lets the Party know what is going on across the county. That in turn helps the candidates, because there are already networks set up all throughout their area, they already know what people are thinking, etc.

A strong, educated, and involved network of PCPs is a very important part of our candidates' success.

Kari - your solution, which amounts to telling my party how to run its business, is un-Constitutional. It violates my free speech and right of free association. Democracy cannot be promoted, enhanced, or nurtured with the iron hand of the State controlling how my group acts.

Steve, in what sense does an open primary prevent the major political parties from holding a nominating convention, even one as you have described, that is "held in living rooms across the state?".

Minor political parties such as the Greens, Libertarians, and so forth already hold their own nominating conventions because they, along with independents, are excluded from participating in Oregon's current primary process.

So far as I can tell, the Open Primary eliminates state-sponsored preferential treatment of the two major political parties in Oregon and invites a political state of affairs in which the competing candidates in the general election will more accurately reflect the will of the voters.

It's unclear to me how this is "an invasion" or an infringement on the right to free assembly so much as it is a vehicle for leveling the playing field for political candidates who are not affiliated with one or the other major party.

Steven: I tend to disagree that there would be any inherent rightward shift in electoral outcomes as a result of an open primary. The shifts would likely be very dependent on the nature of the district, and we'd see some of the legislative races in Portland, Eugene, Corvallis, and Ashland that take on the character of the 2003 San Francisco Mayoral election that pitted a Green, Matt Gonzales, against a very left-leaning democrat, Gavin Newsom. Is there any reason to believe that a Republican deserved to be on the ballot in a general election in a city where the Green candidate clearly had much greater support? Why shouldn't the candidates in the general election reflect the values of the district?

I also disagree with concerns raised by my friend, Dan Meek, and others who believe that the open primary would hurt minor parties like the PGP and Libertarians by keeping many of their candidates off of the ballot in general elections.

I would argue that it benefits them by giving some of their candidates a real opportunity to win elections in certain legislative districts. To be sure, it's a tradeoff, but in my view, it's an improvement over a system in which third party candidates are relegated to the role of little more than spoiler to the more closely aligned major party candidate.

Steve Bucknum wrote: The real problem is that the State has (contrary to the US Constitution) made the primaries a State run operation. ... I'd rather have the State get out of the business of telling my club how to run things. ... If the State would get out of the Party's business, we could make precincts valid and workable places where we would caucus and pick our candidates.

So, we're in agreement. The state should be out of the party's business, which is endorsing and nominating candidates.

I think the big hang-up here is the word "primary". Try to think of the spring election as really being an "all-comers general election". And then think of the fall election as the run-off.

The parties are free to do whatever they want, and the state is no longer in the business of regulating their endorsement/nomination processes.

I think this is where the PCP conversation comes full circle. If the "open primary" happens, then it actually matters (!) who is a precinct committee person.

The best way to boost involvement in the party governing structure is to make the party's decisions meaningful -- and I can't think of a better way that to have precinct-level caucuses for party nominations.

I've been a PCP since moving to Oregon. Before that, I was heavily involved in the Galveston County Democratic Party and the West Galveston County Democratic Club since I was 12. That means I've been involved in the Party for more than half of my life. I did take a break in 2005 due to stress causing problems with my gall bladder. Less than a month after getting it removed I was back in action.

I'm not one of those who support the incumbent-- I'm actually voting for Sorenson in the primary. I pick the candidates I'm going to support based on who I think will be the best candidate.

I'm not one to just follow the Party-- I ask questions and disagree often. Most regulars around here can tell you that I've had some disagreements on this very blog with party leaders. I appreciate the work they do and think they're great people-- but I don't always agree with them. And I'm ok with that-- I realize that every one of us is different and comes from a different place in life and will disagree on some things. But I know we're all working for the same outcome.

I actually think the Party has a lot of potential and that we can do some great things with it. I've been working to make changes along with other people-- many of them Deaners like myself. Instead of people complaining about the party, saying it's irrelevant, etc. they should get involved and try to change it.

Do you think the right-wingers just sat back and complained about the Republican Party? No. They worked within the Party to change things. They realized that changes take more than a few years. A little over a decade later, they owned the party.

Becoming a PCP is a great way to do just that-- you're the ones who get to vote on the county party's leaders (everything from assistant district leaders to chair) as well as the county's representatives to the congressional delegation committee and the State Central Committee. The SCC is who votes on positions like the state party's officers and the state's representatives to the DNC.

We need people with good ideas and thoughts on how to improve the party. When you're involved in the party for a while, it's sometimes easy to lose sight of where problems are with those outside the party looking in. By getting people involved who have been outside the party, we can broaden our view and change for the better.

I highly encourage people to consider becoming a PCP. In most areas all it will take is you and two other people writing your name on the ballot [Note: They must live in your precinct, write your name under the right precinct/gender, and write your name the same way].

So, what the heck do I do with this ballot?