I think the Open Primary should be more like a Booster Card to go along with Publicly Financed Elections or Instant Run-Off Voting, which are betters solutions to solving problems like big money influence and people feeling like they can't adequately express who they support.

I think the Open Primary should be more like a Booster Card to go along with Publicly Financed Elections or Instant Run-Off Voting, which are betters solutions to solving problems like big money influence and people feeling like they can't adequately express who they support.

I will not choose between my old friends Harry and Phil.

I think they both say more intelligent things than most of what "debate" supposedly happened in the primaries. Seems to me we heard more about proposed solutions in Ted Wheeler ads than we did from any partisan Gov. candidate--although at least Hill talked about public audits of school districts. Anyone know if any other primary candidate talked about that issue? I don't believe that running ads is "debate". Debate involves 2 sides in a thoughtful discussion, not bombarding TV watchers with ads.

I agree with Harry on the general principle of campaign finance reform, but I will strongly dispute anyone who says the wording of the current measures cannot be questioned.

The attitude "either you support the wording of the current measure or you are saying you oppose campaign finance reform" is part of the problem with passing meaningful reform. I stand up for the right of anyone (incl. county party chairs) to say there is something in the wording they dispute (such as whether low limits lead to more time dialing for dollars and less time interacting with voters).

That is one thing wrong with the ballot measure process--the attitude that if you support the general concept you'd better not question the wording on petitions. I'm not saying the wording on the open primary measure is perfect. But I have been impressed with seeing Phil and Norma (2 people I've known for decades--both former Sec. of State) explain their concept in person.

Maybe what we need is some county clerks involved in this discussion, as they were involved in the VBM debate. What do they think of fusion and IRV, --incl. possiblity of recount and other logistics.

I happen to agree with Phil on this: Any surprise that the 2006 primary was one of the dullest, meanest, emptiest primary elections in recent memory? Lots of hearty discussion about education funding, tax reform, fixing land use, and the healthcare crisis, wasn't there?

I personally remember primaries for all sorts of offices where there was more intelligent debate than we saw this year in the primary for Gov. Blame campaign staffs or 3rd party ads or whatever you want. Where, for instance, actual legislation on the state and federal level was discussed by the candidates in person, not just on TV ads.

Charlie says "I think we should be looking for ways to get more people involved in the process, not enacting a measure that would lead transactionally to less voter choice." I know people not registered with a party--I have been one. I just don't see how "register with a party or you don't get to vote on nominees for partisan offices" gets more people involved.

Maybe the solution is nonpartisan offices rather than open primary.

But don't bash open primary supporters.

And as I have said before: When someone goes before a neighborhood organization, or a bowling team, or a PTA, or a church group, or some other group of ordinary folks with a symposium on either fusion voting or IRV, and then reports to us here what the questions were and how receptive the audience was, then I will believe those are alternatives. Convincing political junkies is not the same as convincing the general public.

Get someone to sponsor those ideas as legislation next year and see how the debate goes.

But don't dismiss open primaries out of hand. And keep on pushing for campaign finance reform.

All due respect to Kari and Mr. Keisling, I am more than a little baffled by this entire proposal. It's not at all clear to me what this ballot measure sets out to accomplish.

Keisling claims that this process will result in more moderate election outcomes. But his entire argument is a leap of faith. In fact, it is entirely possible under the One-Ballot system that the moderates could all split the majority vote, knock each other out, and leave the extremists to duke-it-out in the General Election. Also, as Paul argues above, Keisling's hypothesis that the moderate middle will turn-out in droves under his system is a statistically dubious conclusion.

Kari claims that the system will involve more people. I honestly don't understand why. Under our current system, voters are allowed to participate in one nomination process (by either casting a primary ballot, participating in a minor-party convention, or signing a nominating petition for an independent). Contrary to Kari's assertion, everyone has an opportunity to participate. And if people don't like their options, they can change their registration. Similarly, under the One-Ballot system, everyone will be able to vote for only ONE candidate in the primary. The only difference is that you will be able to vote for a Republican in one race and a Democrat in another race. You might like having this opportunity to choose, but that has absolutely nothing to do with involving more people in the process.

Additionally, it seems to be another huge leap-of-faith that more people would participate in the One-Ballot primary. Voters might feel overwhelmed by a slate of 7-to-15 candidates in every race, rather than the three or four you see in a partisan primary system. This would either (a) depress turnout, or (b) result in more partisan and short-cut voting (e.g., "I'll just vote for whomever Willamette Week endorsed, because there are just too many candidates for me to learn about all of them.")

Also, as Charlie rightly said, independents will likely feel alienated from the political process under this system -- not included. Why? Because in most races, independent and minor-party candidates will have no chance to compete, since the only top two candidates will be able to advance to the General Election. This might drive-down turnout and it will certainly ex-out all minor-party/independent candidates from the General Election political discourse.

Also, remember that ALL races will remain competitive in the General Election under the One-Ballot system. HUGE amounts of money and good faith will be squandered when Democrats are fighting Democrats in Portland, while Republicans and fighting Republicans in Pendleton, for the ENTIRE election season. We're talking millions of dollars wasted.

So, I really don't understand: why does anyone think this is a good idea?

Oregonlive.com has the text of the Adam Davis speech to the Portland City Club.

Here is one paragraph: Finally, party affiliation. It's always about Republicans and Democrats-Democrats and Republicans. Let me tell you, as far as the public is concerned, they're all bums. They're all bums. And the clearest example of that is how quickly the registration of Independents has increased. Self-identification with a major party is at the lowest level we have seen in 30 years.

Read the whole thing at http://www.oregonlive.com/weblogs/cityhall/index.ssf?/mtlogs/olive_cityhall/archives/2006_05.html#142887

So this is not about me saying I have been ( and know now) people who get fed up and register outside a major party. I have a friend who I met as a newly elected legislator a couple decades ago who left the Democratic party in the last year or so. I hear that Jan Lee (the Republican who bucked the GOP machine on a billand she got a lot of flak for it--and eventually lost her seat in the legislature as I recall) is involved in the Westlund campaign.

If people here like the status quo, that is fine. But it seems to me that just like a company wanting to sell what the customers want to buy (hybrid and other fuel efficient cars instead of SUVs, for instance) any political party or movement needs to go where the votes are.

Michael Moore in a speech to a home town crowd (Genesse County Dems, as I recall) shown on C-SPAN last winter said of GM's problems "Why did these guys never drive around the block in a Japanese car to see what it was that caused so many people to buy them?".

There are people who have devoted many years of their lives/ thousands of hours of volunteer time to political campaigns who think the system is broken.

Others have the right to say the status quo works just fine. But the "proof of the pudding" is what the general public supports.

I agree with Clinton. Instant Runoff Voting and Publicly Financed Elections are much more important. Whether or not third party candidates get elected, IRV would demonstrate the variety of ideals held by the electorate who would no longer have to vote for the lesser of two evils. That's the kind of democracy I want to see.

I see the the point that open primaries might favor moderates (since Democrats and Republicans would temper each others' extremes) and I understand that it's more democratic to let more people participate. But is it fair to a group of people who form a party that stands for issues they really care about, for them to see those issues altered by a mob-rule candidate partially representing people who have no stake?

It might discourage voting by presenting even more choices to an already confused electorate. It's hard enough for the average voter to decide on candidates within their own party. Are they supposed to get excited about candidates in a party they don't subscribe to?

As far as a level playing field, anyone want to guess who would have been the top 2 in 2004 if Backlund, Thatcher and Pike had been on the ballot? I think it is at least possible that the woman from Freedomworks could have ended up # 3.

Generally, I agree with Nate. A taxpayer-funded system that excluded a third of the voters would be replaced by one that allows all to participate.............That's why I keep coming back to the philosophical argument that Kari makes, that more people should have an opportunity to make their voices heard (especially since they're footing the bill anyway).

Now we come to a major point. In a country founded on "no taxation without representation", should the tax dollars of those who are not registered with major parties be required to pay the cost of closed primaries? Think of not only the major primaries but about counting the votes for pct. person. Those don't get done sometimes for a week dep. on the workload of the county elections division. All that (printing, staff time, etc.) is paid for by taxpayer funds. Don't the people who pay for primaries have the right to vote in them? Or is that just too explosive an idea to debate?

20 states have genuine open primaries...a voter chooses any party's primary ballot he or she wishes, and these states don't have registration by party; therefore anyone can vote on primary day.

Washington state had blanket primaries 1934-2002; California had blanket primaries in 1998 and 2000. Louisiana has used the Keisling system for state office since 1975, and for congress since 1978.

With all these real-world examples of primary systems in the U.S. that don't exclude independent voters, why doesn't someone actually look at the data? I haven't done this myself, but I do know that Louisiana, the closest state to the Keisling system, has been near the bottom in voter turnout for the last few decades.

Thank you Notorious.

And with regard to RW, I don't think the turnout numbers in La. predict behavior of Oregonians. I think there are multiple factors involved in turnout, incl. the tone of the campaign and whether the candidates inspire people to care about the election.

Nate and the rest -

It's quite easy to predict what will happen if Oregonians vote for this fraud. I'll just repeat what I wrote some time ago:

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.

More on the next comment ...

The "progressive groups" that oppose the Lonsdale are essentially the well financed interests & consultants who want to control the process with contributions and mail pieces.

Lonsdale's law ain't perfect...but it might be better than the status quo. And we definitely need to be careful about the motives of the opposition.

Misha -

You raise the right question It's not at all clear to me what this ballot measure sets out to accomplish. Try this for an answer: Stroking Phil Keisling's ego. And playing to the fundamental political backwardness of a lot of Oregoninans, too many of whom post here.

You are wasting your time if you are looking for any kind of rational argument beyond the obvious: People vote for a candidate because they believe that candidate will defend their own values. And they do that largely without any genuine evidence of that. Party affiliation is one of the few bits of objective information an average voter can use to at least determine the broad outlines of a candidate's values. Keisling's system really is about a "cult of personality" style of politics where voters largely vote based on their response to the charisma of candidates. Those who argue they really vote based on some objective assessment of the candidate's merit are liars or fools. Save for a small minority who actually have a personal relationship with a candidate, most voters will have to make their selection based solely on the media image projected by the candidate.

LT -

Let's cut the polling minutiae out of Adam's bloated argument and see what he has is really saying: Cynicism and a general ignorance about the processes of self-governance is at an all time high. And so the thing to do is to put a referendum to cynical and ignorant people which in fact is an endorsement of cyncism and ignorance? That is, the solution is to further demean and undermine the value of people working together to express common governing values through party affiliation and instead move towards a system based on the "cult of personality"? You'll notice that in the single paragraph where Davis endorses the Open Primary and a non-partisan legislature in two short but vague sentences, he offers NO rational analysis how these attacks on the core supports of a representative democracy would actually ameliorate the trends he cites. After all, he is just a pollster, a quantitative reporter if you will, and that is quite different from being an informed or astute political or social analyst.

Kari -

Your comment I'm supporting the open primary because it's a fundamental issue of democracy. More people should have the right to vote -- and have their vote actually determine the outcome. is amongst the dumbest comments about this issue I have read, outside of pretty much everything Keisling says, that is.

The fact is, the current system of primary elections was largely a progressive innovation in the 70's to allow average folks to participate in the nominating process in an intelligent and constructive way. That is: Think about your own values, associate with a party that is bigger than you and represents your values, and then participate in selecting the candidate who represents those shared values. It is a plain fact that right now everyone has the right to vote in the primary.

Now since those who do affiliate with a political party out of some serious consideration of their values can't actually disaffiliate any voter, requiring that voters with less committed political tendencies only participate in the nominating process for one party in an election is a fair compromise. It justifiably prevents the kind of undedicated voter that Davis argues is in the ascendancy from affiliating with a party for one office, and then voting for a candidate for other offices who would work against the values of those who have self-identified with a party (and frequently contributed time and money) whose primary the voter chose to participate in for the first office.

Charlie -

I wanted to draw attention to your quite astute comment:

If there are three competitive Democrats running and two competitive Republicans, it's not hard to see a scenario in which voters are subjected to a general elections between two candidates of the same party. How's that fair or democratic? It's not.

As I alluded to in my post about the history of the Louisiana system, it is precisely the potential that one party could "win" an office before the November election that it surely seems might form the basis of a successful legal challenge to this system as being in violation of the 2 USC 7, based on the clear legislative intent of that statute as cited and endorsed by the Fifth Circuit.

The result could be that we end up with the expensive mess of a system for Federal elections that LA has. Namely we would actually forced to have our FIRST round of voting for U.S. Senate and House races in the November "general" election, and then a run-off in December.

Does anyone really think that would be a good system?

Okay, Kari, so you're "supporting the open primary because it's a fundamental issue of democracy".

Democracy exists for all eligible voters--in November (and in the spring for non-partisan races etc). People who complain that they cannot vote for either a Republican or a Democrat are not having a right denied to them. They are simply not permitted to participate in selcting a nominee for a party they do not belong to.

My own view of these partisan primary elections is that they should not be funded by tax dollars at all and should never have been embedded into the regular election system we have. Whenever I want to participate in nominating a candidate for US Senate, governor etc, I attend the Libertarian Party nominating conventions when they are scheduled. The Repubs and Dems can hold conventions just as we do (and other minor parties do), and if they want to get a larger participation than possible with a convention they can pay for their own mail ballot. Period.

I'll go even further and say that I actually support elimination of partisan offices from the US government down to dog catcher.

Bob Tiernan More people should have the right to vote -- and have their vote actually determine the outcome.

Maybe Michael Moore (per LT) hit in on the nail when he said, "Why did these guys [GM executives] never drive around the block in a Japanese car to see what it was that caused so many people to buy them?".

Maybe that applies to Oregon and national politics in general. If the major parties stop promoting dog poop as gold in terms of candidates, then maybe voters would become interested in these elections.

Campaign financing reform is more important. Voters are cynical and apathetic because they see candidates as beholden to special and big-money interests on either side of the political divide. How would this OneBallot system change that? Only the best-financed candidates, even if they are from the same party, would come out on top.

Kari -

Say it with me: Under the open primary, the primary election will no longer be used to determine party nominees.

We once had a conversation about strengthening parties by giving precinct committee people more power. The open primary system will do exactly that.

And exactly how does this return to the "smoke-filled room" version of picking party candidates where one has to actually be involved in party politics --- which is different from affiliating with a party --- to select the party nominee actually serve progressive goals?

Thanks for providing written proof positive making the point that Open Ballot supporters really aren't for allowing people to have more choice to put forward candidates who might represent their values, but in fact less, and more stark, forced choices between fewer candidates for an office.

Bob - My own view of these partisan primary elections is that they should not be funded by tax dollars at all and should never have been embedded into the regular election system we have.

I'll go even further and say that I actually support elimination of partisan offices from the US government down to dog catcher.

And equal revealing comment. Just to be clear, are you saying the Liberatarian view is contrary to that of the Founders who clearly embraced political parties and partisan offices as an essential component of a representative democracy? And that Libertarians similarly feel that spending public funds so that people can participate more fully in the candidate selection process without participating in party politics is not good for self-governance?

What's interesting are the essential connections between Keisling's, Kari's, and Bob's views. Despite the misleading way in which they are trying to sell this, they both don't really seem to view the electorate as deserving a bigger role in selecting their representatives. Instead they seem to feel that the unwashed masses really shouldn't be allowed to have multiple choices between potential candidates who might best represent their values, but should just be presented with a few, starker choices. Choices made through more clubby-style party politics that would actually be more difficult for average folks to participate in. Perhaps because in such a system they and their associates could be bigger fish in their even smaller respective ponds?

The sad thing is it appears that they are shamelessly taking advantage of the arrogance of ignorance about self-governance amongst the eligible voting population Adam Davis' approvingly cites as the key to selling this "cult-of-personality" approach to elections. It's hard to see an argument how responsible activists and opinion leaders truly concerned about rebuilding and strengthening representative democracy would get on board with such a scheme.

I oppose the Open Primary for the following reasons:

1. It decreases the ability of third party candidates to qualify because of the fact that only the top 2 get in.
2. It increases the cost of campaigns by forcing candidates to run two races.
3. Turnout would increase somewhat under this system but you'd still be giving mostly non-moderates a choice on who represents them.
4. No provision where there is a clear winner in the first round. E.g. in Mary Nolan's district 36, why should she have to run in effect two general election races if she gets above 50% in the primary.

Just my thoughts.

Askquestions1st:

Just to be clear, are you saying the Liberatarian view is contrary to that of the Founders who clearly embraced political parties and partisan offices as an essential component of a representative democracy?

I'm not advocating the elimination of political parties by law, nor am I advocating that people move away from them as a way of eliminating them by drying them up. I see parties as ways to get like-minded people together who can then choose candidates from among themselves and/or to endorse and support others as an interest group. I just don't like the partisan seats in that this eliminates all but a few candidates for the seats. With non-partisan races, you can even see multiple Democrats and Republicans running if their parties' nominees are not to those candidates' liking (although only one would be the official candidate and the mavericks running against them might wind up making too many enemies in their parties).

The system's set up so that someone files to run, and if he has a "D" or an "R" after his name he's automatically on the ballot while smaller party candidates have to make sure their party maintains ballot status while others need to get that status or need to get thousands of signatures. I don't like that -- it's as if the government is protecting people from "unworthy candidates".

Not too long ago we had Vera Katz running for re-election as mayor of Portland. She faced 16 opponents. I thought that was great. I voted for the gal who wanted to legalize drugs and prostitution.

And that Libertarians similarly feel that spending public funds so that people can participate more fully in the candidate selection process without participating in party politics is not good for self-governance?

Money does need to be spent on what is needed to actually hold an election, i.e. polling places, ballots, voting machines etc. I also support the Voters Pamphlets. But to give money to a candidates and other things - no.

What's interesting are the essential connections between Keisling's, Kari's, and Bob's views. Despite the misleading way in which they are trying to sell this

Excuse me, but I'm not misleading anyone. What I advocate isn't even connected at all to what Mr. Keisling wants regarding open primaries.

they both don't really seem to view the electorate as deserving a bigger role in selecting their representatives. Instead they seem to feel that the unwashed masses really shouldn't be allowed to have multiple choices

I suppose that's why I want to see more examples like the Porltand mayor race in which we had 17 choices!

I wasn't planning on using my post to detail everything I'd like to see, and the result has been that I'm accused of seeing voters as "unwashed masses" by someone addicted to labeling people. So let me add another election reform or two that I support as part of a larger package.

I support instant runoff but prefer a better system than suggested by a recent ballot initiative or law that was kicked around Salem, i.e. that plan dropped too many candidates in each swoop. Couple IRV with non-partisan races across the board and there's the potential to have more choices for each seat and the knowledge that in the end each person's vote will carry more weight by actually having an effect on the outcome.

I don't see any contempt for "unwashed masses" in all of that. Do you still see any?

Bob Tiernan

Louisiana elected a Republican US Senator in 2004 (David Vitter), but a Democratic governor in 2003 (Kathleen Blanco). Other southern states with Democratic governors now are North Carolina (Michael Easley), Oklahoma (Brad Henry), Tennessee (Phil Bredesen) and Virginia.

David -

As noted in my comments about Louisiana:

4. No provision where there is a clear winner in the first round. E.g. in Mary Nolan's district 36, why should she have to run in effect two general election races if she gets above 50% in the primary.

The Fifth Circuit found this to be a violation of 2 USC 7 for Federal elections unless the first vote is held in November, with a possible runoff sometime after that. Louisiana refused to comply with Federal law, the Court essentially took charge of their Federal elections and now they have the first vote in November and a runoff in December if needed.

Bob -

I agree with your objection that the current system has barriers that are too high for minor parties to qualify for the general election ballot. As I think you agree, the answer is to allow any party that demonstrates some credible evidence of actually being a party (a state meeting to draft a party platform, some number of registered members, etc.) access to the primary and general election ballot.

I'm not advocating the elimination of political parties by law, nor am I advocating that people move away from them as a way of eliminating them by drying them up. ... With non-partisan races, you can even see multiple Democrats and Republicans running if their parties' nominees are not to those candidates' liking

On the whole, that comment is an non-sequitor. Non-partisan races commonly means candidates who run aren't (and can't publicly be) identified by party affiliation and so the offices themselve are "non-partisan". So it is not clear whether you mean unknown to the general electorate you could have many people from both parties running, or you actually support some sort of two-round partisan general election. If it's the former, that's pretty much irrelevant to my point that your view is contrary to those of the Founders who embraced the complex of partisan offices and political parties, because partisan state and federal partisan offices are in fact memorialized by law and you are explicity advocating that the law be changed to eliminate them. If it's the latter, I have no idea why you would call such races non-partisan, since they wouldn't be.

Money does need to be spent on what is needed to actually hold an election, i.e. polling places, ballots, voting machines etc. I also support the Voters Pamphlets. But to give money to a candidates and other things - no.

Spending public funds on a primary election is not giving money to candidates no matter how you want to misrepresent it. It does not go to candidate or party accounts, nor do candidates or parties have any say on how that money is spent, nor does it accrue to the benefit of any particular candidate or party. It is strictly an adminstrative process to allow the public to participate in selecting candidates to advance to the general election as part of the multi-step adminstrative process that ultimate results in one successful candidate assuming office.

I suppose that's why I want to see more examples like the Portland mayor race in which we had 17 choices!

I wasn't planning on using my post to detail everything I'd like to see, and the result has been that I'm accused of seeing voters as "unwashed masses" by someone addicted to labeling people.

Although I didn't make it clear, I understand you don't support Open Ballot. But you do support non-partisan races which is pretty much a distinction without a difference with regard to the issues I raise.

What I was saying is that both you and Kari have in common is that you both explicitly state you don't want to see publicly funded party primaries where voters who share a set of values by majority vote chose the candidate which represents their values to advance to the general election. In addition, both you and Kari supporters explicitly argue that people should have to participate in party politics to have a say in what candidate represents the party in an election, which is inherently elitist no matter what party we talk about. I think that kind of opposition to the right of all folks to participate in that kind of serious political process actually evidences quite a bit of contempt for the general electorate.

Bob: With non-partisan races, you can even see multiple Democrats and Republicans running if their parties' nominees are not to those candidates' liking

AskQuestions1st: On the whole, that comment is a non-sequitor. Non-partisan races commonly means candidates who run aren't (and can't publicly be) identified by party affiliation and so the offices themselves are "non-partisan".

Point here was that I believe the political parties will nominate one candidate per office and try to consolidate support behind each one of them, but that others members of those parties will probably run for some seats on their own if they are not too happy with their party’s official candidate. I also believe that it’s silly to prevent party-affiliated candidates from making their affiliation known They ought to be able to say at any debate or campaign piece that, “I am a Republican” or “I am a the official candidate of the reborn Know-Nothing Party”. To pretend that gagging such candidates will fool anyone or have any benefit is silly.

Bob: Money does need to be spent on what is needed to actually hold an election, i.e. polling places, ballots, voting machines etc. I also support the Voters Pamphlets. But to give money to candidates and other things - no.

AskQuestions1st: Spending public funds on a primary election is not giving money to candidates no matter how you want to misrepresent it. It does not go to candidate or party accounts, nor do candidates or parties have any say on how that money is spent, nor does it accrue to the benefit of any particular candidate or party. It is strictly an administrative process to allow the public to participate in selecting candidates to advance to the general election as part of the multi-step administrative process that ultimate results in one successful candidate assuming office.

Then in general we agree – so long as it’s administrative. On the other hand, I still oppose the use of tax dollars to pay for candidate selections for political parties. All this has done over the years is to lock the major parties into a process as if we’re supposed to have only two major parties and some small ones to make some of us think we have other realistic choices (we don’t). The result has been what we see now: two parties control the system for their own benefit and act as if their existence is as Constitutionally mandated as Election Day.

AskQuestions1st: Although I didn't make it clear, I understand you don't support Open Ballot. But you do support non-partisan races which is pretty much a distinction without a difference with regard to the issues I raise.

I don’t support allowing (in a sense, forcing) political parties to permit non-members to participate in choosing their candidates. Such voters can register with a particular party if they want that additional influence, but the main point is that people have a right to vote for candidates on the main Election Day (or other times when local/state elections are held for anything other than non-primary purposes). Anything else (regarding partisan candidates) is extra.

AskQuestions1st: What I was saying is that both you and Kari have in common is that you both explicitly state you don't want to see publicly funded party primaries where voters who share a set of values by majority vote chose the candidate which represents their values to advance to the general election. In addition, both you and Kari supporters explicitly argue that people should have to participate in party politics to have a say in what candidate represents the party in an election

It costs nothing to register as a member of one of the political parties. Whether that political party chooses to hold a convention, or hold its own mail ballot, is another matter. But isn’t that what participation is all about?

AskQuestions1st: …which is inherently elitist no matter what party we talk about. I think that kind of opposition to the right of all folks to participate in that kind of serious political process actually evidences quite a bit of contempt for the general electorate.

No, it’s not elitist. That would be like saying that if I’m opposed to allowing a bunch of non-affiliated Religious Right people to participate in a Libertarian Party nominating convention, then I’m an elitist. Of course, we cannot prevent such people from registering as Libertarians and doing that, but that is apparently not what you think they should have to do in order to participate. Anyway, If a party wishes to allow non-members to participate, that is their business. But it must not be mandated. Besides, as I’ve mentioned in an earlier post, I think that non-partisan races (with partisan candidates, of course) coupled with an IRV system will maximize choices and actually give voters more of a say in which candidates are ultimately the winners.

Bob Tiernan

Ok... I understand that everyone wants to see more involvement in electoral politics and I agree more involvement is a worthy goal. I don't see changing who votes for who as the solution.

Also, I don't see anything in this discussion that tells me why we need to pay for the expense of chosing candidates that will run in the general election.

Voters that are either members of a party other than the republicans or democrats, or are independent or non-affiliated are forced by law to pay for primary elections.

Does it matter if parties want to use a mail ballot or a convention to nominate their candidates? Let them take on the expense. Don't make the rest of us pay for their selection process.

Also, why is it so difficult for an independent to run? How are we protected by limiting who can nominate and run?

Rather than change to an open primary we should be in favor of decriminalizing elections. Giving voters a choice of who they can vote for is much different from giving citizens a choice of who is able to run. Let's have true democracy and make it easier for more people to participate.

I don't see an open primary accomplishing this goal.

Nate -

No offense is intended, but I'm honestly starting to wonder if Open Ballot supporters have some sort of problem with the "reality based" world like the criminal-in-chief.

Charile, as quoted by askquestions1st: If there are three competitive Democrats running and two competitive Republicans, it's not hard to see a scenario in which voters are subjected to a general elections between two candidates of the same party. How's that fair or democratic? It's not.

This is actually, I think, an excellent argument for open primaries.

As the rest of the post you quote notes, it is precisely this effect which will potentially make the Open Ballot for Federal offices susceptible under 2 USC 7, one of the oldest and most important Federal statutes in the land that is how Congress carried out it's Constitutional right to set the time of elections.

See the preceeding answer to David in a preceeding post for a brief explanation of the rational in the Lousiana case. The only question with regard to Open Ballot is whether the Ninth Circuit would interpret the Legislative intent cited by the Fifth Circuit as making sure that results in one state before election day don't influence results in another state on election day as extending to the case where in Oregon it might be known that one party will definitely hold a seat as the will of the voters (and not because only candidates from a single party stood for election).

The remedy if Open Ballot were found to be in violation of 2 USC 7, as in Louisiana, would be to move the first round of voting for Federal offices under Open Ballot to November, and a second round, if needed, to December.

There are good reasons for 2 USC 7, and the history of partisan primaries, and the kind of half thought out ideas offered by Open Ballot supporters, which frequently are oblivous to history and the law, don't come anywhere near to answering them. Proof of that is no one here who supports Open Ballot has bothered to discuss the implications for 2 USC 7, the Louisiana litigation history, and case law on Open Ballot. That fool Sam Reed who is advising on our fool Phil Keisling, played the same kind of backwoods "we're different in the NW" game in WA and got his measure overturned almost as quickly as it passed, pretty much the grounds he said it was not susceptible. And while Open Ballot addresses some of the issues raised in the WA case, it doesn't come near to addressing all of the potential legal challenges that can be raised in Federal elections.

That good enough substantive feedback for you?

Bob and Blake -

Spending public money to run partisan primaries has a long history as being good for the Republic. It descends directly from the complex of political parties and partisan offices the Founders embraced from the start, amongst other things after people in response to popular pressure were allowed to participate directly in Senate and Presidential elections. Them's the hard cold facts at the bottom line. no matter how one wants to argue against them.

Why Libertarians and "independents" seem to have such a visceral resentment at having to participate in certain social processes to preserve the commons, and that includes contributing their tax dollars, is one of those truly interesting (and as a progressive I genuinely mean that in a respectful way because I can't say the same for what a lot of what passes for "progressive" on Blue Oregon) cosmic mysteries like gravity. Everyone knows it exists, it can be demonstrated to a mathematical certainty, but no one yet has come up with a satisfactory logical explanation for it.

askquesiton1st.

Where do you get your information? Please defend the assertion that public funding of private, exclusive political parties is good for the Republic?

The primaries are a PARTY function, not a state or governmental function. As such, they should be paid for by the parties.

The reforms we need here in Oregon are rank choice voting (Instant runoff voting) and proportional representation. Both of these changes would make our political process more inclussive, less divisive and more diverse.

Nate -

To the question you ask about the Foster decision (it was Fifth Circuit not SCOTUS). It seems reasonable that the decision on the application of 2 USC 7 in Foster may not apply in Oregon. But that doesn't mean that Open Ballot would not be in violation of 2 USC 7. My post gave the reason it may but I'll repeat here.

2 USC 7 only sets the date for Federal elections. And bear in mind that elections for House and Senate are partisan in the sense that the rules of the House and Senate explicitly impart a partisan structure to those chambers.

The task of the Fifth Circuit was to decide if Louisiana's primary violated 2 USC 7. And to do that they only needed to find the most obvious basis for a violation, not all bases. So in this case they looked at the legislative intent behind 2 USC 7, which was the fear that if one state made known who it was sending to Congress before other states voted it could influence the results in another state (remember all the controversy about how the news media declaring the 1980 election for Reagan on the basis of East Coast votes supposedly depressed West Coast turnout?) Well, the Court found that since LA declared someone with 50% of the vote did not have to stand for election in November, really just to save money, that in effect told other states who LA would be sending to Congress EVEN THOUGH LA argued the person was not technically certified as the winner until after the November election.

How might that apply? Well since Open Ballot could result in two candidates from the same party appearing on the November ballot, AND since that tells other states what party will represent Oregon in the partisan procedures which establish control of the House and Senate before November regardless of who actually wins, it certainly could be argued that this would violate the legislative intent of 2 USC 7 cited by the Fifth Circuit.

As I indicated, it would be anybody's guess what a court might actually do in these times. The Ninth Circuit and lower court judges have shown no shyness in striking down both California's and Washington's unified primary, so on the whole they don't seem to harbor any fuzzy-headed thoughts about how the "group-hug" approach to elections is such a good thing that it overrides competing interests.

Any lawyers out there want to come forward as Nate asks? (My comments are based on experience with elections and previous conversations with lawyers about electoral law.)

Using Nate's total vote counts, here's a scenario that demonstrates why progressives should oppose the One Ballot (my mistake in the previous comment in referring to it as "Open Ballot"):

Nate says there were about 305K votes cast for Democratic candidates. Suppose instead of the 54%/30%/17% split for Kulongoski, Hill, and Sorenson, the votes had split instead 46%/34%/20% because unions and progressives did just a bit better job getting voters to embrace their messages. This means the actual Democratic vote split would have been 140,300/103,700/61,000.

Now, Republicans tending to be better organized when it actually comes to what really matters - gaining power, suppose that instead of the 42%/30%/22%/6% split between the 290K voters for Saxton, Mannix, Atkinson, and Curtright that actually happened, the GOP managed to just get two candidates to run and they split the vote 51%/49%. This means those two candidates, let's say Saxton and Mannix would have received 147,900 and 142,100 votes.

Two Republicans would advance to the general election and no Democrats because the "Democratic wings" of the Democratic party actually had more voter appeal than really happened. I think this is one eaxmple of the lowered-threshold effect, although not what Paul is arguing. Since Oregon does tend to be more evenly divided between the two major parties than anyone wants to admit (and those two parties still drew 79% of the votes cast despite claims about how "independents" are on the ascendancy), the likelihood of this outcome only increases as the number of Democratic candidates on the ballot increases.

I think the lowered-threshold effect Paul is referring is what occurs if indeed you had an increased number of candidates, say 15 or 16 candidates, on the ballot. This means that each of 15 or 16 segments of the electorate would have a candidate that appeals most to them. If the demographics are such that, at this level of segmentation, the radical right and loopy left actually are the biggest subgroups (and there is a good chance of that in Oregon) the candidates representing those groups would tend to advance to the final election, rather than any of the more moderate and more numerous candidates that collectively represent the largest total fraction of the electorate.

Based on the current numbers, I think there is a good argument that the first scenario would actually be more likely. And based on that scenario there is a chance that One Ballot would pretty much give Republicans control of the state for some time to come. (Does anyone with a normal IQ actually want to argue that the Republicans would have a problem making sure they would only have 2 viable candidates on the ballot --- one that appeals to the radical right and one that appeals to fiscal conservatives --- that will split the Republican vote close to even? In response the Democratic party would have to attempt to return to the era of machine politics to prevent more than 2 Democratic candidates from being on the primary ballot. Or at the very least progressives would have to abandon their preferred choice if two less progressive Democratic candidates are on the ballot.

Both of those outcomes would be directly contrary to what One Ballot supporters say their plan is all about: Let's create a primary election system that gives all voters the opportunity to elect their favorite candidates.. That's the very possible future the "geniuses" behind this turkey led by Keisling are actually offering to Democrats and progressives.

AskQuestions1st:

Spending public money to run partisan primaries has a long history as being good for the Republic.

I'm not aware of that being a fact, by the way.

It descends directly from the complex of political parties and partisan offices the Founders embraced from the start

I'm not too sure that the idea was embraced all that much, either. We hear of Washington warning against it, although he said that when it was apparent that parties were going to pop up as an inevitable consequence of democracy.

amongst other things after people in response to popular pressure were allowed to participate directly in Senate and Presidential elections.

By the way, although it's not a topic for this time around, I'm not one of those people who thinks that the 17th Amendment (direct election of US Senators) was a great idea. There were good reasons--structural reasons rather than anti-democratic ones--why they weren't.

But to get back to the Open Primary idea, I understand the point that some people think we should have a say--an early say--in which candidates will appear on the ballot come regular election day. But it that is the view, then wouldn't it make more sense to allow voters to participate in all of the parties' primary elections rather than restrict them to participating in just one party's process?

Either way, I still say that the political parties are essentially private organizations and if one wants to participate he can register with that party. There's a price to pay for being a registered Independent, and that is that one is willing to sit on the sidelines and wait to see who gets on the ballot for each party. Besides, as others have pointed out, why would the Pacific Party people want to let a bunch of Republicans come in and nominate one of their own as the Pacific Party candidate? How do you stop that?

Bob Tiernan

Brian -

Political parties are not exclusive: Even someone like you can declare yourself to be a member of any party you want AND with publicly funded primary elections participate just like every other party member in choosing the party nominee. You can even run in the primary of any party you want just so long as you simply declare which party you are self-affiliating with.

The answer to the rest of your argument requires a civics lesson that would include reading some of the court decisions defending the rights of political parties. One point can be made succinctly though: Do some research into how in the early 70's, publicly-funded partisan Presidential nominating primaries came about as landmark progressive and populist reforms allowing average folks to participate in actually choosing Presidential nominees. I'd say that alone is good enough for the Republic to justify all publicly-funded partisan nominating primaries.

Interesting disagreement we have here: Spending public money to run partisan primaries has a long history as being good for the Republic.

I'm not aware of that being a fact, by the way. Within my grandfather's lifetime, there were not primaries everywhere in the 1930s--he was nominated for statewide office at the Michigan State Convention of his party. That was 1934.

The Founding Fathers warned of "factions" and did not enshrine parties in their founding documents.

Ask, what you are saying here "Even someone like you can declare yourself to be a member of any party you want AND with publicly funded primary elections participate just like every other party member in choosing the party nominee" is that everyone has 2 choices. They can choose between parties if they want to vote in primaries (like going to an ice cream parlor and choosing between chocolate and vanilla or maybe strawberry and vanilla) OR they can register outside a major party, not vote in partisan primaries, but pay taxes to pay for partisan primaries.

Those of us who have ever been registered NAV had hoped that when our numbers got over 20% of the voters, it would become clear that we were tired of "choose A, B, or no voice on nominees".

You may not like the idea that the number of NAV in the population is closing in on 1/4 of the voters. We had a 33 majority in the Oregon House but something like 7 House races decided by 1,000 votes or less. I live in a district where the incumbent state rep. won by 6000 votes against a weak challenger---in a district with about 8000 registered outside major parties.

I hope you are not telling any candidates you are campaigning for that they should just ignore those who don't register in major parties because if they really cared, they would have registered as partisans and voted in primaries. I have switched back and forth between partisan and NAV, but why must voters do that? Where in the Oregon Constitution are parties or legislative caucuses mentioned?

Bob and LT -

First, let's be clear that the Founders didn't "enshrine" parties in the Consitution because partisan politics was an accepted fact of life for them, just like abortion. So arguments that one can't point to the memorialization of either in our founding social contract or other key documents are somewhat disingenuous. Our third President, Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence and founded the most distant ancestor of the Democratic Party in 1792 and Hamilton was a founder of the Federalist Party in 1793, before the Revolution.

And by the way, many newspapers from their day through the 1800's were organs of political parties (kind of like Fox today), which is why the Founders did enshrine "freedom of the press" as the first of the ten amendments.

As far as the "long" history, I just learned myself that none other than Oregon established the first presidential primary in 1910 as part of the progressive/populist reform and the Washingon State legislature established a closed primary system for partisan offices in 1907. From what I can find, the first direct primary was the Democratic primary of 1842 in Pennsylvannia with other states following in the way these major political developments spread. The adminstrative work of conducting these direct nominating primary elections have always been paid for by public funds. If anyone can find an example of where political parties were required to substantially underwriting the costs of conducting a public, direct primary election it would be a useful contribution to the discussion of the Open Ballot.

And LT, I am not personally troubled, nor at all surprised, in a state like Oregon where voters constantly exhibit a certain naivete when it comes to successful governance that NAVs approach 25%. I can see how those numbers could continue to grow, and how unorganized NAVs will become increasingly less influential in governance precisely because, by definition, they just can't seem to get the idea of organizing politically to accomplish something positive. I think Adam Davis' numbers and conclusions illustrate this out quite starkly. That doesn't mean this is good for the state, just that those who are capable of organizing to a sufficient degree will have the power.

What I think should be the big tip off to the huskterism of Phil Keisling and the "One Ballot" is the overtly propogandistic introduction and use of the term "voter choice office". All elected offices are "voter choice" right now in any meaningful use of those words. And so is the nominating process. Voters who choose to be non-affiliated have no reasonable expectation to participate in the nominating process of those who do choose to self-affiliate. The really interesting question that should be the focus of the disgracefully intellectually slovenly media and editorial boards in this state are why One Ballot supporters have such a distorted view of themselves, history. and the political process.

whatever you do, taxpayer funded FBI agents will figure out a way to commit voter fraud. Here is a piece on how they we caught in Cincinnati.

[Copyrighted material deleted. C'mon, people, don't copy and paste entire pages of other people's words. Quote a few choice cuts, and give us a link. -Editor.]

In a mental slip, I said that Jefferson and Hamilton founded political parties in 1792 and 1793 were before the Revolution, what I meant was, in effect, early in the Republic and still in the 18th century before anything we would recognize as our current electoral system for federal offices. Keeping track of too much historical trivia can get tricky.

Ask_Questions_1st: First, let's be clear that the Founders didn't "enshrine" parties in the Consitution because partisan politics was an accepted fact of life for them, just like abortion. So arguments that one can't point to the memorialization of either in our founding social contract or other key documents are somewhat disingenuous.

That partisan politics was an accepted fact of life was not proof that they endorsed the creation of political parties as a part of government (i.e. which would mean that allparties would have to be treated as equals rather than just have a few privileged few). As for the abortion comment, that's not the same thing. You're implying that many (me, perhaps?) claim that it's not protected (was not "memorialized") and therefore not a right. To the contrary, I find it protected by the mostly forgotten 9th Amendment, the same one Justice Kennedy cited in his opinion tossing out state laws criminalizing sodomy. That is what true Federalism is all about, by the way, rather than states' rights as an end in itself (Federalism used to protect individual rights rather than to allow state, local, and national governments to abuse rights). People thus have a right to abortion because the government has no authority to deny it, while people don't have a right to participate in the kind of partisan primaries you speak of. The comparison of the two is incorrect.

Ask_Questions_1st: Our third President, Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence and founded the most distant ancestor of the Democratic Party in 1792

I find that to be inaccurate. The two have little in common. Jefferson was the closest to an anarchist we had among the Framers. He was never involved with a party that had any relation to today's Democratic Party.

Ask_Questions_1st: and Hamilton was a founder of the Federalist Party in 1793, before the Revolution.

I think you mean years earlier than the two listed, as 1792-3 was after the Revolution, and even after the period of the Articles of Confederation. By the way, the Anti-Federalists were the real Federalists, and the Federalists were the real Anti-Federalists, but that's for another time.

Ask_Questions_1st: And by the way, many newspapers from their day through the 1800's were organs of political parties (kind of like Fox today)

As if CBS, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and NBC aren't slanted. Fox is clearly slanted and they don't pretent too much otherwise, but so what? That Fox is sigled out now seems to repudiate earlier claims that other networks were Republican shills. Sounds like jealousy to me.

Ask_Questions_1st: which is why the Founders did enshrine "freedom of the press" as the first of the ten amendments.

Well, no. The way the press was for years before the Revolution (here and elsewhere) and well into this century was the norm, and too many people have been led to believe that the so-called "objective" press is actually objective as well as the way it was supposed to be all along. This is why CBS etc escape the criticism that Fox now gets. I expect a slant. Big deal. A Free Press is not the same thing as as Fair Press. Get used to it. If the State is used to force the press to be "fair", then it's no longer free.

Ask_Questions_1st: As far as the "long" history, I just learned myself that none other than Oregon established the first presidential primary in 1910 as part of the progressive/populist reform

Opening the nomination process to at least the whole of the registered people in each party was actually a good thing for each party from their own POV in that it recognized the asset of electability. In other words, here are two examples: 1) In 1976, when the Repubs still had a number of states not using a primary election, Ford's VP Nelson Rockefeller controlled New York's delegation. He "gave" the hundred or so delegates to Ford. This helped Ford reach the magic number at the national convention later on, but did nothing at all to indicate Ford's electability. 2) in 1996 or so, when Virginia Senator Chuck Robb, in the midst of a sleaze scandal that made him vulnerable, the Virginia Republican caucuses (not a vote of registered Repubs) chose the celebrity Ollie North as its US Senate nominee rather than the solid Jim Miller, untainted by the Moral Moronity. The latter could have been elected as he would have appealed to many Dems and Indies. But North got the nod, and since the caucuses gave no indication of electabilty, North's electability was still an unknown and he got whipped in November. He appealed only to a base of the party. In short, primaries can tend to weed out unelectable candidates. The problem is that too often the bulk of the voters for each major party are the most activist and the nominees can often be less appealing to the center and other wing of each party.

Bob Tiernan

Mr. Tiernan's rebuttal of Jefferson's link's to the Democratic Party I find to be inaccurate.

Whatever Jefferson's 'anarchist' credentials, he did found the "Democratic-Republican" (as it came to be known) party, along with James Madison. That party splintered, and Andrew Jackson formed the Democratic Party with much of the legacy of the old party. The new party continued its commitment to governance as a republic run by the broad spectrum of its citizens, as opposed to an aristocracy of the well-off.

Bob -

Regrettably, I am starting to wonder about your motives and abilities since you repeatedly draw inferences that simply don't follow at all from what I said, and mostly are contrary to what I said, to allow you to make your arguments. If it is intentional, it would be some mix of setting up strawmen and red herrings for reasons I can't fathom. I'm going to just refer to each of your points by numbers:

1) Parties were a fact of life, as were abortions, at the inception of the Republic. That says nothing about "rights" only that there is prima facie evidence to argue that the Founders generally thought people wouldn't be so stupid and regressive as to actually argue, much less legislate, against either. I share their perspective. And I haven't on this blog seen an intelligent argument against either. And there is abundant evidence the Founders viewed parties, starting with Jefferson and Hamilton, as an important organized alternative to the factionalism and "cult-of-personality" style politics which they viewed detrimental to governance in representative democracy. So I don't quite understand how you conclude what you think I am arguing, except that you need to set up a strawman to actually argue the points you want to make: Provincial Libertarians are just kind of anti-social and don't like to have to participate in sustaining the commons.

2) That the modern Democratic Party can trace a continuous line of descent from Jefferson's original party, is another indisputable fact and that incidental is all I asserted. Calling Jefferson an anarchist is satisfying I'm sure, but once again doesn't bear on anything substantive discussed here. Particularly since he actually organized a viable party (very anarchist that, eh?), talked about why doing that to avoid factionalism is good for representative democracy, and got himself elected President.

3), 4) I totally agree with you that all of the media you cite are slanted (again did I ever argue otherwise?) and I'll go one further to say that they are worse than being slanted because they argue the post WWII myth that the press can and should be unbiased. The fact is, as I actually argued so I don't know why you misrepresent that I argued otherwise, the Founders fully accepted that papers were biased and thought they should be --- because so many were organs of the partisan political system they embraced --- and gave us the First Amendment because the answer to that was the "more the better". As a progressive, I believe their view is enlightened, progressive, and agree with it. Why you seem to want to misrepresent that I have argued otherwise is nothing short of bizarre. Their biggest mistake seems to be that they assumed that whoever actually had the franchise (I won't go there) would care enough about being educated and enlighted they would make the effort to actually work to discern the truth.

5) Frankly, I am not sure whether you are arguing for or against parties here, so I won't even try to guess what ultimate point you are trying to make in your kind of disjointed arguments against the 100-year history of taxpayer supported partisan primary elections. And against the benefits they have --- strictly compared to the earlier alternatives and some of the whackadoodle modern alternatives like One Ballot --- for our representative democracy. The fact is, parties serve a valuable role as being public statements to all voters of the basic governing values of their nominees. There is very little publicly communicated wisdom or leadership in the non-affiliated "center". Most of the people in the "non-partisan" (and frequently mis-characterized as "moderate") "center" pretty much spend their limited political energies defining themselves as what they aren't, rather than working hard to articulate, publicly communicate, and actively promote governing values.

Please remain calm, Ask! Mr. Tiernan, if genuine in his self-identification, is a Republican who has held positions in Oregon government, should you be unaware. While I respect his commitment to pubic service, I don't expect him to sympathize much with progressive ideals.

The strength of political parties is to organize around shared ideals. The Republicans have the lighter strategic load, as their ties to business organizations give them a leg up. If you weaken the organizing ability of the local parties by removing their ability to define their effective membership, you leave the R's with the only effective organization.

If you weaken the organizing ability of the local parties by removing their ability to define their effective membership, you leave the R's with the only effective organization.

The basic flaw I see in this statement is the concept that the early 21st century GOP is the way it always was and always will be. Not true: some of us who were McCall supporters became active Democrats because the GOP drifted away from the common sense of the McCall ideas towards a right-leaning ideology.

LCDC and the Oregon Bottle Bill could not have happened with Democratic efforts alone. Hasn't been much of that solution-oriented thinking in Oregon politics lately in either party.

As far as "organizing around ideas", which ideas are the Democrats organizing around these days? I understand there are those legislators of both parties who are careful about their statements on the kicker because they know their districts, and that is fine. But has either party adopted a position on the kicker ? (By "adopted" I mean passing a resolution at the state or other level by a vote of members, not what the candidates say--and how many people actually read party platforms?)

Or could it be that among Democrats there is disagreement on the kicker? A friend of mine who used to be an active partisan and was once a legislator had this to say about the Gov.'s kicker statement: "Yes, even I was impressed on how Ted came out of the box swinging on the question of the kicker...then his staff starts equivocating for him in today's press..he needs a campaign staff with guts!"

If you go to http://www.bendbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060602/NEWS0107/606020375/0/FRONTPAGE

you can read interesting quotes about the kicker from Minnis, Saxton and others. Who sets the "Republican" position on the kicker--Minnis, Saxton, or someone else?

I just think more people look at individual candidates than at party positions in the 21st century, regardless of what political theory says.

I knew I could count on LT to take issue with my contention! I respect your position and continue to challenge it.

You say my overriding misapprehension is that today's Republican party is the same as in the bad ol' days, but surely you can't have failed to note how securely in the pocket of Megacorporate Business is that Grand Old Party today? Do you think Big Business would fail to prop up the Republicans if their organization were crumbling?

Just a heads up--

There are two Bob Tiernans in Oregon political life.

One is indeed the Republican activist.

However, I think the Bob Tiernan who's posting here is actually the other Bob Tiernan, who happens to be a Libertarian activist.

Oooh, my aching head! Apologies to those concerned.

Hi Ed,

I realize much has changed in the last 25 years or so. As far as "big business", do you know for a fact that every member of the Fortune 500 company contributes to Republicans and thinks Bush is doing "a heck of a job"? My guess is that the truth is probably more complex than that.

And it seems that many of the views held by moderate Rs 25 years ago are now held by moderate Ds. Ryan Deckert was orig. elected state rep. after a former GOP state chair defeated incumbent St. Rep. Ford--and over the course of years the Wash. County legislative delegation has gone from being moderate Republican to largely Dem. (Deckert, Hass, Ringo, etc.)

As it happens, last night I was doing research for a friend on Mary Alice Ford and some of the other former legislators of the moderate McCall/ Clay Myers persuasion.

Don't forget that Rep. Greg Macpherson's Dad was the GOP state legislator largely responsible for SB 100, which created LCDC. LB Day, a larger than life figure in many ways (agree or disagree with him) was more common sense and solution oriented than Minnis, Scott, Richardson and the rest of the House Republicans of recent years.

And some of us still recall 1982 when the winner of the Dem. primary for state senate in S. Salem was, by magic of redistricting, someone who'd represented a rural district in prior years and was discovered to have voted to the right of our state rep. Norma Paulus. (Long before being Sec. of State, she was the sort of state rep. one could have conversations with in the local grocery store, unlike many legislators today). Thus was born a very clever re-election campaign where big name Democrats appeared in radio ads and on billboards with the tagline "And that's why we say Vote For LB DAY!".

But then, I am one of those (many of us in the population, I would guess) who has not been in the same political party my entire life.

Sure Grandpa was a GOP elected official, but when it came time for me to register for the first time in 1968, it wasn't a choice between sets of principles. I had no more use for LBJ due to his war policies than I had for Nixon. I chose to vote in the Dem. presidential primary (E. McCarthy) rather than in the contested GOP US Senate primary where a right winger ended up defeating the long time incumbent. There was no choice in the Republican presidential primary then in California--Reagan was a "favorite son".

I have no doubt those who post here talking about a party being a cohesive group organized around a set of principles believe that firmly. But when I was on Dem. state central comm. there was major debate about whether both sides of issue debates could hold those positions and be "real" Democrats, no matter how many hundreds of hours they'd spent volunteering with the party and Dem. candidates. Which is why I had an opinion piece published in a party newsletter in the late 1980s saying Democrats had to choose: either "real" Democrats were the ones who showed up to do the volunteer work (even if they insisted on thinking for themselves) or else "real" Democrats swore allegiance to a written set of principles and even if they never lifted a finger to help elect a Democratic candidate, work at a fair booth, be a pct. person, etc. they were still "better" Democrats than the "footsoldiers" who did the volunteer work which keeps a party going.

Philosophical debate--I grant you that. Worthy of debate.

But if you were to go out to the store today and stand in a cashier's line, how many people in that line (or in the whole store) would care about that? Aren't they more likely to care about planting in the garden, how their job is going, if their family is healthy, etc?

Winning campaigns care as much about the people who in June care more about work and family than political debates--they are, after all, the majority of the population and the folks who actually decide elections.

Ed Bickford: Mr. Tiernan's rebuttal of Jefferson's link's to the Democratic Party I find to be inaccurate.

Whatever Jefferson's 'anarchist' credentials, he did found the "Democratic-Republican" (as it came to be known) party, along with James Madison. That party splintered, and Andrew Jackson formed the Democratic Party with much of the legacy of the old party....

I'm aware of much of this -- it's just that it's a real stretch to equate Jefferson's links with an early version of today's Democratic Party with anything in particular. People in both major parties and several of the smaller parties claim that Jefferson would be in their respective parties if he were around today. One thing's for sure--he wouldn't go anywhere near either of the major parties.

Any relation to Charles Bickford?

Bob Tiernan

Nate Currie: Extremist partisans in heavily divided (or gerrymandered) districts would no longer have a free ride in general elections.

Actually, gerrymandered districts aren't heavily divided.

Gerrymandering has been of the worst things in American politics and ought to be done away with. Iowa, for example, uses a non-partisan committee to draw districts and in the end they don't have the pretzel-like shapes. California tried to get this last year but the mistake was in the plan to implement it as soon as passed rather than wait until the next census.

Bob Tiernan

Ask_Questions_1st:And there is abundant evidence the Founders viewed parties, starting with Jefferson and Hamilton, as an important organized alternative to the factionalism and "cult-of-personality" style politics which they viewed detrimental to governance in representative democracy.

I'm concluding that political parties arefactions of the whole electorate.

Ask_Questions_1st:Frankly, I am not sure whether you are arguing for or against parties here

Parties are fine. I'm just not interested in seeing taxpayer dollars used to aid them in choosing candidates. The so-called Bipartisan Committee on Presidential Debates (or some such name) is an example of what we get when parties get embedded into the system as if they are Constitutionally enshrined. Dems and Repubs worked out a set of requirements candidates would need to meet in order to participate, and voila!, only Dems and Repubs can possible meet the requirements. I feel so protected, don't you? I'm simply for more candidates being allowed to appear on the ballot for seats across the board, rather than seeing people choose from among the two major parties who will often be the only ones on the ballot.

Bob Tiernan

However, I think the Bob Tiernan who's posting here is actually the other Bob Tiernan, who happens to be a Libertarian activist.

Well, not that much of an activist. Just yesterday I went to my first Libertarian function in two years--a nominating convention attended by almost 30 people! I left early. I'm thinking seriously about registering as an Independent and considering my libertarianism to be a philosophy but no more. We'll see. (I also oppose the idea of party affiliation when registering to vote for it's not the government's business to know which party one is in).

Bob Tiernan