The deck is deliberately stacked against independent candidates for governor.

Yup - here is the voter registration numbers:

Democrats: 800,000 Republicans : 750,000 Unaffiliated: 450,000

So even if all those unaffiliated people shared some common beliefs they don't constitute much of a political force except in combination with a substantial number of voters affiliated with one of the two parties. And, of course, those unaffiliated voters don't actually share many political beliefs. They are all over the political spectrum making the two parties look absolutely homogenous by comparison.

Republicans and Democrats do not want to see competition in November

While I am sure that is true - all candidates would prefer to run unopposed - that isn't why independents have a hard time. The reason is that they don't have any built in base of support.

"Democrats nominated Edward F. Bailey, who, reflecting a political division among Democrats, vacillated on public power.

Joseph died suddenly before the November election. The Republican State Central Committee appointed Phil Metschan, an opponent of public power, to replace Joseph.

Supporters of public power promptly recruited the well-known Meier to run as an independent candidate."

Demonstrating just how extraordinary a circumstance is required to overcome the basic political divisions and elect someone who is unaffiliated with either party.

TA - I agree with much of your comment here - except for one perception you have.

You protray Need Pender, and by that I think you mean that Democratic Party of Oregon, as not in touch with the Howard Dean part of what is happening in the D. Party.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, Neel has "hauled water" for Dean, traveling around to four or five States helping the DNC do analysis of State Parties to determine what kind of assistance can be provided by the DNC. Neel is not only engaged, but a key part of the efforts to both remake the Party to reflect the grassroots, and to take the Party back to the people.

The new Democratic Party - largely assumed in the media not to exist - is already here, and many of us are part of it.

But, what you say about Westlund is as far as I can see pretty much on the money.

Did my heart good to see some critical analyses of how "independents" mainly are defined in terms of what they aren't, instead of representing a coherent set of values as candidates of political parties do. Parties define a set of values and that serves a valuable function in our representative democracy. In most cases, supporting an "independent" really is about a political philosophy that embraces a "cult of personality" approach to governance. By definition, independent candidates are putting themselves forward as the solution, rather than doing the hard work of organizing a party that works together to build solutions.

Westlund is even a more special case. He is a conservative Republican whose only beefs seems to be with the evangelical wing of the Republican party, and Democrats standing up for their political values so that he can't advance his legislative agenda which mainly favors corporations and the rich (reducing capital gains taxes, eliminating inheritance taxes on multi-million dollar estates, imposing a regressive sales tax on working folks to give bigger income tax breaks to those up the income ladder).

It seems denouncing "partisanship" is a tactical theme like-minded conservative Repulicans (and just a few Dems like Lieberman) seem to be using this year. The tactic seems to be an effort to distance themselves from the negative associations with the Republican party now in voters' minds while still espousing core conservative positions. The Republican Senate candidate in VT, Tarrant, has been in the press sounding exactly like Westlund in denouncing "partisanship". And before people argue Sanders is an "Independent", he actually was associated with a party in VT, changed to "independent" while caucusing with Democrats to avoid stigmatizing the Democratic party with spurious labels, voted pretty much down the line and supports the values of the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party", and is in all but name the Democratic candidate for Senate. Just like how Westlund is, in all but name, a Republican candidate for Governor.

Finally, and this not an attempt to take this discussion off topic another direction but a legitimate observation about VBM since I was voting this morning, has anybody noticed this bonus "feature" of VBM? Since you sign the outside of your envelope, and that envelope goes through the mail system with all the insecurity we know there, you are voluntarily providing your accurate home address and a valid copy of your signature to the world. I wonder if Anne Martens and all of the VBM supporters on this board think that sounds like a very smart thing to do, much less a worthwhile tradeoff for the "me-first" consumerist approach to voting that VBM is, in this age of identity theft and stolen mail?

Admittedly, actual signatures play a small role in identity theft, and people could go to the courthouse and access voter records - but that is a lot of work that leaves a record in itself. It is quite a different matter to offer up signatures and addresses wholesale in this way. (Does anybody know if the outer envelopes are actually shredded or just disposed of in a way which again leaves this information intact and re-provided to the world?)

Of course, one could take their ballot to an official drop-off spot, another aspect of VBM that has been in contention for ballot security reasons, or to one of the designated government office like the courthouse. Now that really is a whole lot more convenient than just voting in a polling place required by law to be within a short distance of your home, isn't it?

On my rainy day review of Blue Oregon, I was surprised to be grossly mischaracterized again by T.A. whom I’ve never met, shared a conversation or an email. Working for the Party leads one to be very thick skinned as we consistently inherit all the sins of Democrats but rarely get credit for anything that works or is going well. It is really gratifying though to stumble upon the unsolicited support of people I respect and who truly make party great – so thank you Steve.

For the record, I believe in a democratic Democratic Party. I also have faith in voters in making rational decisions about our candidates provided they are given good information. To do this, however, does not mean just adopting the mercurial and sometimes contradictory views and tactics of the loudest critics. I see the party’s most valuable role as building a vibrant infrastructure that provides a meaningful intersection between the grassroots, candidates and elected officials. It may be a boring and even infuriating perspective to those driven by primarily by the debates of specific issues, but my unwavering pursuit is to make sure that “the people – the grassroots, the candidates and the elected officials” actually have the tools to deliver their vision – and not to judge individual aspects of that vision. The majority will make that determination.

Mundane but important investments that the party must make to compete today include a more sophisticated bulk email program that allows us to segment our communications to be more local and relevant, to empower county parties by rebuilding (or building) a meaningful precinct system in partnership with Dean’s national field program, using paid communications when necessary to promote the battered and often defenseless “brand” known as the Democratic Party and/or to answer unchallenged lies, distortions and misinformation peddled by opponents, to enhance our voter lists so that we can visit and call Oregonians efficiently and build more sustainable, meaningful relationships with them over time.

The party is uniquely an ongoing institution and unlike our candidates and elected officials who seek to represent and legislate for all Oregonians (a distinction lost on many), our object is to grow, protect and be responsive to our members. It’s a shame that there isn’t more support or consensus for these types of investments from grassroots critics like T.A., but it doesn’t mitigate their necessity. The irony is that we probably want pretty much the same thing, but without building and investing in our party, we’ll be left to prognosticate and lament righteously in the blogosphere, rather actually implement a new, exciting vision for Oregon and America.

I remain committed to the realization of the latter and I’m privileged to that particular foxhole with great folks like Steve Bucknum.

"Independent-minded voters are simply stuck voting for whichever Republican and Democrat is chosen by voters in their respective primaries."

actually, independents, excuse me--"Independent-minded voters"--usually have several other options including greens, and libertarians. i have never met anyone, democrat, republican, green, libertarian, or independent who did not think of themselves as an "Independent-minded voter".

Independents" who split the difference in ideology... implies ordinary people have an ideology which is more important to them than problem solving, issues debate, personal impressions of candidates.

My experience of 6 years registered NAV was "the I in Independent stands for I THINK FOR MYSELF, THANK YOU VERY MUCH " was as close as most got to having an ideology.

When people are told "oh, you're a Democrat, therefore you believe..." or "Oh, you're a Republican, therefore you believe", people who don't care about voting in primaries (or who change their registration after a primary) may register or declare themselves independent just because they want the right to think for themselves, without having to obey public perceptions of a political party. The days when the old political boss system told people what to believe are long over.

There are those who think labels short-circuit thought, and those like the ad made by LaSalle HS which played on High 5 today who are concerned about looking beyond the labels to the individual.

It is a conceit of some activists (of whatever political stripe) that they "know" how certain voters view politics and elections. But how to label the man I met yesterday while canvassing who doesn't like the Republican state rep. incumbent but thinks all Democrats are "too far to the left" and "engage in negative campaigns"?

As I told someone after church this morning, my vote for Jim Hill in the primary is not a guarantee of my vote in the general. I'd like to see the Dem. candidate and the Republican candidate shame the GOP nominee into honestly debating issues rather than just talking slogans.

If someone says it is a shame that there wasn't a full open discussion of SB 382 last session, what is that person's ideology?

Finally, and this not an attempt to take this discussion off topic another direction but a legitimate observation about VBM since I was voting this morning, has anybody noticed this bonus "feature" of VBM? Since you sign the outside of your envelope, and that envelope goes through the mail system with all the insecurity we know there, you are voluntarily providing your accurate home address and a valid copy of your signature to the world. I wonder if Anne Martens and all of the VBM supporters on this board think that sounds like a very smart thing to do, much less a worthwhile tradeoff for the "me-first" consumerist approach to voting that VBM is, in this age of identity theft and stolen mail?

Vote by Mail does not require a stamp, although that is more convenient for some people. I live near County Elections and always drop off my ballot, and as I understand it there are lots of drop boxes in at least some counties.

I strongly suspect that if Oregon had some form of instant runoff voting there would be fewer registered Rs and Ds and more independents would join or start political parties. In addition, there would be better candidates fielded by the minority parties - why run if you have no chance? - and the number of votes received by "minority" candidates would be far greater than it is now. (Even though those minority votes would be handed off to an R or a D...)

We need more choices and more voices. There is nothing inherently superior or preferable about two parties except it's the natural result of our electoral system (winner take all). This system typically ensures that the majority DOESN'T pick the winner and the winner actually represents less than 1/2 the people.

I am a Green and do not feel at home with either Corporate party. While democrats might be marginally better, they aren't good enough or radical enough to address the problems that face our community. (There are no jobs/parties/countries on a dead planet.)

We need real electoral reform to bring our democratic institutions into the 21st Century. Reforms like Instant Run-off or Rank-Choice voting, Proportional Representation, Publically financed campaigns, free media, voting machines with printouts, same day registration, and universal suffrage.

The US would like to think we are a great democracy but we are failing if you believe that democracy is about giving voice to the people. Our system gives a voice to the corporations, for the corporations and by the corporations.

mr. maurer, the answer to how to appeal to a mishmash including lefties who just want to not vote for a democrat AND people like bill o'reilly is this: say nothing substantial. it's working for ted wheeler.

posts like this one will let westlund get away with it, too, meandering through history while saying nothing at all about how much ben westlund loves war, schools, bikes, oil, trees, workers, rich people, immigrants, or gays and lesbians.

askquestions1st pretty much sums up my suspicions of "independent" candidates like wheeler and westlund. they don't want to get all up in your uterus, and they're decent enough to be ashamed of their man george bush, but like bush, they sure do like tax cuts for rich people like them more than they like good schools.

I strongly suspect that if Oregon had some form of instant runoff voting there would be fewer registered Rs and Ds and more independents would join or start political parties. In addition, there would be better candidates fielded by the minority parties - why run if you have no chance? - and the number of votes received by "minority" candidates would be far greater than it is now. (Even though those minority votes would be handed off to an R or a D...)

Next time you are in line someplace like a grocery store, try to explain IRV to the person ahead of you or behind you. If you are able to explain it in the time you are in the line, and if the people you talk to don't reject it out of hand with something like "my life is not complicated enough already, you want to make it more complicated??", then let us know.

I heard the presentation to the Legislative Comm. on behalf of open primary and IRV. Although I have known the presenters for a total of many decades, to my mind the open primary folks made the sale but the IRV people did not--and didn't seem to want to answer questions from people during the break.

"If only we had IRV " is not the answer to all problems, and if you can't convince ordinary folk, blogging will not achieve your goal.

Dan, about this: We almost defeated it in the Senate Rules Committee, where the vote for it was 3-2, with the Republicans voting against it. Where were all those who now so vehemently object to HB 2614?

Who voted which way in the Sen. Rules Comm.?

I live in Salem and don't recall ever hearing about it.

Kevin writes,

"The difference between voting the "D" and voting for an Indie because he/she is an Indie is that voting for a "D" means voting for an entire party structure which wield a far amount of control over all the other elected "D's" while voting for an Indie doesn't include anything of the sort. It's a part of the Indie mind set which partisans just don't seem to get."

Having been this year through a confrontation of sorts regarding a vote by a certain Senator, I have to say that the idea that a "party" controls either a candidate or an elected official who belongs to a party is something of a farce. Perhaps why partisans don't get Kevin's point is that it just doesn't exist when you get close to and familar with the "real world" of what happens in politics, and get further away from the fantasy world of what you think happens in politics.

Kevin - I can't speak for the Republicans or other parties, but here in Oregon, the Democratic Party per se has NO control over candidates. Wouldn't want it either. Please refer above to Neel's post about an intersection. Our Party is about facilitation not control. The way "control" is maintained is organic. If you don't support Democratic Party values, Democrats won't vote for you and you don't get elected. In regard to values then, as an institution the Party is not between the voter and the candidate, but stands to the side. Having said that about mechanics, please note that the Party clearly does have values. In a few weeks we will meet and articulate again our values and beliefs in our Platform. This is not handed down from on high for Democrats to follow, but is organically grown in the Party. A committee that has geographic representation from all the Congressional Districts has put together a draft. Then in a three day period representatives of each County Party (in other words those precinct people you can elect every other year if you are registered with the Party) - will come together and review the draft, toss out parts, keep parts, revise parts - and end up with a statement of our values and beliefs as Oregon Democrats. The Democratic Party acts in a way that honors democratic values - at every step.

In other words Kevin, the Party doesn't control candidates, but candidates ignore the values as articulated by the Party at their peril, as the platform comes from voters. I just don't see an evil machine in that process.

I invite all like Kevin to visit County Party meetings or for that matter a State meeting. I dare you to find the lever that controls candidates or elected officials. It just doesn't exist.

Kevin -

There is no comparison between the relative cooperation between the parties in the 70's and early 80's and current times. The fact is that from being able to introduce items to the legislative agenda to playing a fair role in hearings to Presidential confirmations, comity was an important value amongst members on both sides in both houses. There are a fair number of Republicans from that era, like Howard Baker, and from the Northeast currently (Chafee, Collins, Snowe, and Jeffords before he left the Republican Party) who also bemoan that loss of comity. And comity is something apart from partisanship --- something that Westlund and his supporters quite frankly appear to not care to understand. Asserting there is some sort of parity between then and now is simply wrong.

Your characterization of Bernie Sanders is similarly incorrect. Sanders was a member of the Liberty Union Party in the early 70's. He did run as a unaffiliated challenger to Democratic and Republican candidates for mayor of Burlington, but his secret to holding power was that his supporters formed what became the Vermont Progressive Party and consistently managed to get several party candidates elected to the City Council during his years as Mayor. Although he has run against Democrats in his Congressional races, he has only caucused with Democrats and in 1994 he was actually endorsed by the Democratic Party in the election the Republicans took the House. He chaired the House Progressive Caucus for four terms, the rest of whose membership is solely Democrats. This year he has been endorsed by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comittee against Tarrant, the Republican challenger. The fact is he has both done party building, and worked solely to their mutual advantage with the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party", as Wellstone termed it, because those are the values he espouses. That is far different from Westlund's vacuous railing against "partisanship" and your cartoon depiction of an independent.

And finally, the Founders were all members of political parties. Some, like Jefferson, were even instrumental in forming political parties. A key theme in the historical analyses of those time is that the founders strongly believed it was important in a representative democracy for people to organize into parties around sets of governing values, rather than to embrace a "cult of personality" around a candidate who is unwilling or unable to participate in that kind of values oriented party building. (And values here simply means an articulated set of governing principles, not something akin to morals as the whackjob right wing has hijacked the use of the term.) One of the key reasons we have a First Amendment that protects freedom of the press is that the newspapers of the day were largely highly partisan rags published by political parties.

Kevin, Did you work on Capitol Hill when O'Neil was Speaker? If not, what is the source of your statement Steve, I don't know how old you are or if you're old enough to remember when Tip O'Neil ruled Congress with an iron fist (ala Tom "The Hammer" DeLay) until Reagan broke his grip on power by making populist appeals.

I AM old enough to remember Speaker O'Neill, and the "Congressman, you've run out of gas" commercials by Cong. VanDerJagt in 1980 which did NOT create a Republican Congress that year. The young GOP congressman who compared O'Neill's girth to the national debt in the early 1980s was criticized in public and I'm not sure he was re-elected.

First of all, who was O'Neill's counterpart to Abramoff, Kevin? Or don't you really have evidence that O'Neill ran scams in the Majority Leader's office and had the same level of control over his membership that DeLay had? Did DeLay believe "all politics is local" as O'Neill often said? Those of us who are old enough to remember the 1980s know that Tip and Ronnie were 2 old Irish guys who used to drink together (compare that with Speaker Gingrich's whining about how Clinton treated him). In 1982, did the number of Democratic members of Congress go up or down? Or is that too fact-based for you, Kevin?

Read How the Good Guys Finally Won by Jimmy Breslin before stating that Reagan was more "populist" than Tip. It was written by a reporter who documented the Nixon impeachment process from inside the capitol building. His view of Tip O'Neill is different than you paint. Why is yours more accurate? Were you there?

To return to a statement by the author of this column, I have heard Russell comment that some statement was a "theory mugged by a brutal gang of facts". That is true here. Not only that, but Tip never had direct control over Oregon politicians when he was alive, and he's been dead for many years. So how is that really about "control" of Oregon politicians in 2006?

And comity is something apart from partisanship --- something that Westlund and his supporters quite frankly appear to not care to understand. Hey Ask! When was Ben Westlund or any supporter of his personally rude to you? In all the times I have talked to him or his supporters they were the model of civility. If you have evidence to the contrary, explain your complaint to the campaign or specifically here--don't make cracks like that.

Explaining Rank Choice Preference Voting isn't very difficult. If ordinary folks don't get it, that should be a real indictment of our school system and the fact that too many folks these days can't think their way out of a box.

Rank choice preference voting explained: Instead of voting for just one candidate for a particular office you rank the candidates from highest to lowest. You can rank them all or just voter for 1 person if you wish, the choice is yours.

The winner is the candidate who gets at least 50% of the votes, thus guaranteeing majority rule (an improvement over our current system where many candidates win with less than 50% of the vote). If no candidate wins 50% of the first place votes, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated. The people who voted for that candidate have their votes recast from their 1st choice (now eliminated due to a lack of support) to their 2nd choice so their vote and voice goes toward electing someone rather than being wasted like our current system.

Kevin, your exact works: "until Reagan broke his grip on power by making populist appeals. "

And do you know of your own personal knowledge that Tip "leaned on" members, or is that just your surmise?

Closer to home, in what ways were partisans "leaned on" in the state senate last session? Seems to me the most pressure last session in the Senate was not from Brown and Ferrioli (except for "we negotiated this deal and you're supposed to abide by it"--and the closed door sessions may have had more to do with no legislator wanting to stand up to Minnis than anything else) was: Les AuCoin, never a state senator and hasn't held public office since 1992 sending out a nasty email threatening any Democrat who didn't vote for his confirmation to Forestry Board (didn't work) And in the House: Majority Leader Scott leaning on a freshman member of the minority over education and the S. Coast airport. Look up Blue Oregon topics like Wayne's World to see what a spectacular failure that was.

In my experience, the real world of politics is more complex than some students of history and politics (as opposed to activists with ground level experience) actually surmise.

Exactly which school is currently teaching Rank Choice Preference?

Explaining Rank Choice Preference Voting isn't very difficult. If ordinary folks don't get it, that should be a real indictment of our school system and the fact that too many folks these days can't think their way out of a box.

But Brian, you might want to get together with your IRV friends and tell them that you are the first person I have ever heard explain it this way: Rank choice preference voting explained: Instead of voting for just one candidate for a particular office you rank the candidates from highest to lowest. You can rank them all or just voter for 1 person if you wish, the choice is yours.

Most just have the generalized "isn't this great that you could vote your preferences!" and hate someone bringing up Grisham v Doyle in 2004 or Kitzhaber v Sizemore 1998. How dare anyone say there are elections where the choice is darned close to good vs. evil and people aren't interested in changing the voting system? Are you going to sell IRV by saying " adopt our change or you are too stupid"?

My point still stands. I wonder if every IRV person asked someone who isn't political "do you like the current system of voting or would you prefer a rank order preference system where you could vote for your first and second choice or give all your choices to one person", something good might come out of that conversation if they would get a good discussion going. But what if the person said "go away, I've got problems that changing the voting system won't help"?

Is it possible that this will pass until ordinary folks consider the topic worth their time? Or is everyone not an IRV advocate wasting their time on such things as work and family when they should be agreeing with you?

Seems rather top-down to tell people "you should adopt this new voting system because we say so" rather than engaging in dialogue with ordinary people about it. In what American location larger than a local government is this working without flaw?

Dude. How many times does Russ get to write this same piece about how so-called independents are persecuted and Westlund is neat. Haven't we seen it three times now?

if you're old enough to remember when Tip O'Neil ruled Congress with an iron fist (ala Tom "The Hammer" DeLay) until Reagan broke his grip on power by making populist appeals.

Some of us are old enough to remember that isn't true.

The point being that Tip leaned on fellow Dems and he could and did do so because he was part of the party power structure.

No. He leaned on fellow Dems because he was had the support of the majority of them (which is how he got elected House Speaker) and to get anything done everyone needed that majority. Legislative majorities have almost nothing to do with the party structure. Just look at the Multnomah County Commission - they are all Democrats, but they are still divided into a majority and minority and the majority rules.

How far do you suppose Pelosi gets trying to lean on Sanders?

Probably as much or more than members of her own party. Sanders needs Pelosi and the other Democrats to support things he wants passed.

Kevin -

askquestions1st, you're getting hung up on issues irrelevant to my point, focusing on the differences rather than aknowledging the similarities. From the tone and tenor of your comment I suspect that was not accidental.

You made three factual assertions:

The first was a fantasy about Tip O'Neill and the Congress which you claimed made your point: My point was that by definition that simply doesn't happen with Independents. It didn't happen with O'Neill, which leaves your alleged point to simply be a meaningless and unsupported non sequitor.

The second was a similarly unfactual assertion about Bernie Sanders that you claimed proved your point: immune to the power games of a party structure because he doesn't have one. In both Vermont and since he went to Congress he most certainly did have and has been supported by a power structure - what became the Vermont Progressive Party in the first case and the Democratic Part in the second. So once again this renders your over alleged point to be vacuous drivel.

The third was your clearly uninformed and factually rebutted claim about what the Founders intended.

As I've said here before, for most people the decision who to vote for is one of the most irrational actions most people will ever take simply because it is an empirical fact that there is limited objective information available about most candidates on which to make such decision. Furthermore, study and after study shows people vote for people who they believe are most likely to represent their values, again with no real objective information on which to make that decision. One of the key roles of political parties is to define sets of governing values that a candidate self-associates with, and to the extent the activists and decision makers in the party support that candidate, that gives voters a measure of information on which to form a belief whether that candidate is likely to uphold their values.

Kevin, you so clearly illustrate this point about how uninformed a voter you really are (and sadly this holds too true for so many "independents" in the Northwest) that little more needs to be said.

Sorry to re-enter this so late in the game, but I WORK FOR A LIVING.

Kevin, I'll be 54 in less than 2 weeks, and I clearly recall all the characters you are talking about - from the National scene.

Please look at the top of this blog thread - we are talking about politics in OREGON and you brought up control over candidates and elected officials in OREGON, so I discussed the OREGON Democratic Party.

And by the way, for someone who is a Dean supporter, it seems really odd/ironic that you blame the Democratic Party for doing him in (it was voters remember?), when in fact he is now head of the Party. If some mysterious party had that much control to defeat him, how could he end up in charge? It doesn't add up.

Whew!

FOB -

You wrote:

And comity is something apart from partisanship --- something that Westlund and his supporters quite frankly appear to not care to understand.

Hey Ask! When was Ben Westlund or any supporter of his personally rude to you? In all the times I have talked to him or his supporters they were the model of civility. If you have evidence to the contrary, explain your complaint to the campaign or specifically here--don't make cracks like that.

FOB, how did you get from some analytic comments about Westlund's rather nonsensical - and quite possibly cynically demagogic - comments about "partisanship" to claiming that somehow I was saying someone in the Westlund campaign was rude to me personally?

So let me repeat the point: On his website, Westlund states that:

Extreme paralyzing partisanship is keeping us from addressing, much less solving the problems facing Oregon. Without leaders dedicated to working across the aisle, without leaders dedicated to the next generation rather than the next election, without leaders….. we will continue to spiral into mediocrity and below.

"Partisanship" is about defending and working for whatever governing values a person happens to espouse. And in these times when there is such a clash of values about what is best for the state and for future generations, the problem is not having and defending values.

"Comity" is about a state of mutual respect between people who espouse very different values, in this case to accomplish the job of governing without compromising their values (ie. while still being partisan).

The fact that Ben and his supporters don't seem to understand the difference, and in effect make that lack of understanding one of their key platform planks, quite fairly raises serious concerns that he is unsuited for leadership.