Isn't the right answer to this just make primaries strictly party business, like the primaries are for every other party except Democrats and Republicans? Why should the two major parties get to foist internal politics onto the elections department when nobody else does?

Open primaries are not the answer. Taking the elections division out of the primaries and let the parties handle their own internal politics by themselves for a change is.

Don't forget to vote Democratic Socialist!

I think baloo may be on to something here...so here's my question: why do independents pay for the parties' primaries that they don't get to participate in? Either we pay and play or we don't pay and don't play.

In reading the supposed "One Ballot" measure, one finds this nugget:

(e) The names of candidates for election as precinct committeeperson, and, in a presidential election year, the names of candidates for the political party nomination for President of the United States who qualified for the ballot under ORS 249.078, all listed separately on a ballot page labeled “Primary Ballot for the __ Party” and made available only to members of the applicable political party.

So, even the name is misleading. It requires a second ballot be created where a second does not now need to exist? That sounds confusing and expensive.

I remain wary.

And while I really don't like this idea, it's hardly leading toward socialism. This would benefit Republicans in Oregon FAR more thand Democrats, which is why conservative groups like AOI are supporting it. It just makes no sense any way.

(It's not a surprise this article was missed when it first came out: You must not be one of crazy Jayne's regular three readings.)

One one aspect, she gets at the questions, which One Ballot has addressed at their website, about whether or not it "weakens" the parties. Old news.

But the statement "while giving inordinate power to liberal, highly populated regions like Portland and Eugene," makes no sense. It doesn't change anything about the regional power relationships. The reason highly populated areas have more influence is that they have more people ... a fundamental basis of democracy. A truly minor party (Republicans in Portland) candidate that can't reach a majority of voters in Portland is not going to win elections in Portland in either system.

I believe Dan Meek's analysis of One Ballot's effect is accurate: the power of the major parties will be enhanced, not weakened.

But, hey, why miss a chance to take a potshot at them socialists in Por'land?

Anony asked, "Why do independents pay for the parties' primaries that they don't get to participate in?"

1. Because it is in everyone's interest when party nominations occur through a robust, open, democratic election, rather than the backroom convention-style nomination.

2. Independents are not barred from voting in partisan primaries. If they wish to vote in a party's primary, all they need to do is register with that party. There is no consequence of how you register other than your voting status in the primary. So no one is prevented from voting. (Think about it: your question is like asking, "Why are people who don't return their ballots to the elections office prevented from voting?" Duh... they're not; they've chosen to exclude themselves from the process.)

3. Even if you don't believe #1 and #2 above, I don't understand the appeal of your argument. The public pays for many, many services that not everyone benefits from. Only farmers benefit from farm subsidies. Only low-income earners benefit from welfare. Only college students (many of whom attend exclusive private colleges) benefit from government-subsidized loans. So what? Just because not everyone benefits doesn't mean it's not in the public interest to fund it.

Wayne Kinney also raises a good point: if you don't like closed primaries, then work to get the parties to open their primaries to independents -- or to anyone -- as occurs in many states.

Why support this initiative, when (1) it will significantly increase the cost of elections, boosting the role of big-money in politics; (2) it will result in undemocratic results (when multiple candidates from the same party divide their base and knock each other out, leaving the general election to two members of the same party); (3) it can tend toward extremist election results, when moderate candidates divide their base and knock each other out in the primary; (4) it abridges party members' right to freely associate and select their own nominee.

I don't get it.

Why even bother to hold elections? Heck, everybody just seems to know what's right. Just appoint a benevolent dictatator who will do what 'you' whoever you is, wants.

Who's going to appoint him? Why, 'you', of course.

If Oregonians want our statewide general election ballots to look like Portland's so-called "nonpartisan" races where fall voters have a "choice" between one left-wing extremist and another, Phil Kiesling's open primary proposal is the perfect path to a perpetually socialist Oregon.

Really? Okay, I must have overlooked the part of the proposal where the Legislature is transformed from representatives of sixty house districts and thirty senate districts to ninety at-large seats that will be voted on by every single person in the state.

The reason Portland elects "left wing extremists" is because every seat on City Council is at-large. Every person in Portland votes for every member of the Council. It's scarcely surprising that you wind up with a certain ideological harmony, when the same majority of voters (in most cases) wind up deciding every election. In an "open primary" system each district should consistently elect people who reflect the values of the majority of voters within that district. That's obviously a problem for partisan hacks and wingnuts, but the rest of us shouldn't have much to complain about.

I don't like this initiative at all - it smacks of the "nonpartisan" city elections where, more often than not, we end up with stealth Republicans who don't have to declare who they really are. Why should people who want to defeat a party have a say in who they nominate?

"Open", one ballot primaries are a throwback to the old Dixiecrat South where, since there was essentially one party, the primary was the general election. We don't need it, and I don't want Republicans or Constitution party nuts deciding who the "best" (read: easiest to defeat) Democrat is for me.

Phil? You may have meant well, but please take your experiment in nonpartisan partisanship and stuff it.

Jeremy, Thanks for trying to address the question why the one ballot initiative for the first time ever mandates two ballots for primaries. You don't have to include the presidential race in this initiative but you also didn't have to require a completely seperate ballot, did you?

Actually, my friend Jayne has an argument -- she just doesn't get it right. In a state in which moderate republicans and independents far outnumber the rightwing conservatives, having one ballot for all in the "Red" part of Oregon -- rural and small town Oregon -- will mean that we have more moderates in the legislature, the main place in which this ballot measure will play itself out.

Why? Because the Democrats will be choosing between two Republicans in the general election in the rural and small town districts. That is, the Democrats and independents will be affecting the outcome -- pushing it to the center in Red Oregon, while today they don't have a say.
This will make it MORE DIFFICULT for conservative leaders like Karen Minnis to punish the Republicans who don't stay in line with her conservative ways. The Republican primaries are the only place that the right-wing conservatives really have control in this state. Minnis has, in effect, used that in holding power in the House and keeping her caucus in line -- imposing discipline where it otherwise wouldn't exist, punishing those who stray on the social and economic issues by beating them in the primaries. This measure, which I hope will get on the ballot, will open the door for a return to a less adversarial legislature, and that is good for all of us, including us Portland liberals who can't get anything done in Salem. So Jayne is right, and AOI which supported Socialist Keisling's measure with big bucks, doesn't get it.

On the Democratic side, it is POSSIBLE there could be negative impacts of pushing people to the center when they shouldn't go there. But, frankly, the creation of a new party by Labor -- which puts up most of the money for Democrats running in the legislature (and in the statewide offices) tells us non-union-member Democratic party activists exactly where we stand and how much we don't matter. No wonder Labor opposes campaign finance reform -- in Oregon it doesn't really care about people who aren't in unions and their issues. Labor would rather contol a losing progressive majority than win with that majority. That's why you never see positive initiatives come out of Labor -- they always save their money to defend themselves. The answer for those who really support change is in organizations like the Bus Project which fosters direct voter contact in swing disrict general elections (and, yes, tries to work closely with Labor and the Democratic Party).

The Democratic Party has lost its meaning in Oregon, outside of its ability to fill vacancies under the law, and that Socialist Keisling is just ahead of his times. If the party in Oregon really wanted to do anything, it would impose its own 15% tax on all of the national money which comes to Oregon and through it every four years in the Presidential race. It would use that money to build a real power base.

I, too, would support a system like that which exists in other countries where the party is powerful and provides cover for dissent and new ideas. But that's not where we're at folks, and clearly not where we're going, at least not in Oregon, and I don't think, in the nation.

Until we take the money out of the system, and build a politics that is based on doing the right thing for everyone instead of the special interests that give the money, we're not going to make progress. It amazes me how the Democrats, who are outspent 2-1 by Republicans, can't get in behind the kind of campaign finance reform that could lead to real change. Just look at who Our Oregon lined up against the Meek and Lonsdale measures. The Kevin Looper argument -- we need more jobs in politics for progressives. Yeah, Kevin, right. Encourage those progressives who belong to well-financed organizations to keep their power base at the cost of the public interest, and lose because the other side can get its inititives on the ballot and we can't or won't because those with the money want to save their money to protect themselves and the status quo and their little jobs.

Ron Buel brings up several interesting points.

I agree with his analysis of One Ballot's effect in rural Oregon, that is, if the measure operates as intended. I suspect, though, that Dan Meek is correct about One Ballot enhancing the power of major parties, and that each party will annoint one and only one candidate; one who pleases its officers and central committee. Then, rather than moving to the middle, the parties may diverge.

I also lament labor's opposition to the campaign finance initiatives that have just made the ballot. I believe that opposition springs from the reluctance of the unions' professional political people to work under a new system, one that may make them work harder for political contributions. This is shortsighted at best, and selfish at worst. The initiatives were designed to enhance the power of grassroots contributors and decrease the power of fat cats. If Labor cannot find advantage in that, there is something very wrong with the union approach to politics.

The Democratic Party in Oregon and every other state has become impotent in the face of big money politics controlled at the national level. Howard Dean is trying to change that - at least he seems to be - so I would not give up on party politics yet. As usual, it's the money, honey. Campaign finance shapes politics. That is why campaign finance reform is so important. It is too important for members of grassroots organization to allow their leadership to preserve the status quo. Those who care about the interests of democracy, working people, the environment, and people in need should insist that their organizations support the present efforts to reform Oregon's campaign finance system. we can work on perfection later. Opposing good reforms now is the kind of lame move that so empowers the rightwing in this country, allowing a minority to stifle progress toward a better world.

Ron Buel's post is bizarre.

First, Ron, if you want money to play less of a role in politics, then why would you support a measure that so significantly increases the role of money?

If One Ballot passes, candidates in every district will need to raise as much for the primary as for the general. Think about it: in a six-way primary, candidates will need to raise a lot of money early to distinguish themselves from the pack. Then in the general, they'll have to raise just as much money to win. And that's in every district, because every Portland district will have two Democrats in a blood-bath general election race (think Tina Kotek v. Mark Kirchmeier, Ben Cannon v. MaryLou Hennrich, etc.), and every Eastern-Oregon district will have two Republicans vying in the general election. The role of money in politics would explode under the One Ballot system.

Second, Ron, there is actually no reason to believe that the One Ballot system would produce moderate election results. (A) As Tom Civiletti says, above, parties could just move to private, backroom nomiations under the Measure; or (B) if moderate candidates outnumbered extremists (which is likely), the moderates could split their base of support and leave the whackiest candidates from the far right and far left to fight out the general election.

You say that Democrats will have a greater voice in Republican primaries in eastern Oregon. Why? Wouldn't Democrats just vote for the Democratic candidates in these primaries? Think about it: in a district where Republicans outnumber Democrats two-to-one, there is still a high probability that you wind up with one Democrat and one Republican vying in the general election -- and the election result winds up being the exact same as today.

The real fear is that in important moderate swing districts, election results will be completely unpredictable, leaving a strong likelihood that two Republicans or two extremists could emerge victorious in the primary, the credible candidates having divided their base of support.

Actually, Stella, the mere fact of an election with two candidates instead of a candidate and a sacrificial lamb doesn't mean spending must necessarily explode. That happens only when competing moneyed interests back the two opponents.

The Kotek-Kirchmeier decision in May came down largely to the fact that Mark Kirchmeier kept standing up in front of groups of constituents, many of them residents since the Flood and many of them newly arrived, made an estimate as to the relative proportions and told them that his 30 years in the area trump Tina's five.

Really not an issue that's going to bring out the PACs' checkbooks.

Really Susan? Well then how much was spent by Kotek and Kirchmeier in the primary? If you're right, then moneyed interests did not get involved in the race and neither candidate would have had to raise very much at all. Let's see...

According to the campaigns' respective campaign finance reports: Kotek raised: $80,491. Kirchmeier rasied: $38,477. That sounds like a lot of money to me -- especially for a freshman state rep. primary race in a solidly Democratic district.

And let's remember, only 5,699 people voted in that primary race! That means the candidates raised about $21 per voter. Now imagine if they had to raise $21 per voter in two elections, but this time the whole electorate gets to vote TWICE! Well, in that district in 2004 -- when there was not any serious legistive race -- 23,898 people voted. So let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that Kotek and Kirchmeier together needed to raise $21 per voter for 24,000 voters in two elections... Get this: They would have needed to raise $504,000 together (or about $250,000 each)!!!

You may think this is an over-estimate. I don't, but fine -- let's say it is. Even if we cut that number in half and we assumed that they would have each needed to raise about $125,000 -- that is still a TON of money for a primary race that could have been settled for $120,000 total.

There is no argument here: One Ballot significantly increases the role of money in politics.

Doretta,

You are completely wrong. Campaigns set their budgets based, in large part, on outreach targets. They decide how many people to send direct mail to based on how many people will be voting. They decide how big their TV media buy needs to be (or if they even need a TV buy) based on how many people will be voting. They decide how big their GOTV effort needs to be based on how many people they need to turn out to win.

Obviously, campaign fundraising is constrained by how much a campaign can raise (so the Secretary of State candidates raise less than the Governor's race), but there is a huge difference in how much a campaign needs to raise when it is reaching out to only registered Democrats who are likely to vote in the primary, versus reaching out to the whole electorate. Ask any campaign staffer. One Ballot will be much, much more expensive than the current system.

Jeremy Wright -

Thanks for offering proof that you and Keisling either are hucksters or liars, and possibly both. The fact is, if this measure passes, there will be ample basis to challenge it as a violation of federal election law with regard to federal House and Senate races. The arguments have been laid out elsewhere on Blue Oregon.

So why don't you and Keisling come clean with the voters, and explain how elections for federal House and Senate seats ACTUALLY work in Lousiana as a result of having their primary system struck down for those offices? And how primary elections for federal offices work in Nebraska and other states that have ANY form of "non-partisan"/unified ballot primaries?

And why don't you discuss for us how "progressive" the state legislatures in states that have ANY version of unified primary balloting? Maybe you could explains how many of those legislatures, reflecting how these schemes actually enhance the political fortunes of more extreme candidates (with a decided advantage to those on the reactionary right), have enacted measures implementing core progressive or even Democratic values such as funding for education and healthcare, protecting the right of labor to organize, supporting the right of choice, or civil unions/marriage regardless of sexual orientation, and so on?

Despite the clever propagandistic approach of the editorial quoted to start this thread, the very concept and the proof on the ground is that the actual results of these systems which are essentially rooted in arguments about the "wisdom of the mob", are anything but progressive.

Jeremy, you have a lot of nerve calling anyone nuts.

Kari- Maybe you're right -- maybe my calculation didn't factor in the fixed costs of a campaign. But those account for maybe 1/3 of a campaign's total expenses. As I said in my first post, regardless of whether you except that particular calculation, you can't deny that One Ballot significantly increases the cost of elections. Remember, even if you cut the total I came-up with in half, that's still twice the cost of the Kotek-Kirchmeier primary race.