-- And the rural parts of the State can kiss their ass goodbye.

And the rural parts of the State can kiss their ass goodbye.

Not necessarily, since it would be the party that determines who actually gets elected. In fact, I'd wager that rural Democrats would be net winners under this plan.

But no question about it, this idea grants far more power to the parties than to the people. Any given district in the state may go unrepresented in the Senate, depending entirely upon who the two main parties have selected as their respective slates of candidates.

And for that reason, while it's an interesting move towards a parliamentary system, I think this is probably a bad idea.

This sounds like what we set up in Iraq. It's not working too well there. The focus on party instead of individual candidates seems to be helping to split the country up and fuel the civil war. On the other hand, it would be good to have alternative voices heard in our legislature.

Thank you TA and David.

I esp. like this from David: But no question about it, this idea grants far more power to the parties than to the people. Any given district in the state may go unrepresented in the Senate, depending entirely upon who the two main parties have selected as their respective slates of candidates. And for that reason, while it's an interesting move towards a parliamentary system, I think this is probably a bad idea.

This quote from the article really bothers me: Under such a system, the election of the body would be statewide instead of by district. Each seat would be won with 2 percent of the vote in the entire state. Political parties would produce a prioritized list of candidates. If a party won 28 percent of the vote, it would fill 14 seats, using the first 14 names on its list. An independent candidate would need 2 percent to win a seat.

Sounds to me like "vote for the party of your choice and take a chance on who represents you".

First of all, that goes against the Supreme Court decision (was it Baker vs. Carr or another of those famous cases from history?) of one person, one vote. That's why we have single member districts--there was a time before that when there was a different system (Lane County Position 2, Marion County Position 1 or something--have heard about it, may have been before I lived in Oregon.

I live in a district where the State Senate campaign isn't really partisan, it is generational and about knowing the candidates personally. As in "I'm for Paul, are you voting for Jackie?" or, as I told a pollster, "I respect Jackie but I am voting for Paul because I really admire him".

Telling voters you can't have that kind of relationship with a state senator because you vote for the party and then the system picks the senators is something which sounds like 100 years ago, not something for the 21 century. And who would pick the list: State Central Committee? In public?

You must be kidding!

Steve Bucknum,

I think Eastern Oregon would be better represented if we changed to this system.

The right-wing wack-jobs (with a few exceptions) that come from eastern Oregon don't represent Eastern Oregonians. While they are 70% Republican over there in reality they are Tom McCall Republicans... who are forced to vote for George Bush Republicans because the state party picks who runs for those seats.

I imagine the "Farm and Ranch Party" would win in landslides over there which would mean Oregon would end up with the Bob Jenson's of eastern Oregon in the Legislature rather than Tom Butler's.

t.a. barnhart,

I agree that this election reform would lead to endless instability...but when do our elected officials to the most progressive things for Oregon...around Election time because there is instability.

Before getting too excited about mathematical formulas and how great this proportional idea would be, I suggest a little reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr

It is about how re-apportionment decisions got to the Supreme Court, where the term "one person, one vote" came from, and all sorts of related matters.

Definitely overdue. The state House can still guarantee geographical representation, and the state Senate would stop undervaluing people's votes who just happen to live in supermajority-left or right districts.

Steve is right. It would truly be a rural bloodbath, even for Republicans. It would fundementally centralize power in the parties, and that shifts power to urban/suburban areas.. for both parties.

Assume there are 122,000 people in each current State Senate districts (a round number estimation).

As I read the article I linked to, and as I recall studying this case in Constitutional Law some decades ago, that means there must be one member of a body representing 122,000 people each. (Current population of Oregon divided by 30 comes out near that round number.) Which would mean that if the proportional process didn't select anyone from E. Oregon, how would those people be represented? Not to mention whether people outside the body preparing the list to choose from were represented in the selection.

This is what I was talking about from Wikipedia:

AFTERMATH Having declared reapportionment issues justiciable in Baker, the court laid out a new test for evaluating such claims in Reynolds v. Sims 377 U.S. 533 (1964 In that case, the Court formulated the famous "one-man, one-vote" standard for legislative districting, holding that each individual had to be weighted equally in legislative apportionment. The Court decided that in states with bi-cameral legislatures both houses had to be apportioned on this standard, voiding the provision of the Arizona constitution which had provided for two state senators from each county, the California constitution providing for one senator from each county, and similar provisions elsewhere.

And on a practical level, suppose all current members of the Senate leadership were chosen under this system. What does Kate Brown know of the rural areas of Courtney and Ferrioli's districts? What does Ferrioli know of Portland issues, or Courtney know about S. Oregon? What do any of them know of coastal issues?

And however good it looks on paper, how would it be sold? "We know better than you who should be your state legislator"? Would the people chosen under this system be "representing" a geographic area, or just a party platform?

Do we really want a parliamentary system in this state/country? Or were single member districts a reform which has worked well in the minds of the people (voters) who would have the final say? Stories at the Legislative Comm. about members getting a call from a constituent who needed help with a government agency right then--how does this plan improve that constituent service? Or does this plan put that constituent service secondary to voting the party line?

This thread is a little confusing, it starts out talking about moving from our current 30 Senators to 50 elected Statewide, then Kari talks about our existing 60 Representatives reassigned to Congressional Districts.

RESPONDING TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL THEN -

Looks like lots of people want to solve a problem - what's the problem that gets solved? Everyone seems a little vague on that.

I guess for me these sorts of things come down to a simple question -

How do you get a road (bridge, health clinic, etc.) built?

When you have a local representative that must stand for re-election in front of the people of a defined area - those people by their votes give feedback on who they think will best serve them.

I see a whole bunch of problems with the Senate proposal along the lines of voter accountability. An election rests upon 50% + 1. Minorities defined in any way you define it including urban/rural take it in the shorts when the voting pool is so large as to give no voice at all to that minority.

So, back to my question (How does a road get built?) - If the majority of Oregonians (living in the Metro area) don't have enough funds for roads (schools, Tri-met, the zoo, Water Front Park, etc.) and they can vote in or out an entire side of the legislature based upon pleasure or displeasure with voters - HOW THE HELL DOES THIS SERVE OREGON?

Ultimately this is anti-environment (who will advocate for riparian repair in Eastern Oregon when the money is needed in the Metro area? and who will bring the experience and understanding to the Legislature if all the representatives are located in the W. Valley)?

We need wholistic views of our State with representation in the process for all sectors, geographic and otherwise. A 50 member Senate voted in by a Statewide election is contrary to this basic tenant.

RESPONDING TO THE FURTHER IDEAS

Paul and David Wright basically advance ways that the idea can be fixed. Again, what exactly is the problem being solved that is so awful that we need to change Oregon's Constitution?

Frankly, I'd rather see a State Senate that is more like the US Senate. If we had one member of the Oregon Senate from each County, we'd have a 36 member Senate, representing a wide range of views.

Some say that this violates the principle of one vote per person, as Counties like Wheeler (population 1,600) would have one representative compared to places like Multnomah or Clackamas with more people than acres. Well, the proposal on the table and some of the alternatives also violate that principal. The proposal on the table (50 Statewide elected Senators) effectively takes away ALL representation from the rural areas - no fairness there.

Again, exactly what is the problem being solved, and if there is really a solution matching the problem - does it get the road built?

Hmmm... I'm not sure that I advanced a way that the idea can be fixed. I was just pointing out the effect that the plan would have on party power -- and that it might be a net advantage for rural Democrats (it would likely also be a net advantage for urban Republicans).

Point being, an active Democrat from Eastern Oregon, who is prominent in the party but might not be able to be elected in a largely Republican district now, has a chance to be high up on the Democratic slate. Thus, even though his current home district might not send him to the Senate, the party could.

LT, having 50 statewide senate seats as per the original proposal wouldn't violate one person, one vote; each voter has equal weight in determining the composition of the body as a whole. So I don't think there's a constitutional argument against on that basis. Although, one could certainly argue that the party slate selectors have more weight than the general electorate, as they would ultimately decide who gets to serve.

But I also, like Steve, don't understand what the problem is that people are trying to solve with this proposal. As I said before, this is strictly a way to strengthen party control over the legislature. You wouldn't be able to vote for a specific candidate of your choice, you'd vote for the party of your choice.

And what if my top 10 choices are 7 Democrats and 3 Republicans? How would I cast my ballot? Do I get to cast votes for 50 different seats so that I may indicate my relative party support? Or do I mark a single choice of Democrat, Republican, or one Independent of my choice? What if there are two Independents that I'd like to support, can I vote for both of them? If so, I've got to assume that the full 50 seats would be voted individually; if the full 50 seats are not voted individually, then I've got to assume I can't support more than a single Independent.

If you think IRV is complicated, this has gotta knock your socks off!

My conclusion is the same as at first... while interesting to consider, this is just a bad idea.

Well, Kari - I guess I misunderstood the concept. I can't figure out how 50 seats are done 2% at a whack Statewide.

Do I sign up in advance to say, vote on position 38? Do I know in advance who will run in 38? How are match up's decided? Or, do I just get one vote for whichever race I decide? - What if 50% of the people decide to vote on position 38, but only 2 people vote for position 47? How is the 2% per position split out of the 100%?

And again, what is the problem being solved?

Proportional Representation was once widespread in the USA - as a way to BREAK party machines.

Maybe somewhere, but not everywhere. Did PR break Tammany Hall, or was it something else?

I know that the Wayne County (MI) Republican machine was broken in the 1930s by a group of WWI vets who were tired of being told to support nominees they had no hand in choosing. They had an asset in the only Republican on the ballot in Wayne County to withstand the 1932 FDR landslide. I know this because that was my grandfather, and I inherited his clippings.

For those of you who think this is a great idea, I suggest some reading. Get a copy of Fire at Eden's Gate available at most libraries and some bookstores. Read the story of how long it took to pass the Oregon Bottle Bill. There were 3 elected officials and one private citizen who were instrumental in the passage of the bill. It took them 2 legislative sessions to do so, along with some rewriting of the bill, some hijinks by the opponents, and some very interesting legislative action in public and behind the scenes (legislators turning down bribes are part of the story). I re-read this recently because there was discussion earlier this summer on expanding the bottle bill. But the state rep. who brought it up just talked about having hearings, nothing specific.

And this isn't specific enough to make it into bill or ballot measure form: Either statewide, or by some sort of district, voters would vote for which party they want to support. Then, seats are assigned to that party based on what percentage of the vote they got.

TA is right about the law of unintended consequences:

except for the minor parties that are needed to form a ruling govt and demand their special legislation or cabinet position. in short, PR can be good, can be better than what we now have, or far far worse. in the end, you still have to do the politics and the legislating.

David is right "And what if my top 10 choices are 7 Democrats and 3 Republicans? How would I cast my ballot? "

And Steve is right: how does this build a road or fund the schools or state police? And again, what is the problem being solved?

Lest anyone forget, the "will of the electorate" is to be found in conversations among voters (such as discussion among friends about a candidate or an ad) or at the ballot box--not on a blog.

A lot of overanalyzation for a proposal that will not likely happen soom like HOPE. Whats the measure number for 2008? Dream on, while I will vote on.

Sorry I had a typo, "soom" should be soon. BTW, a ballot measure for proportional election reform would recieve a lot more scrutiny than a few letters to the editor. I wonder if it could hold up if Republican operatives got their hands on it and exposed as the power grabbing, screw the rural voter proposal it is. Republican operatives work would be made a whole lot easier if the ballot originated from the Portland metro area.

Steve Bucknum asked a very important question: what is the problem being solved?.

To which he received the answer: One more time: The problem being solved is that minority eledtorates get ZERO representation in a 50%+1 system. Under proportional representation, the will of the electorate is represented in the view of the elected officials.

And Many citizens feel disenfranchised by the current system, because they feel neither the Republicans nor Democrats represent their views. This leads to voter apathy, low turnout, and disengagement with the political process. That's bad.

So, creating ways for these citizens' views to be appropriately, proportionally represented in the government of us all, would be good, and address the problem of voter apathy.

Perhaps it seems the former answer and the latter answer together make the case. However, In all seriousness I'm not sure the two really connected or actually make an argument at all.

The latter seeming justification, which deals with voter apathy, begs the question: Why should this comment not be read as no more than a apology for voters getting lazier, more self-centered, and expecting government just to be another consumer activity for them? In addition, how does support for proportional representation, which would significantly increase party power in a way that really encourages machine politics, square with support in these same pages for a non-partisan primary explicitly for the purposes of reducing party power that was blamed for voter apathy? Why isn't the answer, if the problem of apathy can be solved at all, to tell voters they must either get active to elect representatives from the current parties who do reflect their views, or form a third party if they don't believe the representatives from the current parties aren't reflecting their views?

With the problem of voter apathy and it's non-structural causes separated out of the argument, the former comment, which implies some inherent "non-goodness" in non-proportional representation at some level of granularity in our system, can be examined in it's own right. And Steve Bucknum's question becomes even more relevant. In fact, a more pointed question actually might be: Why is non-proportional representation at the district level a problem? It's not at all apparent that it is a problem in it's own right, so long as the districts are small enough that the winner-take-all representatives sent up to the next level of government collectively represent an accurate sampling of the views of the electorate. So why isn't the seemingly self-apparent "non-goodness" that the first comment implies just another apology for voters getting lazier, more self-centered, and expecting government just to be another consumer activity for them?

I would only suggest that right now it seems that quick-fix schemes like non-partisan primaries, proportional representation, and other schemes which tinker with structure, blame structure for problems that have little to do with structure. For the last decade the electorate has been pretty evenly divided by demagogues on the Republican side, and self-serving opportunists on the Democratic side, who have managed to peel off just about the same number of voters who espouse certain governing values. It's not obvious why those who feel that they haven't been appealed to have a reasonable expectation that the system should change to solicit their electoral business like a consumer business would. Or if that would actually be good for our state or country. And in any event, almost by definition, those people aren't organized enough to make that happen anyway.

Change will come if and when people get fired up enough and care enough to either get behind a candidate who is different from the status quo (we saw that in Connecticut where voter turnout was up), or do the hard work of forming a new party (the last time we saw that was in the 1800's in what became the modern Republican Party).

I wanted to put this in a separate comment independent of the argument.

I really like proportional representation like they have in many parlimentary systems, and would personally prefer being a voter in such a system.

However, listening to people over the years though involved in politics who I feel are smarter than I about the pros and cons, I haven't heard an an argument that justifies that system as in fact being good for the state or the country given our form of representative government. So, reluctantly, in the absence of better arguments than those I've read and heard, I find I can't advocate for it in these times.

David's question about 7 D's and 3 R's starts with an assumption that you're voting for people. In a pure PR system, you don't. You vote for parties.

So, Kari, what about my question regarding Independent candidates? As presented, this plan allows for specific Independents to be elected with at least 2% of the vote. So my question still stands, if I wish to vote for 2 different Independents, how is that possible?

By the way, what if an Independent gets 4% of the vote? Obviously he/she won't get 2 seats, so who gets the left-over? Certainly there are a number of ways this could be handled, but none of them would properly express the will of the electorate.

And my question didn't presume that we were voting for specific candidates, though perhaps I had worded it poorly. The point was, what if I want a balanced legislature that ran 70/30 Democratic/Republican?

Now of course under the current system, I have no say in the overall balance of the legislature, I only get to decide which one person represents my district. But under the stated plan, I no longer have one representative in the Senate, I'd have 50. So why don't I get 50 distinct votes? (Actually, if we got all 50 votes, I'd be halfway OK with this plan as it would allow for sufficient granularity of voter expression.)

There's just no getting around the fundamental fact that this plan dramatically changes the balance of power between parties and voters. And it really screws NAVs who now make up, what, 1/3 of the electorate?

Point taken about minor party underrepresentation. And that can't really be addressed without some kind of PR, granted. But I think there are better (if perhaps more complicated) ways of achieving that than straight party voting at the state level.

Here is a far better idea. We repeal the 18th amendment and pass the first proposed amendment that was included in the original bill of rights...here is a this is link bitches.

Proportional Representation can help minority parties and viewpoints receive representation. It is used in many nations of Europe. I would not support it without first having in place fundamental campaign finance reform that limits the elctoral ower of wealthy interests. why? Statewide campaigns that employ huge TV and radio buys would have a distinct advantage. We would end up with an effective House of Lords as Oregon's upper legislative chamber.

It seems to me that there are two parts to this discussion. Proportional representation and a means to achieve it.

1) I think the discussion about forming governments has very little to do with the reality in Oregon. Certainly a multi-party legislature would be harder to organize, but the voters shoose the Governor.

2) It would almost certainly dramatically increase the clout of the parties in the legislative process by giving them a club to hold over individual members and enforce party discipline. Afterall, being ranked first on a major party list would almost guarantee election and being ranked last would guarantee defeat.

3) Creating a primary that allowed voters to rank the slate would be extremely difficult if you are talking about 50 candidates. As a practical matter, how many people think having Lon Mabon and Bill Sizemore in the legislature would be a positive thing? In any system like this their name recognition would likely win them a high slot on any slate that was chosen by the public. Of course, if the slate was chosen by party leaders in a backroom that might not be a problem.

Finally, I think the idea that the legislators should represent a cross-section of public opinion is mistaken. Their job, afterall, is to compromise and reach agreement. If anything, Oregon has too many ideologues in the legislature who are unwilling to compromise their "principals" in order to move the state forward.

That doesn't mean the legislature shouldn't be more representative. It should. But the balance between private interests and the public interest is the one that is broken. I don't see how proportional representation would fix that, and it might make that problem even worse depending on how the slates are created and their campaigns are financed.

Well Kari - I read that darn thing - and it is overly simple, and certainly doesn't give me a "proposal" I can analyze. I'm a pragmatic person, so I don't think about this as theory, I need to think about it in practical doable terms. So, I spent some time doing exactly that - as follows -

There are lots and lots of problems with what I did read. Mainly, it doesn't get my road built.

I've had to make some assumption to get to that conclusion, so here they are:

Based upon what exists now compared to what you have proposed and the definition you had me read, I'd have to conclude that a body such as the Democratic Party Second Congressional District Committee (which I am a member of) would put together the slate of candidates should we win all 12 seats (5 Congressional Districts with 12 seats each for your 60 member house or 10 seats for your Senate - or whatever number - this is just an example). The largest populations are found in the Bend area and Medford area. The rest of us are a large minority. So, some horse tradin' goes on - the members of the Second CD Committee are from County Parties. Perhaps since Jackson Co. has more registered Dem's, they get the first 2 slots on the 12 slot ballot. Perhaps Deschutes Co. gets the next 2, then Wasco Co./Sherman Co. share 1, Hood River 1, Umatilla/Gilliam/Grant Co. share 1, Wallowa Co./Union Co./Baker Co. share 1, Klamath/Lake and the otherwise ignored part of Josephine Co. share 1, Crook/Jefferson/Wheeler Co. share 1, then lastly, Harney/Malheur share 1.

-- If 5 Democrats get elected as you project, then Jackson Co, Deschutes Co., and Wasco/Sherman have representation. There would be no Democratic representation east of the halfway point west/east in Oregon. Yet we have elected individual Democrats in the past - who as individuals can attract the interest of voters - in those same areas that would become ghettos for Democrats.

So, who do I go to about my road?

Well, on the Republican side, they'd have the same dynamics going on. Let's say that they divide their slate of 12 possible seats the same way that the Democrats did, at least roughly. If they got 7 seats, that would take us down the list, and include some of the I-84 corridor Counties. All the rural Counties with low population would still be left out.

So, there wouldn't even be a Republican to take my need for a new road to. Places like Bend and Medford would likely end up with BOTH a Democrat and a Repubican representing them. - Hmm, two for them and none for me isn't minority representation, its 180 degrees the opposite.

The closer the split between the Democrats and Republicans - the closer to 50/50 - the more screwed the rural areas are - as both Dem's and Republicants would be catering to their highest population areas in each geographic area.

So, I as a rural Democrat would take it upon myself to form a new political Party. I would form the Caring about Rural People Party (CARP for short), and put out a slate of 12 candidates. As word got around that we aimed to cover those areas that don't stand a chance of electing either a Democrat or a Republican - Crook Co, Wheeler Co., Jefferson Co., Baker Co., etc. - we could probably get a good number of both Democrats, Republicants and Independents to vote for our new Party. We might pick up two seats. -- And we wouldn't owe anything to anybody. We would be a very interesting group, we'd probably join forces with other similarly elected non-traditional party people in Salem from the other four CD's. If each CD had 2 elected this way, our group of 10 would be a fairly large minority.

Are you old enough to remember the days when a small group in the Oregon House, I think it was Republicans, joined ranks with the Democratic majority to elect a Democratic Speaker, but in turn got chairmanships and a great deal of power by being swing votes? My dim memory was that this happened back in the 1960's. As the "swing" votes, our rural CARP Party views would gain weight. We aren't exactly your "green" group, nor liberal/progressive. We are pragmatic and practical. -- At least that would be good for the State.

So, yes Kari - you'd get more minority representation, after a chaotic several year process of sorting it out.

But, Kari - does this lead to good governance? Some would argue that we don't have good governance now. It could be better, but it's not a disaster either. Yes the Republicant Speaker of the House is a problem, but the solution to that problem is electing a Democrat to replace her. Would having new political parties representing more narrow interest groups really help governance?

Does it get my road built?

After all this consideration of your vague proposal - I for one don't buy your original premise for these arguments in favor of this voting scheme - I don't think the current system under-represents minorities. I've got a Representative in the Oregon House, and a Senator in the State Senate. I can talk to them anytime I want even though we are in different political Parties. I have in fact corresponded by email and talked in person to my State Senator in spite of the fact (or because) we disagree on a lot of things. I could call up my House Rep. anytime I wanted - I just haven't wanted. The last thing these guys would want is to appear that they are unresponsive to people from my area. -- They represent a geographic area. Yet, if you bunch up my representative into the larger areas of population in my region - which is what your proposal would do at least in the first few years of implementation - not only would I doubt that I could get through to talk to them, I doubt that they'd know the first thing about my town and its issues.

Kari - your proposal not only doesn't solve the problem you indicate is the cause for the proposal, it would make it worse.

One thing that a lot or urban folks don't really get is that, traditionally, rural politics is largely geographic. People vote for the candidate who is from a town close to them over someone on the other side of the district. That may be changing, but I think it is still largely the case for anyone who doesn't just vote the party ticket.

One thing that a lot or urban folks don't really get is that, traditionally, rural politics is largely geographic. People vote for the candidate who is from a town close to them over someone on the other side of the district. That may be changing, but I think it is still largely the case for anyone who doesn't just vote the party ticket.

Americans are offered a wide array of choices in most areas of our lives. So, it's obvious many will be dissatisfied being locked into only two, when it comes to deciding which political party best represents one's values and interests in the public arena. If you want to change this natural effect of living in a consumer-driven culture, either reduce all consumer choices to two, so people don't feel stymied by having only two political choices. Or, somehow increase the political choices, or at least the perception thereof.

This assumes what voters want instead of asking them. How does this get Steve's road built?

What if people don't care about ideology, they just want someone who understands their community? (Do you know anyone who respects a current or former legislator who did some constituent service for them like intervening with a government agency?) How does this help those people? Or is the assumption these people --like Steve and Ross and for that matter Tom C's concern about campaign finance reform--either are few and far between or don't matter in the general scheme of things where everyone is assumed to have an ideology and the person repesenting them doesn't matter as long as parties get representation?

Imagine 12 legislators fighting for the Bandon Airport, rather than just Arnie Roblan going it alone. If something is really critical regionally, it'll happen.

Arnie Roblan was not "going it alone"--as I recall the next door R state rep. was in his corner, as was the airport lobbyist, the former R St. Senator. And it is a leap of faith to say "it'll happen" if something is "really critical regionally".

We still talk in these parts about an appointed state legislator being able to get the individuals in different jurisdictions (state, county, etc.) together to solve a problem by getting the speed limit reduced on a busy stretch of highway. This is a section of road near a river, with a couple curves and a tendency towards black ice, accidents related to speeding, and other problems. This individual organized the meetings, did the homework, got the people together who had the power to change things. No vague "really critical regionally" but an individual who had heard about this problem while campaigning for the appointment. Of course, that is real world and not statistical models.

And to use that same Roblan example, Paul said this: PR, in contrast, deals with a fundamental rule of the game--how we allocate seats to votes. PR would significantly change the way the electorate thinks about electoral competition. PR is, by any measure you can come up with, fairer, more democratic, and results in a more responsive and more representative legislature.

Paul, how do we know that PR wouldn't come up with a Wayne Scott or a Karen Minnis? Would such people be "fairer and more democratic" simply because of the way they were elected?

And why don't voters have the right to know the person they are voting for? Is this a situation of "trust us--this is a great idea, therefore it will work"? Should we just trust the party will choose the best person? Before primaries, did parties always choose the best person?

Ask Questions First and Young Oregon Voter make good points.

When I have been out going door to door, I have encountered people who know either the incumbent or the challenger and have formed opinions--from old friend of one candidate to "have no use" for another candidate. As I understand PR, we have no clue who we are voting for, just trust that a party will choose wisely, or that a system never used here will automatically choose the best people, however it is run.

Seems to me to be a leap of faith, and all the statistical models in the world won't win over people who want people they know on a first name basis to either win or lose.

From Young Oregon Voter: BTW, a ballot measure for proportional election reform would recieve a lot more scrutiny than a few letters to the editor. I wonder if it could hold up if Republican operatives got their hands on it and exposed as the power grabbing, screw the rural voter proposal it is. Republican operatives work would be made a whole lot easier if the ballot originated from the Portland metro area.

Do you really believe you can make PR a reality without winning over Ask and Young OR Voter and Steve? How many live audiences outside your own social / professional circles have you PR advocates discussed this proposal with? How did that discussion go?