For years I've heard complaints of the primary being so late (May) during presidential elections, with the lament that delegates and candidates are already decided by the time Oregon votes. Many have advocated moving the primary up to try to join one of the early "Super Tuesday" blocks. I don't know if the "voters would be pleased" with this or not. Nor am I convinced this would reduce the cost of campaigns. On the contrary, I fear that it would increase the costs with more candidates campaigning for a longer period of time.

How about removing the duopoly control of ballots and ballot access in general?

What if we did not print political party affiliation on any state provided ballot? Why should they advertise your brand for you?

Why does the state and the taxpayers bear the burden of paying for primary races for the major political parties? Shouldn't this be an internal matter and an expense they bear themselves?

Before we start going off on all sorts of additional methods of correcting the system, why don't we undo the corrupt and duopolistic systems that are already in place?

Sincerely, Wes Wagner Candidate for Oregon House District #39

First of all, how many who have lived through a primary recount (election in May, recount result in June) think a Sept. primary is a good idea?

Second: Campaign finance reform deserves much detailed discussion. But the statutory measure on the ballot gives many people cause for concern because of the wording. The Legislative Commission debated a proposal today and people asked questions about it. All CFR topics should be debated, but there are a variety of concerns that may need to be addressed before we find a system that works. And if some "underfunded" candidates win in the fall because the local voters were tired of the incumbent, that would be a lesson that there is more than money that will win elections--like personal contact, candidate answering questions for voters, etc.

Third: For instance, a vote for the Working Families Party candidate for governor instead of on the Democratic line where the same candidate has also been nominated. That would tell candidates and the parties a lot about what voters want.

A lot about what voters want? Which voters? How will "what voters want" be measured, and how accurate is that measure? Or is it what some people more involved than the average person in politics in August want? And look at that 50,000 signatures Ben Westlund gathered. Is what they want (vote hope not fear, a candidate out talking with ordinary folks, someone with a specific voting record and a website with more issue information than the 2 major candidates) what the Working Family Party wants? There were people on this site saying "Ben is no progressive" but never defining (that I saw) which legislators are "progressive". Maybe people are tired of labels?

My view about fusion voting and IRV is this: take it before your neighborhood association, your civic group (City Club, Rotary, etc.) your sewing circle or wherever folks gather who don't blog or participate in county party or union meetings.

Explain it to the sort of folks whose votes would mean success or failure. Have a Q & A. See what their reaction is. What if the reaction is "why do you have to make voting more complicated?". Call me a cynic, but for most of my adult life I have been suspicious of anyone of any political persuasion who says "We have this great idea, therefore it will work."

I know a very intelligent (but very busy--esp. end of the year/beginning of the year things at work) person who abstained on Measure 30 although he almost always votes. "Why do we have to study that stuff--isn't that why we pay legislators?" Turned out he hadn't had much time for news and didn't know that CSE had collected signatures to put Measure 30 on the ballot. He thought it was just another legislative referral and the measure was too long and complicated. People like him have just as much right to an opinion as those who follow politics as closely as bloggers do.

One more thing about IRV. Many of us live in districts with just 2 candidates: Thatcher vs. Lee, Dalto vs. Clem, Berger vs. Garcia, Cameron vs. Grisham, and now Girod vs. Thackaberry. The backers of IRV need to state publicly, "IRV is a great system for elections with only 2 candidates because...".

In the rare event I have talked with someone about IRV face to face, they don't seem interested in completing that sentence. Politics is a lot like sales--if you don't give the "customers" (voters in this case) all the information they seek, they don't have to "buy" (an idea, a ballot measure, whatever) just because you are selling it.

Couple of items - One: If an initiaive is defeated, we can not vote on it again for two to three election cylcles. When the people say no, they mean it. Two: If an initiative passes, we can not repeal it nor kick it into the courts for two to three election cycles. We need to see how it goes before we trash it.

And a third item: just get rid of the primary all together. Have them all go at it in November because by primary time, they have already weeded people out.

Couple of items - One: If an initiaive is defeated, we can not vote on it again for two to three election cylcles. When the people say no, they mean it. Two: If an initiative passes, we can not repeal it nor kick it into the courts for two to three election cycles. We need to see how it goes before we trash it.

And a third item: just get rid of the primary all together. Have them all go at it in November because by primary time, they have already weeded people out.

Instant Run-off Voting is a much needed reform, in my opinion. I lived in Australia for five months during 2004, including both the Australian election in September, and the US election in November, and it was a very eye-opening experience.

IRV, or Preferential Voting (as they tend to call it in Australia) allows voters to truly vote their conscious without fear of either 'wasting' their vote, or pulling support from a 'lesser of two evils' candidate. You rank all the candidates in order, and if the candidate on the top of your list isn't amongst the top two, your vote 'flows' to the next person on your list, and so on, until one candidate has a majority of the votes.

This goes a long way towards breaking open the two party hold on our election process and means that the voters can truly let their voices be heard by voting for the candidate that they most want in office, not the one who they most think can win. While it might not mean that a third party candidate will all of a sudden win a gubernatorial race, it will mean that voters can show their true support for a candidate, meaning third parties showing 10, 15 or 25% of the first round vote is a plausable outcome of a three candidate race. This allows third party candidates to gain some real momentum, and actually stick out the election cycle to influence the debate and the direction Oregon is headed. You wouldn't see candidates like Ben Westlund having to drop out for fear of being a 'spoiler candidate' (the fact that we have such a term, and that it can cause a candidate like Westlund to drop out clearly says to me, that our election system is in bad need of reform).

And you'd better believe that who ever ends up winning the election will take note of the fact that a large chunk of voters voted for a progressive or a green or a libertarian or whatever else before their votes flowed to him/her.

(Also, in Australia, each party's share of first round of instant run-off votes determines the share of Senate seats that end up going to that party, meaning third parties routinely have 1-3 seats in the Senate [you don't vote for candidates for the Australian Senate, just for the House]. This could be another possible positive reform in Oregon, although much less likely).

What do folks think it would take to make this happen in Oregon (i.e. to succesfully run a ballot initiative to enact an instant run-off voting system for all statewide races)?

I’ve been living in Toronto and have recently gotten involved in city council race. Here they have both a spending limit ($5,000 plus .70 per voter ~ $25,000) and contribution limits of $750 for individuals, labor organization and corporations. All this is well and good, but quite challenging to ever see enacted in the US, particularly in light of Buckley v. Valeo and more recently Randall v. Sorrell.

What I really like is the public-ish finance model, which goes like this. Basically I write a check to the candidate of my choice (up to $750) and after the election cycle the campaign sends me a form that I sign and then forward to city elections. The city in turn reimburses me 3/4s of my contribution. So if I make a $500 dollar contribution, I get $375 back. I like it because candidates still need to be viable enough to convince contributors to give a little and loan a lot - rather than simply just crossing a threshold of a number of small contributions and then getting a windfall of support for the city.

It sorta reminded me of the tax credit modle we have in Oregon.

Anyway, just wanted to share an interning model from elsewhere.

Let's do away with elections and select legislators and city council types by lot. If that is good enough for a jury then it ought to be good enough for the legislature. M

Kari, Um, LT, in a two-way race, IRV would just be a regular election like we have now. IRV only applies in 3+ candidate races.

I guessed that, but have never seen an IRV supporter actually state it before.

I spent over a decade in retail where I had to state the benefits of the product and answer questions, and I don't see how IRV goes forward until IRV supporters learn to do that.

No election reform happens unless either it gets 16 votes in the Senate and 31 in the House, or passes as a ballot measure.

And Jesse, IRV, or Preferential Voting (as they tend to call it in Australia) allows voters to truly vote their conscious without fear of either 'wasting' their vote, or pulling support from a 'lesser of two evils' candidate. You rank all the candidates in order, and if the candidate on the top of your list isn't amongst the top two, your vote 'flows' to the next person on your list, and so on, until one candidate has a majority of the votes. what if you know all 3 candidates and don't like 2 of the 3? Is there any way to prevent your vote from "flowing" to a candidate you don't like?

And about Australia, each party's share of first round of instant run-off votes determines the share of Senate seats that end up going to that party don't expect that to happen here soon.

Some people who have dealt with organizational elections, delegate selection, etc. are not likely to consider that a positive result. In my Sen. district, the discussion is less about party than about "should Jackie remain or are you voting for Paul?". Are you really going to sell this idea by saying the system will choose the individual for the Senate seat?

And that is my big concern with all of this. Even if everyone on Blue Oregon signed on to the IRV bandwagon, if there are voters out there who like the current system and say "why do you want to change it so I don't understand how the election system works?" it doesn't matter if everyone in Australia and every other place that uses IRV thinks it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

WE THE PEOPLE means all the electors, not just the people you know.

Why not guarantee NAVs equal access to the ballot. Have them pay the sane filing fee, party candidates do. During the primary NAVs will choose their candidate the same way R's and D's do. This will both increase participation, and end the lesser of two evils situation that so often comes up. I suppose the partisans will claim that Independent candidates are only spoilers but I am all for more choices...

Thank you Nate for talking about the logistical problems.

To use your example, suppose I don't want anyone but Kulongoski or Keating to get my vote?

How many votes total would I get? Could I give my old friend Joe Keating 2 of my votes and the rest to Kulongoski?

Having been a recount observer, I can just see the tables of election workers now--"is that really a 4?". Would the county clerks think this was better than the current system? Or are they allowed to have a say in the matter?

Which leads me to a couple of questions: What if this reminds people of the insufferable math puzzles they could never do and someone says "I don't do Suduko and I can't see why I have to vote like this?"

And is IRV really the greatest thing since sliced bread if it would take longer than election night to know the results?

Personally, if there was a way to solve campaign finance reform, I think that would solve many more problems than IRV would. But today in Legislative Comm. there was what I thought was a very intelligent proposal to remove fundraising from leadership (sounded like they were supporting a DSCC / DCCC sort of thing where, to use that example, Schumer and Emanauel are not part of the leadership of Reid and Pelosi in that they don't have control of the flow of legislation).

But this idea was questioned in detail with things like "would this make it illegal for the Speaker of the House to attend a fundraiser for anyone? " "If there is an organization or a PAC where the board members are required to each raise a certain amount of campaign funds, does that mean any member of the board is disqualified to run for Speaker or Majority Leader?" Valid questions. As was the discussion of making pass throughs illegal ( a check written to "Joe Jones for State Rep." belongs to that legal entity and not for Joe Jones to donate to "Sue Smith for Senate" unless Joe Jones makes a solicitation "please send a check to my friend Sue Smith). Apparently the Oregon Law Comm. is working on just such a report.

I just think IRV deserves the same sort of questions. And I'd like to know if anyone in elected office (or any candidate) is openly supporting IRV. Or is it just the brainchild of activists and former elected officials?

Actually, a Real Live example of the IRV can be found in the annual vote for science fiction's Hugo Awards. The Hugos have been IRV for ages (well, okay, I can't remember how long except that when I voted way back in the 70s it seems we were doing that then). Instead of a honking huge ballot, you simply ranked your preferences.

Granted, voting for Hugos runs in the high four-low five figures, but still...I'm sure someone from the Secret Masters of Fandom could explain it all to folks.

LT wrote:

"Campaign finance reform deserves much detailed discussion. But the statutory measure on the ballot gives many people cause for concern because of the wording."

You must realize that this is about as ambiguous a statement as can be made about a measure. There is little to a ballot measure besides "wording." You are spinning, not discussing.

I've looked at the Measure 47's language. I can see little that has been left out, and nothing that is not aimed at promoting democracy. Beyond magically mandating that bad guys will have their funding limited, while good guys can raise money any way possible, I don't see another approach to take at campaign finance reform that can make a substantial difference. That is, besides public financing, which was shot down at the ballot box recently.

I ask that progressives study Measures 46 and 47, and not take the word of groups, progressive or not, who are happy to preserve the status quo fundraising system to which they are accustomed. Campaign finance reform that can withstand legal scrutiny is not designed to advantage liberals, conservative, or any other political group. It is designed to advantage democracy. If functioning democracy disadvantages an interest group, I suggest that group do some soul searching and mission tweaking.

Well, it seems that folks general response so far to IRV is that it is either a) too complicated, b) too logistically challenging or c) won't make a difference in 2 person races.

In response to a) while it is slightly more complicated than our current system, I don't think you should underestimate voters enough to consider Joe Sixpack incapable of ranking a field of candidates in order.

As for b), the entire nation of Australia can handle the logistics of IRV for their House races (not to mention Ireland, who elects their president with IRV). I'm not sure of the specifics, but I'm sure Oregonian election officials could learn by already well established examples and quickly figure out how to solve the logitics issues (including counting and verifying votes, the length and layout of the mail in ballot, etc.).

And for c), while it clearly does little for 2 person elections, it's no worse than the status quo, so that's hardly much of an argument against it, while it would certainly encourage more 3+ person races than the current system, meaning it would probably rarely be an issue that you were stuck with only two candidates.

LT, you seem to imply that I am assuming that we folks here at BlueOregon somehow speak for WE THE PEOPLE (as you put it). I'm hardly megolomaniacal enough to presume such a thing. I merely presumed that this would be a proper forum to discuss how an IRV ballot initiative might work in Oregon. Clearly explaining and selling IRV to 'WE THE PEOPLE' is part of that challenge.

Do folks have some constructive comments as to how exactly the challenges to such an initiative might be overcome or resolved? This seems like a forum in which we can have an open mind about how alternatives to our current system might look. Let's not get caught up in naysaying, but rather consider other possibilities. I think we can all agree that some change would do us all good.

And by the way, LT, I also agree that Australian-style voting for the Senate is highly unlikely to be implemented here in Oregon any time soon. I was merely pointing out how another nation's election system coupled both IRV and a parlimentary-style voting system. Either system can be implemented independently.

As for the question about whether or not you can keep your vote from flowing to one of the candidates you don't like if you only like one of three or more candidates, the answer is it depends on how the IRV system is implemented. In Australia, for example, you can rank as many candidates as you want, and if none of your ranked candidates is in the top two after one or more rounds of 'flowing', you're vote is simply discounted in subsequent rounds (just like it is now if you vote for a losing candidate). Personally, I'd rather keep ranking the lesser of x # of evils to ensure that my least favorite was last (as Nate's example illustrated), but you wouldn't have to. Other systems require you to rank all candidates though. Again, see the Wikipedia page for answers to lots of questions about this.

Finally, thanks for the civics lesson, LT: "No election reform happens unless either it gets 16 votes in the Senate and 31 in the House, or passes as a ballot measure." I could have sworn I could pass election reform by executive fiat...

After the 2000 Presidential election in which Ralph Nader was accused of spoiling the election of Al Gore, we wrote an initiative to allow state wide use of IRV in Oregon. We did not have the financial backing needed to gather the required signatures and so the question did not appear on Oregon's ballot.

In that initiative we gave voters the ability to rank their top three choices instead of ranking all the candidates. In part this was because we felt that most people didn't have more than three preferred candidates in any specific race but also because the vote counting machines in Multnomah County would only accomodate three rankings without the county having to buy all new computer systems.

The ballot would have looked like this: Candidate------------------Preference
---------------------------#1----#2----#3 Joe Smith Jill McDonald---------------x Abbi Meek Dick Tracy-------------------------------x Ron Mannix
Kevin Saxton----------------------x

where Jill is my first choice, Kevin my second and Dick my third. No need to be concerned with people's handwriting - you just mark the column with the name for your first three preferences.

LT's is concerned about not wanting his vote to roll over to 2 people he did not like. If LT only likes one candidate and dislikes all the rest, he should vote for only the candidate he likes. There is no requirement that you vote for more than one; IRV just gives you the opportunity to rank them.

We don't need to look to Ireland or Australia to find sucessful use of IRV. In 2004, the city of San Francisco used IRV quite successfully to elect their Boards of Supervisors. Recently, Burlington Vermont used IRV to elect their new mayor. Portland State University used IRV to election their student goverment in Feb, 2006 joining both Reed College and Clark College.

In response to Saul above, he wrote, "I’ve been living in Toronto and have recently gotten involved in city council race. Here they have both a spending limit ($5,000 plus .70 per voter ~ $25,000) and contribution limits of $750 for individuals, labor organization and corporations. All this is well and good, but quite challenging to ever see enacted in the US, particularly in light of Buckley v. Valeo and more recently Randall v. Sorrell." While the US Supreme Court has stated in Buckley and Sorrell that spending limits are not premissable unless voluntary (hence allowing public funding of candidates who voluntorily limit their expenditures in exchange for the public funds), both of those decisions also upheld the right to limit contributions (political bribes)and independent expenditures. The two ballot measures (#46 and 47) which we in Oregon will vote on in November establish limits on both, including banning all corporate and union contributions and limiting all independent expenditures to $10,000 per individual for all races. The 5 top individuals making contributions funding independent expenditure ads would have to be identified by name in the ad - no more "Committee to Safe Guard Democracy" type of names that hide the indentity of the funder.

Please take a look at the Alliance for Democracy website at www.afd-pdx.org for a brief overview of Instant Runoff Voting as well as Fusion Voting which several people talked about above. You will also find more on the two campaign finance reform initiatives there. For more information on the CFR ballot mesaures, please also go to the campaign's website at www.fairelections.net.

About IRV: Whether or not Joe Sixpack is "capable" of understanding IRV, my point is this: who has asked Joe Sixpack if the change is desirable? And is the "sales pitch" "Hey Joe, Australia loves this form of voting, and you should too"?

Which candidates or elected officials have come out for IRV?

About Measure 47, I have these questions: 1) Is the contribution limit smaller than the cost of the gas to drive across some of the larger legislative districts? (If so, doesn't that mean more time spent dialing for dollars and less time actually talking to folks?)

2) Some of the discussion over at the Measure Numbers Assigned topic implied that under this measure, the Oregon Bus Project would have to charge everyone who rode the bus the cost of the bus ride (fuel, etc.).

Either that is true, or it isn't. If it is true, how does that advance the goal of more volunteers and less emphasis on money in campaigns? High school and college kids don't have that kind of money!

Read the measures carefully. If they make sense, vote for them. But don't let "the principle of the thing" interfere with study of possible unintended consequences of a ballot measure if it passes.

LT, The answer to your questions re: campaign finance reform Measure 47 is no, and no. You can find the details in the text of Measure 47, on pg 6, as follows: "Contribution" and "Expenditure" do not include:

(A) Volunteer personal services (including those of the candidate) for which no compensation is asked or given, including unreimbursed travel expenses incidental thereto;

LT Wrote:
1) Is the contribution limit smaller than the cost of the gas to drive across some of the larger legislative districts? (If so, doesn't that mean more time spent dialing for dollars and less time actually talking to folks?)

2) Some of the discussion over at the Measure Numbers Assigned topic implied that under this measure, the Oregon Bus Project would have to charge everyone who rode the bus the cost of the bus ride (fuel, etc.).

LT asked:

" Is the contribution limit smaller than the cost of the gas to drive across some of the larger legislative districts?"

I'm not sure how what direct mathematical relationship there would be between a contribution limit and the cost of automotive fuel, but I'm guessing that you wonder if contribution limits would make it too difficult for rural candidates to campaign.

To be sure, if all candidates received a $500,000 contribution from a single source, say, Associated Oregon Industries, Oregon Forest Industries Council, or Oregon AFL-CIO, it would free up time for talking to voters. I'd wonder if what the voters had to say would mean much, though. The idea behind contribution limits is make the voters more important than large contributors.

You can look at campaigning from different angles. Is its purpose to allow the voters to make informed decisions? Is its purpose to promote discussion of issues? Is its purpose to win?

I'd say it's all three of these. We need to consider how money affects all campaign purposes. Considering winning, there is a strong correlation between raising more money and winning. This explains why large contributions by special interests are corrosive to democracy. Their money buys elections. It's not as simple a transaction as buying a paper from the corner newsstand, but it's not much more complicated either. If we are concerned about voters making informed decisions, there are several low-cost methods available. The Voters Pamphlet is one, as are townhall meetings and meetings of community and civic groups. Websites can hold a large amount of information at low cost. Volunteers going door-to-door can give campaigns a person-to-person dimension [TM quoted the part of M47 covering Bus Project activities] in areas the candidate cannot reach herself.

So, I see the "cost of gas" issue as a red herring. As far as informing the voters, there are other ways. As far as making votes, not dollars, choose the winner, what is important is that all candidates operate under the same limits.

Measure 47 reforms will not lead to campaign finance perfection. That is not a good reason to reject a measure that would make elections more democracy friendly.

Over at Measure Numbers Assigned, Kari, Peter Buckley, and Steven Maurer all make good points. From Steven M. Just how stupid is this Initiative? Under the rules it presents, the Bus Project couldn't use their Bus to give any volunteer a ride, because that would be considered a "Payment In Kind" to the campaign and/or Democratic party. When I talked to Dan Meek - the chief sponsor of this initiative - about this, he told me it's perfectly legal "As long as each volunteer pays the full cost of the trip".

If someone has evidence Steven is wrong, I'd be glad to know what that evidence is.

Another item: Require initiative signatures to be due at least by the May primary, if not by the March(?) filing deadline for primary races.

This would allow folks more time to learn about initiatives, for academics to study potential effects, etc. As it is, we don't know what's on the ballot until August, and that means voters are voting on something (starting to vote) 10 weeks after they hear about it. The legislature -- people who work on these issues full-time and think about things -- takes six-seven months on some issues. Voters deserve the same.

I don't think that increasing the political tax credit will help. Generally, my experience is that people who give to politics, give to politics, tax credit or not. They give $250 a year, even though only the first $50/$100 is creditable. And people who don't give, don't give, even though it's "free" -- they're scared off by the "confusing" nature of the tax credit.

It's only used by something like 3% of folks, and increasing the credit would only increase the loss to the state's coffers, not dramatically increase individual giving.

Similarly, tax-deductions for nonprofits are usually not the reason people give. They give because they care.

Paul, I can agree with you on non-partisan redistricting. But where is the "clear track record" for IRV?

Even if you have no support from elected officials (county clerks who have to implement this system should have no say?)you will still need support from more than just the folks who frequent Blue Oregon. I used the link Kari provided and found the Wikipedia entry on IRV. (the links above that were all either instantrunoff.com or fairvote and I wanted something more impartial).

What I found about implementation in the US was:

United States: San Francisco has used instant runoff voting to elect its Board of Supervisors since 2004. Burlington, VT completed its first mayoral election using IRV in 2005. Ferndale, MI passed instant runoff voting in 2004. Berkeley, CA passed instant runoff voting pending necessary implementation.

If you want to sell IRV in Oregon, you should talk about how well it has worked in SF, Burlington VT, Ferndale MI, and Berkeley.

Let's assume for a moment that everyone in those communities think it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Why does that mean all Oregonians should support it?

If you have evidence that there have been no logistical problems, no problems with ballot design or election results in those communities, that they get their election results on election night and not a couple days later, that no one ever contested the result, then provide links to news articles saying "IRV a great success".

But the attitude here seems to be "we love IRV and anyone who studied it for long enough would become a convert--if you question IRV that just means you haven't studied it enough". As it happened, I voted in an organizational election where we listed our first, second or third choice, and I saw the games that were played. But how could that be if it is the greatest form of voting ever invented ?

I've been around politics long enough to know that a small group of people saying "you should support our wonderful idea" is not enough to turn that idea into reality.

But if IRV advocates here think what you've said on Blue Oregon will turn IRV into reality and in 2008 we'll all be voting that way because you think it is a great idea, who am I to disillusion you?

LT, Again, to answer to your question re: campaign reform Measure 47, please see the following (taken directly from www.fairelections.net). You can find the details in the text of Measure 47, on pg 6, as follows:

"Contribution" and "Expenditure" DO NOT include:

(A) Volunteer personal services (including those of the candidate) for which no compensation is asked or given, including unreimbursed travel expenses incidental thereto;

Where Steven M came up with the "In-Kind" line is a mystery, and sloppy to boot. If you want the facts about the campaign reform measures, read the measures.

TM

LT Wrote:

Over at Measure Numbers Assigned, Kari, Peter Buckley, and Steven Maurer all make good points. From Steven M. Just how stupid is this Initiative? Under the rules it presents, the Bus Project couldn't use their Bus to give any volunteer a ride, because that would be considered a "Payment In Kind" to the campaign and/or Democratic party. When I talked to Dan Meek - the chief sponsor of this initiative - about this, he told me it's perfectly legal "As long as each volunteer pays the full cost of the trip".

If someone has evidence Steven is wrong, I'd be glad to know what that evidence is.

LT writes, "I've been around politics long enough to know that a small group of people saying "you should support our wonderful idea" is not enough to turn that idea into reality.

But if IRV advocates here think what you've said on Blue Oregon will turn IRV into reality and in 2008 we'll all be voting that way because you think it is a great idea, who am I to disillusion you?"

LT, how concieted do you think we are? I for one am not so self-absorbed and egotistical that I think a discussion at BlueOregon about the merits/dissadvantages of IRV and strategies for implementing IRV via ballot initiative will somehow translate directly "into reality" by 2008. Am I mistaken, or is this a venue for discussion on issues pertaining to progressive politics?

Jenni, I responded twice (not sure how that's "over and over") to LT's post because it was obvious that Steven was wrong about M47 (it's right there in the initiative). Dan Meek had also responded to similar statements before. I wasn't privy to a discussion between Dan and Steven, and am in no position to back up "he said / she said" claims. If you were, please post the facts behind the claims that somehow M47 would make volunteers pay for rides on the Bus, limit travel, etc. I've seen many of these claims made on Blue Oregon and have yet to see any facts. Maybe I missed them. If so, it would be great for this discussion to be based upon the merits, rather than rumors. TM

Jenni wrote:

Instead of quoting the same thing over and over, how about you respond to the fact that Steven says he talked to Dan Meek, chief sponsor of the initiative, and that Dan said the volunteer would have to pay the cost of the trip.

I'd think that Dan would know the ins and outs of this initiative better than most.

All great stuff... the proposed election reforms and the robust discussion here. Just what Oregon needs. As H.D. Thoreau queried: "Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government?"

Peter Forsyth quotes notes above, "But at the moment, there's just a hodge-podge of us, with varying degrees of interest/commitment to IRV, who answer qustions on our own initiative...not as representatives of a movement."

So there is no group actively working on promoting IRV in Oregon? That is a shame. In the late 1990s there was a group working to promote IRV. What happened to them?

How does someone get involved in supporting IRV as an election reform in Oregon?

Jim