PDXers consistently show why they actually are some of the dumbest people on the planet:

Under the suggested change, candidates could collect $5 contributions and signatures only from registered voters -- a tougher standard designed to eliminate the potential for fraud.

What fraud is this supposed to prevent? And why is it in the interest of anyone to say that only those who are registered voters --- meaning they consistently vote using a our asinine VBM system which by its very design is biased against wide participation --- should be able to participate in the system by donating $5 if they have it to a candidate who they feel would represent their interests, perhaps because that candidate actually isn't rich and needs public financing to run?

There really is something mentally defiicient in the collective PDX body politic, or at least that self-selecting segment of PDX that feels they must impose their stupidity on everyone.

Care to explain how our vote-by-mail system is "by design" biased against wide participation? The facts argue otherwise....

The facts DO NOT argue otherwise and never have. In particular, neither Southwell nor the Gronke study on the SOS site addresses the question of whether VBM inherently or in practice encourages the widest possible participation amongst all people eligible to be voters.

You made an assertion, prove it by citing the studies demonstrating the claim instead of being a typical passive-aggressive Oregonian (ie: The facts argue otherwise ...).

Frankly, I am persuaded few here care about what VBM critics have to say. Minds are made up in this state about VBM pro and con, and the supporters are supporters for reasons that have nothing to do with encouraging the widest possible participation. It's not surprising, therefore, that the issue in this story is about excluding people --- including those eligible to be, but not registered as voters for whatever reason --- from participating in the process.

Morons (great name, btw),

You clearly have issues with whatever and whomever you think Portlanders are. What's missing here for me are facts to back up your statements. How does VBM exclude people? What would a better method be? Any info to back up your claims? Or are you just venting. If you are venting, what's you're beef and why are you so wound up?

A Timely FYI:

March 19th, Monday, 4:30 PM, Dr. Kenneth Mayer of the University of Wisconsin will give a talk on publicly financed elections. Reed College's Vollum Lounge. Free and open to the public.

Mayer has studied the extant statewide public finance systems extensively, and has interesting things to say about the appropriate level of financing and the impact of public finance on candidate emergence and legislative output.

More info here:

http://web.reed.edu/public_policy_series/

Hawthorne:

what's you're beef?

Let's see, as just one example:

the issue in this story is about excluding people --- including those eligible to be, but not registered as voters for whatever reason --- from participating in the process.

why is it in the interest of anyone to say that only those who are registered voters --- meaning they consistently vote using a our asinine VBM system which by its very design is biased against wide participation --- should be able to participate in the system by donating $5 if they have it to a candidate who they feel would represent their interests, perhaps because that candidate actually isn't rich and needs public financing to run?

the supporters (of VBM, the most vocal of which are clueless activist - but decidely not progressive - community in PDX) are supporters for reasons that have nothing to do with encouraging the widest possible participation

You made an assertion, prove it by citing the studies demonstrating the claim instead of being a typical passive-aggressive Oregonian (ie: "The facts argue otherwise ...")

Just what about that is not clear as just one specific example, and as a symptom, of what is fundamentally wrong with the metro politically active community?

(And you would be well-advised to not jump to any conclusions about whether and how much people like me may speak from personal experience living/working/being involved in PDX at times in our adult lives.)

In Oregon, change is going to come from progressive people in the rest of the state (and you'd be surprised at the truly progressive values a lot of people have - including some Rs - outside the metro cluelessness zone) actually injecting a level of good sense and intelligence back into the process.

Prof. Gronke:

Do you know if Prof. Mayer has a more recent publication available on the web than his paper "Do Public Funding Programs Enhance Electoral Competition?".

Those of us who strongly support public financing done right (a complicated thing to be sure), need all the solid evidence by researchers like this that we can get. I was a little disappointed that the statistical work in that paper was a little on the light side, and, unfortunately, don't feel it is all that helpful in make a compelling case as to what public financing "done right" is.

His own conclusion is circumspect: "We are left with something of a mixed picture". More importantly, "We do not yet have evidence that public funding has altered roll-call patterns or legislative coalitions, as might be expected if interest group influence or party influence has declined as legislators utilize their newfound independence".

It can be hypothesized that the PDX proposal discussed here, to limit participation in the candidate financing qualifying process to registered VBM voters who find a $5 political contribution (roughly the cost of feeding two children for a day) to be high on their list of discretionary spending, would act as a filter to further reinforce, rather than alter, "roll-call patterns or legislative coalitions, as might be expected if interest group influence or party influence has declined as legislators utilize their newfound independence".

It is not beyond the pale to argue that a lot of supporters really are about empowering more "people like them", rather than the widest possible participation. Nor to observe that they aren't nearly as informed about what makes for a good election financing system, or as representative of the population, or what would make for good, even progressive, governance, as they believe.

For those of us who have to work and can't attend the lecture, any work Mayer has publicly published that might speak further to the details of what makes for a successful public financing campaign would be helpful.

"Morons" sounds a lot like the person who was posting a few months ago, attacking everyone who think vote-by-mail might have some merits. Morons' use of words like "dumbest" and "asinine", and his/per contention that vote-by-mail is designed to perpetuate the political power of an in-group (which Morons never defines, by the way) seems very familliar.

Actually, I'm wondering why "Morons" is intentionally conflating vote-by-mail with public financing. Two completely separate issues, right?

It's easy to pick holes in the idea that the proposed tiny changes to voter-owned elections will prevent another Boyles/Golovan fraud. Given that, perhaps "Morons" could post his/her own proposed changes to VOE. I'm open to persuasion. I'm just not open to persuasion that takes the form of insults.

lin qiao - Glad to here other folks have posted here attacking our stupid VBM system. Stands to reason, because talking about repeal of the VBM statute has come up in at least one Democratic party function I know of. In addition, the recent effort to push VBM across the nation has not exactly found easy sledding in a lot of states where people arguably have more political experience and wisdom.

As far as what people like you can and can't be convinced by; that has a lot more to do with your intellectual honesty. The reason VOE and VBM were connected was explicitly stated, and re-stated. That suggests: a) you're either too dense, b) being purposefully ignorant of what was already stated, or c) just so egotistical that it blinds you to dealing with the facts. I could care less which is the case, but let me make it simple for you:

The exclusionary VOE proposal at issue conditions inclusion in the VOE system as a "nominator" (in effect) of publicly financed candidates based on whether you are a registered voter, and being a registered voter depends on the nature and level of your participation in VBM elections.

More importantly, the accusation was made that my claim that VBM does not encourage the widest participation in the process was not supported by the facts. I pointed out that I know of know facts supporting the accusation, and challenged loudmouths like you to bring forth the facts.

As far as my suggestions about VOE. What about the post I made to Gronke is beyond your reading level? Let me know and I'll dumb it down for you. Did I not point out the situation is far more complex about what makes for a good publicly-financed election system than has been argued here, and right now we need to be getting more solid research, based on proving or disproving what policy accomplish what goals?

Instead you make an egotistical comment typical of what I have now read on this blog about what won't persuade you. Who cares what will persuade people like you and the self-satisfied non-progressives who share your self-centered, unfactually supported, views about VBM? Didn't I already explicitly acknowledge that Minds are made up in this state about VBM pro and con? I think the important political goal is making sure folks who think VBM does not work well for them are reached, are affirmed they are justified in their feelings, and helped to understand that so-called "progressives" who support of VBM aren't progressive, but in fact self-serving and exclusionary in a distressing number of ways.

I love it! The so-called "progressives" really are morons. What exactly is "progressive" about the idea that "government knows best" and should be everyone's insurance whether they like it or not? I call the progressives the elitist cabal of idiots. They are greedy self-serving people trying to dumb down America and make everyone think like them. They try to shut you down if you say something that is deemed heretical by their fanatical religious views.

OK, Mr. Chisholm, or another editor, your turn to have a word or two with "Morons". Maybe you can even set him up his own blog.

Yo GT, don't go away, I'm going to start my own blog for the simple satisfaction of then "shut[ting] you down if you say something that is deemed heretical by [my] fanatical religious views."

I don't follow the non-sequitor doretta, but do you have anything factual or intelligent to say about the issue at hand?

Thought not.

Vote by Mail is the most idiotic idea I think these stupid progressives in Oregon ever came up with. It's wraught with fraud and illegal Mexicans and other criminals can travel around to every single county to cast their ballots. It's the 21st century and we're still voting using such archaic methods. We should have vote by Internet. Oh wait, that's too efficient and might result in HCR for the government buddies.

wraught with fraud and illegal Mexicans and other criminals can travel around to every single county to cast their ballots.

I invite you to organize a ballot initiative to repeal vote by mail. If your opinion is widely shared, then that's your best chance to go back to a polling-place-only system.

Oh wait. We never did have a polling-place-only system. There was always the option of voting by absentee ballot.