Debating an Open Primary
The US Supreme Court will hear arguments next week on a ballot initiative to create open primary elections in Washington state. Today, the print edition of the Bend Bulletin gives a spirited argument for switching to such primaries here in Oregon:
Elections are (or should be) owned by voters, not political parties. To agree with this statement is to be dissatisfied with the way primary elections work in Oregon. It is also to be concerned from a distance with the fate of a voter-approved alternative in Washington state.That alternative, Initiative 872, enjoyed the support of 60 percent of voters in 2004. Unfortunately, it did not enjoy the support of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which declared it unconstitutional last year. The U.S. Supreme Court will take up the case next week, and it has been known to overturn the 9th Circuit upon occasion.
Oregon’s 2006 primary illustrates the problem Washington’s voter-approved “top two” system was supposed to address: the power of well-situated minorities. Because only registered Democrats may choose that party’s nominee for governor, Ted Kulongoski was placed on the November ballot on the strength of a mere 170,944 votes. And because the Republican primary works the same way, Ron Saxton won a spot on the November ballot with only 125,286 votes.
Washington's Initiative 872 would create one open "blanket primary" for all candidates running for an office:
Washington state has long handled primary elections differently. The most recent approach, Initiative 872, would create a primary open to all voters. Candidates would identify themselves as they saw fit — Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Martian, whatever — and the top two vote-getters would appear on the ballot in November. It wouldn’t matter if both were from the same party.This system’s greatest benefit is that it democratizes the creation of the November ballot. The two major parties hate it, of course, as do minor parties. Why them? Because few Libertarians or Green Party candidates are going to survive a top-two vote, though come November their supporters could always write them in.
The opinions that really matter, however, are those of voters. And voters in Washington supported this system by an overwhelming margin.
The Supreme Court's decision could also have profound impacts for one possible Oregon ballot initiative:
Among those who’ll be watching with crossed fingers is former Oregon Secretary of State Phil Keisling, who’s filed an initiative petition for the November 2008 ballot. Though his proposal differs from Initiative 872 in some significant ways, it also would create a “top two” system. A Supreme Court decision upholding the 9th Circuit could nudge Keisling’s proposal off the cliff, too.That would be a shame. But until it happens, Oregonians who believe primary elections ought to channel the will of voters, not parties, should support Keisling’s effort. The initiative has not been approved for circulation yet. But when it does get the OK, don’t hesitate to sign it. This proposal, like primary candidates, deserves a statewide vote.
So what do you think? Should Oregon consider switching to an open primary?
Discuss.
|
Sept. 25, 2007
Posted in in the news 2007. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
2:50 p.m.
Sep 25, '07
Oh please. Not this s*** again.
If you want to decide who should represent a political party, it's absurdly easy to do so: write your name on a piece of paper at the county elections office, and check the party you want to influence.
If you pointedly refuse to do even that absurdly simple thing, why should you get to force your opinions on people who fundamentally disagree with you?
2:55 p.m.
Sep 25, '07
The strongest argument in favor of open primaries of one form or another here in Oregon is the fact that they are paid for with the taxes collected within the entire state. With roughly equal portions of Dems, GOPers and Indies, with none of them constituting anything close to a simple majority, it strikes me as inherently undemocratic to force a significant portion of the population to pay for a process from which we are explicitly excluded. Especially in light of recent legislation which makes it nearly impossible for a truly Independent candidate to even run.
I can easily see why minor parties don't like the idea of open primaries. But that's democracy. The point of any election is to determine who has the support of the majority. But at least minor party candidates and true Independents would get to run in the primary.
2:57 p.m.
Sep 25, '07
Here's an idea... political parties who want to restrict participation to party membership can pay for their own damn primary.
Sep 25, '07
What was the 9th's beef with this idea? What were the "constitutional grounds" for the 9th to reject this in the first place? It looks like some judges got a little uptight with this idea.
I like it, but what do I know - I am just a resident of Oregon.
3:43 p.m.
Sep 25, '07
Eric-
This was also in the article, unfortunately it's not online:
...the 9th Circuit found a constitutional flaw. By allowing candidates to identify themselves with a party, the court ruled, the system violates the parties’ right of free association. The “D” and “R” labels belong to the parties themselves, and they have a right to decide which candidates may use them. The freedom to associate, the court wrote, “necessarily includes some freedom to exclude others from the association.”
Sep 25, '07
One advantage of open primaries is that the parties can get a good idea of how many people are likely to vote in the general election and how they will vote.
Sep 25, '07
Thanks, Nick.
It suprises me that high level judges would be so petty in their thinking.
3:59 p.m.
Sep 25, '07
If they did that, Kevin, then admit it - you'd be whining about smoke filled rooms.
In fact, the primary system we have was originally designed precisely to open up the political process. Before, you had candidates chosen by insiders, not just anyone able to check a mark. It's something this system would end up bringing back if any third party grew strong enough to actually mount a credible challenge.
4:00 p.m.
Sep 25, '07
Gee Eric, I didn't know you were that much of a Lieberman fan.
Sep 25, '07
Bravo, Kevin.
The thing that gripes me most is that if I vote in the Democratic primary, I can't legally sign a petition for an independent candidate despite the fact that I might want to vote for them in the General Election.
The parties have way too control of the process and if they want to play that way, they should pay that way.
Sep 25, '07
As someone who is in "their" area, I'd just like to say that the Bend Bulletin has no credibility - at least with me. I was there when Carol Voisin was interviewed by an Editor, who would ask a question, then interrupt her answer and argue with her. Their opinion is typical of that paper. Constitutional rights be damned except freedom of the press. The right of free association, which is the right by which we organize political parties, is not understood by those guys (didn’t see a woman there).
No one has the right to tell me that my party must admit someone to it to vote. The State can tell me that they will not pay for the primary elections, in which case my party can hold a caucus without State support and place the winner on the general election ballot as our candidate.
Now we will see if the Bush court overrules one more constitutional right.
4:34 p.m.
Sep 25, '07
Steven,
Can you say DLC? Or better yet the legislation which brought us the Independent Party as a means of protest? Or the "Christian" Coalition and it's innumerable cousins on the other side of the aisle? Don't look now but there are smoke filled rooms aplenty.
You wanna have a close primary? Hey, you've got my support. Manage YOUR party however you like. Just do it on YOUR dime.
Sep 25, '07
Nobody has a 'right' to participate in the selection of the candidate who will represent the Democrat Party. When I discuss this subject with my friends, I remind them that the terms "Democrat" and "Republican" are essentially "brand names", just like "Disney" or "Microsoft". If you want to run for Senator as the Disney candidate, you have to do whatever Walt Disney (RIP) tells you to do. Likewise, if you want to run as a "Democrat", you have to do whatever the Democrat Party tells you to do. As I understand recent court decisions, the Democrat Party could decree that only six-toed monkeys are eligible to be candidates for the Democrat Party, and nobody could object. Likewise, the Democrat Party could announce that they will select their 2008 candidates by rolling dice in Pioneer Square at noon on August 1, 2008 instead of participating in the primary election process.
If you don't like it, start your own party!
Sep 25, '07
If you want an electoral system that encourages a diversity of opinion, allows like-minded people to come together in order to influence the political process and produces a result that can be legitimately described as the will of the people, then you will hate open primaries.
Remember, in a crowded field, candidates could easily move an open primary to the general election by receiving a very small plurality of the votes cast. That is exactly what happened in the Louisiana Governors race when former Klansman David Duke managed to move on to the general election with a mere 32 percent of the vote. Was he really the second choice candidate of the people of Louisiana? Probably not. Nevertheless that was the choice that voters were faced with in the general election.
I agree that our political process should be reformed. However, there are much better ways of doing it, like Fusion Voting or Instant Runoff Voting.
Sep 25, '07
If you like "safe seats" you probably don't like the Open Primary idea.
Personally, I think safe seats serve the partisan divide over public interest. I'd like to see more competitive races based on good ideas (as opposed to partisan hype). So what if two R's go forward from a safe district under an open primary? Perhaps the moderate candidate (who's more likely to get the D votes) actually has a chance of winning. A few moderate R's and a few more moderate D's might go a long way towards better policy-making. And don't you think Independents, Greens and Libertarians ought to be able to vote in the Primary?
5:09 p.m.
Sep 25, '07
Hey Kevin, it is done on my (and other Democrats') dime. The cost for publishing sheets associated with allowing the public make sure the Democratic party's internal candidate selection is transparent is more than covered by the taxes our members pay. And if you're really advocating the idea that parties should reimburse the government for printing costs - so that everybody but Republicans and wealthy Democratic state parties would be shut out of the ballot - you're not going to persuade me. We need more public financing, not less.
Oh, and by the way, that absurd little idea of trying to trick independent voters into joining an "Independent" party has already been tried. The "American Independent Party" has been around for decades, and has failed about as badly as this new "Independent" party you're trying to start. It failed because, while you can sometimes trick people into signing up for a name you chose to be deliberately confusing, you can't trick people into actually agreeing with you.
Here's a clue to all budding party builders: try being honest. American voters appreciate that.
Sep 25, '07
I believe the better solution is to create a system that encourages more parties. I prefer IRV. But I don't like the idea of denying party members their ability to choose their own candidate. Why should people who don't even like a party be able to tell its members who should represent them? It seems like a misplaced sense of entitlement.
Sep 25, '07
As I understand recent court decisions, the Democrat (sic) Party could decree that only six-toed monkeys are eligible to be candidates for the Democrat (sic) Party,...
In some cases that might be an improvement.
Sep 25, '07
Kevin,
There is nothing "inherently undemocratic" about the public paying for some procedure, law, rule, etc that benefits only a portion of the population.
If you oppose public funding of party primaries, there are well-established democratic procedures whereby you can change this system: elect new legislators, lobby existing legislators, or propose a initiative.
Steve Maurer is correct regarding the history of state funding of party primary elections. These laws were passed to democratize the process and to encourage political parties to allow participation by the mass public, and not limit nominating caucuses and conventions just to paid party members and elected officials.
Sep 25, '07
The thing that gripes me most is that if I vote in the Democratic primary, I can't legally sign a petition for an independent candidate despite the fact that I might want to vote for them in the General Election.
Larry- I agree with your statement above. Democrats pushed that bill through last session ( I think) largely because of Nader. We as Ds didn't have such a problem with the previous law when the OCA was active and Al Mobley gave Barbara Roberts the statehouse.
I don't like the blanket primary that WA/LA use because it is too confusing and I think voters need to know who the Rs and Ds are (does anyone know if party is listed by the candidate name?).
I don't mind the open primary system where INDS (or NAVS) can request a D or R primary ballot. Trouble is , with mail voting, most NAVS are not going to take the time to request one several weeks ahead of the primary. That is why the OR Dems experiment with open primaries in '98 and '00 failed. Something like only 3% of NAVS voted in the D primaries, whereas the Rs had more like 12% when they tried it in '90 and '92.
I think the national parties don't like open primaries because of times like '72 when racist George Wallace pulled a lot of IND/R voters in his bid for the D nomination and 1980 when liberal John Anderson almost won some New England R primaries with crossover support from Ds and INDS.
Sep 25, '07
Is there anyone who is willing to defend the banning of primary voters from signing indy petitions? I don't see open primaries as solving that at all, though. Repealing that law would seem a better way to go about that.
Sep 25, '07
Hmmmm, banning all but the party faithful from publicly paid for primary elections.....
How un progressive! :-)
8:30 p.m.
Sep 25, '07
Is there anyone who is willing to defend the banning of primary voters from signing indy petitions?
I don't know all of the specifics of that law, and personally I don't really agree with it.
However, the defense of the law presumably is that it protects the integrity and the importance of the primary. Voters are forced to abide by the outcome of a primary election, for example, if there are two candidates running for the nomination, the loser can't then run as an independent and get on the ballot via the signatures of the minority that voted for him/her in the primary. Case in point: Joe Lieberman. That would not happen in Oregon as I understand the law.
Sep 25, '07
Is there anyone who is willing to defend the banning of primary voters from signing indy petitions?
How about this: You only get to participate in the nomination of one candidate for a given race, just like everyone else. I can't vote in both the Republican and Democratic presidential primaries, even if I like Obama and Giuliani the best. I have to pick one primary (which I do by registering with one party).
So why should you get to participate in twice or three times the number of nominations? You should have to pick too. Either nominate in your own party's primary, or sit it out and nominate another candidate by petition. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Anyhow, none of this has anything to do with the so-called "Open Primary" proposal (which has been misleadingly named by Phil Keisling, since an open primary is actually something else). If you don't like the one-nomination rule, then push to have that rule changed. But don't throw out our whole election system with the bathwater!
9:00 p.m.
Sep 25, '07
Here's a clue to all budding party builders: try being honest. American voters appreciate that.
Here's a clue for you: I've never tried to start a political party and I'm certainly not involved with the new "Independent Party" in any way, shape or form. I haven't even blogged about it, which still wouldn't be part of trying to start anything.
And if you're really advocating the idea that parties should reimburse the government for printing costs - so that everybody but Republicans and wealthy Democratic state parties would be shut out of the ballot - you're not going to persuade me.
I'm advocating the idea that the parties pay their own way for everything that is restricted to party members. I'm up for increased public funding for general elections for sure. But I honestly don't see a public benefit to continuing the experiment we call primary elections. Especially in light of 2005's HB2614.
...because, while you can sometimes trick people into signing up for a name you chose to be deliberately confusing, you can't trick people into actually agreeing with you.
LOL the paternalistic show of faux concern is comical. Not just against the backdrop of HB2614, but also the earlier mass blaming of Nader voters for Bush's 2000 "victory" on the backs of a debatably unconstitutional USSC ruling and all of the shenanigans in Florida (Ms. Harris et al). Blaming which continues to this day, btw. Yeah, Dems have sure convinced me that you care about people "actually agreeing with you."
This is all of course a monumental waste of my time. Heck, you think I'm trying to start a friggin' political party even though you've not the faintest shred of evidence to back up your ass-u-mption. I might as well be talking to a brick wall...
9:07 p.m.
Sep 25, '07
However, the defense of the law presumably is that it protects the integrity and the importance of the primary. Voters are forced to abide by the outcome of a primary election, for example, if there are two candidates running for the nomination, the loser can't then run as an independent and get on the ballot via the signatures of the minority that voted for him/her in the primary. Case in point: Joe Lieberman. That would not happen in Oregon as I understand the law.
Is "protecting the integrity and the importance of the primary" the point of the exerisize or is it a means of insuring that the people get to ultimately elect the candidate of their choosing?
As much as I dislike the outcome, the fact remains that Lieberman won. He was elected by the people in a fair and open election.
9:14 p.m.
Sep 25, '07
So why should you get to participate in twice or three times the number of nominations?
Why not?
What's wrong with giving the people choices?
Just because your political party limits you to one choice that doesn't mean that folks outside of your political party should live by your party's rules.
9:57 p.m.
Sep 25, '07
Oh, and by the way, that absurd little idea of trying to trick independent voters into joining an "Independent" party has already been tried.
The only thing "little" or small-minded is the notion that seem to be the prevailing discourse in American politics today -- that you need to attack something or someone just because they don't happen to belong to your particular tribe.
I'll grant you, it's easier to attack and to vilify than it is to engage in civil discourse with someone who may have honest disagreements with you, but I challenge anyone to listen to John Frohnmayer discuss some of the issues he's raising in his candidacy, and read about the issues he's been raising for the last 20 years, or to listen to Linda Williams speak about her reason for creating the Independent Party, and come back and make an honest case that either of them are trying to trick anyone into anything.
Seriously. Go try it.
Also, Steven, can you honestly give me a rationale for why Democrats and Republicans voted unanimously in the House in 2005 to strike the word "independent" from the ballot and replace it with "nonaffiliated" that turns on something other than a cynical collaboration for the sole purpose of maintaining the political power of the major parties?
10:10 p.m.
Sep 25, '07
As for the Open Primary...
The best thing about the open primary is that it will help to eliminate the culture of fear that prevents Republicans and Democrats -- but especially Republicans -- from working in an bi-partisan fashion.
Vic Backlund would never have lost a general election race to Kim Thatcher in an open primary system and that's exactly the kind of problem that Phil Keisling is trying to address -- the cases where a small minority can override the wishes of the majority simply by winning a partisan primary.
I think Mr Keisling has it right when he points out that very few races are winnable by a candidate who is not of the dominant party in a given district and that over the last 25 years or so, most of the incumbents who have been beaten have lost in a primary challenge by a more extreme candidate, and that this is contributing to a deepening of the partisan divide in Oregon.
I haven't made up my mind about the Open Primary yet, but I think it's a reform that is worth discussing in a way that goes beyond "Does it help or hurt my particular tribe"?
Sep 25, '07
@ BlueNote Democratic Party, please. There is no DemocRAT Party.
Sep 25, '07
gee Sal, how dense do you think the readers are? NAV describes what most "independents" are, they are not a member of any Party because they don't wish to be, simple. If you're enamored of the Independent Party, that's your choice, but those unaffiliated don't wish to be so by filing fiat of your candidate.
As for open primary, nobody can force the Democratic Party to operate its candidate selection in any way other than their choice. If the SOS declares a Primary method the Democrats don't want, they'll do it their way and your ballot won't contain that party name and you will have succeeded in narrowing the easy access to the party. Knock yourselves out, pass any intitiative you like, you cannot force the party to operate its candidate selection your way. The DPO is not an arm of the State, it is not the State's property, it is a free association of individuals, and if you try to mess with that free association I promise it will blow up in your face.
I have two Senate Primary candidates I can get along with and I'm in the process of concretely helping them get their message out, if John Frohnmayer put a D after his name, he'd get part of that help, but he's special so he gets none. If another D candidate rises above the talking about it stage, they can have some help also.
The machinery to do so exists because people care enough about the ideals of the party to take action, their individual choice, they associate together for their reasons, not the undefinable good of undefined voters, their own ideas. That's what you propose to mess with, and you seem to think that it not only is a good idea, but that you can cram it down the throats of the unwilling. I believe a bit of a re-think is called for.
Sep 25, '07
No, Seth, but there were some GOP operatives caught putting the message democRAT in the footage of a TV commercial.
1:27 a.m.
Sep 26, '07
Actually it's pretty hard to keep people from running on a party line, and as far as I know impossible to keep them from registering, regardless of whether they agree with party leadership or not. In 1980 I registered briefly as a Republican to vote (futilely) for John Anderson in the Republican presidential primary. (I did NOT vote for him in the general).
I remember that in either 1978 or 1980 there were a number of Lyndon LaRouche cultists who ran in Democratic primaries in Oregon. One of them got in the double digits against Verne Duncan in the 3rd district congressional primary, despite being an obvious loon, which I think encouraged Ron Wyden to take Duncan on the next time around.
And of course there was the Louisiana Republican Party's embarrassing necessity to endorse the Democratic candidate for congress in one district (or was it senate?) when the KKK-Nazi David Duke won the Republican primary by a plurality sometime in the 1980s.
Really, U.S. parties are not disciplined ideological entities in the way that parties in parliamentary systems are.
The fact that Anderson (or Lieberman) could run as an independent after losing a primary suggests to me that comparing the signature gathering process to gain ballot access to primaries is not really accurate.
I would have less trouble with the law against signing petitions if the "major parties" were not given various special legal status' and privileges, e.g. in public campaign financing -- the arguments from equality ring rather hollow in face of that.
How would statewide "Open Primary" (either as currently in Washington or in Kiesling's plan) compare to Portland's non-partisan elections?
6:22 a.m.
Sep 26, '07
gee Sal, how dense do you think the readers are? NAV describes what most "independents" are, they are not a member of any Party because they don't wish to be, simple
Hey, I agree. Those people can register on the line that says "not a member of a party" -- the same way that people can register to be a member of the Independent Party by checking the line that says "Independent Party".
Listen to what Linda Williams has had to say. How many people really think the legislature did the right thing by removing the word "independent" from the Oregon ballot in the first place?
That's what you propose to mess with, and you seem to think that it not only is a good idea, but that you can cram it down the throats of the unwilling. I believe a bit of a re-think is called for.
So we're clear on this: I'm not proposing an open primary, Phil Keisling is. I've laid out why I think he is proposing the idea, based on conversations I've had with him and my read of the statute, and why I think the idea has some merit.
The issues you've raised: "Does it interfere with free association and so forth?" are reasonable points to make -- and part of the reason why I haven't made up my mind about it.
Sep 26, '07
LT said: No, Seth, but there were some GOP operatives caught putting the message democRAT in the footage of a TV commercial.
A commercial, singular? It's much more widespread than that. There's a been a long-standing attempt by the Republicans to use "Democrat Party" to disassociate my party's name from the word "democratic", small d. I was just reminding BlueNote of the correct name. It irks me when Republicans or reporters/commentators do it, but it really gets me when Democrats or progressives pick it up unknowingly. (This is assuming BlueNote wasn't using the incorrect title purposefully. I didn't get that sense from most of his/her text.)
9:44 a.m.
Sep 26, '07
Bob Dole always said "Democrat Party" and sounded as if he were spitting. Bush says "Democrat Party" too, as do most of the Congressional Republican leadership. It absolutely sets my teeth on edge when I hear it, and I was shocked to see it in use here by someone I think of as a D.