Again, the Oregon Supreme Court agreed that what is proposed is not an "Open Primary," but a fundamental change in the nomination process, and removed the term "open primary" from the ballot title and summary. Initiative petition #109 basically proposes running all partisan elections in Oregon except for President the way non-partisan elections are run.

Here's the judgement in the ballot title review: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S55161.htm

Some states have "open primaries." They allow voters who are not members of a party to participate in choosing that party's nominee. They don't obliterate the concept of a party nominee as this proposal does. Calling this proposal "open primaries" connects it with something it is not. This is a "top two" scheme.

This scheme ends up being one in which anyone filing to run in the "primary" when doing so would split the vote in his or her own party would be a spoiler.

So in addition to removing the means for minor party candidates to appear on the general election ballot, it takes away opportunity for less prominent candidates to run in the primary.

It mandates non-partisan elections for partisan offices.

I used to have a lot of respect for Phil Keisling. This, however, is a travesty.

I am helping Mr. Keisling get the signatures he needs to put this question on the ballot. I don't speak for their campaign, but I feel compelled to correct a few of Sue's comments...

The Court was not making a determination on whether the use of the term 'open primaries' was inaccurate as it relates to the Oregon Open Primaries proposal, only on whether the Attorney General had a legitimate basis for the ballot title he assigned. The AG is given broad latitude in such matters, and an outright reversal would be exceedingly rare.

Using the term "open primary" to describe a system in which any voter may vote for any candidate on the primary ballot strikes me as accurate.

In another thread, Miles raised a fair point that Oregon taxpayers currently foot the bill for partisan primaries. Nothing in the Keisling proposal would prevent Democrats from setting up their own nominating process to select their candidate to run in a One Ballot Primary. I believe that's currently the case in Washington, which also has an Open Primary system.

Partisans understandably don't like the idea of an open primary. But our current system, which excludes non-affiliated voters, has produced a highly dysfunctional legislature, and has given the fringes in both parties -- but especially in the Republican Party -- a degree of political power that is entirely disproportionate to their actual numbers in the voting population.

LT pointed out the case of Vic Backlund in that other thread. In reality, Backlund was only one of 5 Republican legislators who were taken out by extremists in GOP primaries for voting in favor of a tax increase to prevent cuts to vital public services in 2003. I think it's fair to say that most of those legislators would not have been so defeated under an open primary system.

Here are the strengths of an open primary, as I see them

65 out of 75 legislative districts are currently non-competitive races. I believe that an open primary would reduce that number.

The open primary would eliminate the spoiler issue.

It would increase participation in Oregon primaries by giving non-affiliated voters an opportunity to vote for a candidate.

Candidates who emerge from the primary would likely be a better fit for their district than is currently the case.

One final point...

This proposal is endorsed by John Kitzhaber, Vic Atiyeh, Earl Blumenauer, Norma Paulus, and Phil Keisling. If you like and respect any or all of those people (as I do), I would encourage you to give this idea fair consideration.

Sue H. is right. Could we please correct the title of this post and not buy into the rhetoric coming from the advocates?

Did we describe the anti-tobacco tax as the "fair health plan for Oregon" just because that's what the group called it?

Regardless of its merits, what is being proposed is NOT an open primary. An open primary is a system whereby an individual can choose to vote in the PARTY PRIMARY for any race, then a different PARTY PRIMARY for a second race, etc. See wikipedia definition which is pretty accurage.

What is being proposed here is a TOP TWO or TWO ROUND or RUNOFF system, essentially a system where you have a first general election during the "primary" and a second general election in November. It is analogous to the system used in Louisiana, except in that system, any candidate gaining 50%+1 in the first round wins.

I have posted analyses of two-round electoral systems in the past. There is extensive literature on these system, since it is used for selecting presidents in a number of countries and it is used in Louisiana. I refer any interested reader to Gary Cox's excellent book, Making Votes Count.

I don't like ballot measures that have misleading titles--it makes me immediately suspicious. I also don't buy many of the claims made by advocates, since there is extensive evidence that they are simply wrong.

• The claim is made that a two-round system results in a wider ideological array of winners. The empirical evidence is quite the opposite--two round systems often allow extremist candidates to emerge into the second round as the moderates knock each other off.
• The claim is made that non-affiliated voters are centrist and moderate. What we know about non-affiliated and independent voters is, on average, they are a) less interested and politically involved, b) participate at lower levels, and c) are "anti-party."
• The claim is made that this system allows voters to concentrate on the "issues of importance" rather than the "second or third tier issues." I don't know what this means, so I can't evaluate it.

Sal,

If your concern is non-competitive legislative races, then you are tilting at the wrong windmill.

The key most important central cause of non-competitive legislative races is how the districts are drawn.

Take legislative redistricting out of the hands of the legislators and put it into the hands of a non-partisan commission or the judiciary.

If a top-two system was going to create competitive legislative races, it should have done so in Louisiana, and it has not.

In other words, Paul, the Open Primary system being proposed by Keisling, Kitzhaber, Atiyeh, Paulus, Blumenauer, et al is not analagous to the Louisiana system since 2 candidates will always advance to the general election.

The system you are describing is more analagous to the non-partisan primary system that has been adopted in several counties in Oregon. We can debate the merits of such a system at length, but we would still not be talking about the system being proposed by the Open Primaries folks.

I agree that making the redistricting process less partisan is a good idea, Paul. But it won't change the fact that in a majority of races in Oregon, 10-25 percent of eligible voters are currently selecting the winning candidate in nearly 90 percent of legislative districts. The Open Primaries would cure that problem, and while I respect your opinion, I've had extensive conversations with Paulus, Atiyeh, Keisling, and others and I have tremendous respect their point of view on this issue.

YMMV.

ACK!!! Take this down! The entire premise of the Willamette Week article was INCORRECT!!! They are running a correction next week -- see the comments at the end of the article on the WW website.

And please take this post down. The Keisling measure does not affect presidential primaries!

This is true, the measure would not apply to presidential primaries. I saw that provision in the measure I was posting this but I didn't connect the dots. Oops.

I added an editor's note to the post, but the measure is still definitely worth discussing.

LT, there are only 75 legislative elections during any given election cycle since the 30 Senate races are staggered. And although I agree that some races can be competitive, even when the "experts" think that they won't be, the partisan advantage is really, really, prohibitive in most of the 65 races I've described -- much more so than was the case in HD24 where I ran, or were Jim Gilbertson ran.

There is a +2400 Republican registration advantage in HD24, that's potentially "doable". But what about HD 8, where the Democrat enjoys a +9000 edge? Or HD36, where the Democrat enjoys a +12000 edge? Or HD 42, where the Democrat enjoys a +16000 edge (out of 20000 - 23000 voters in each case)?

Why shouldn't such districts be able to choose between 2 Democrats in the general election? It would be a much more accurate reflection of the district.

I don't like this because people would actually get less say in who the candidate is in many cases.

Because the parties would be afraid that multiple candidates from the party could split the vote and mean that none get enough of the vote to go forward, parties would choose to select their candidate outside the system. This means that instead of the voters registered with a party getting to select who the candidate in November would be, it would likely be PCPs, party officials, Future PAC, etc. who would be making those decisions. Those are all groups of people I respect, but I want my neighbors to be able to participate in that decision as well.

I think contested primaries within a political party are a good thing - and under this system we'd do away with that. Instead we'd have a very small population choosing who the party's candidate would be. In 2006, almost 79,000 Democrats voted in the primary - I'd much rather they choose the candidate than a small number of PCPs at a meeting.

If you want to participate in the process of a party choosing its nominee for November, then register for the Party. It's not that hard to do - although you have to have it done before the voter registration deadline - this is one change you can't make up until Election Day.

Or fight for there to be actual open primaries - where you can indeed vote for another party's nominee even if you're not registered with that party.

Or do what I am doing - fight for Same Day Voter Registration. Not only would this enfranchise thousands of voters in this state, but you'd be able to change your party registration up until polls close on Election Day.

But this idea of Keisling's is completely different and will remove voter choice and hurt minor parties who would be extremely unlikely to ever be in the top two - which means no shot at being on the ballot in November.

Let's look at 2006.

In HD 44, the top two Dems got 1,881 and 2,862 votes each. The Republican running received 844. In a top two race, two Democrats would have been on the November ballot instead, and the 20% that voted for the Republican would have only had the choice between two Democrats.

In HD 46, the top two Democrats had 3,217 and 2,036 votes each. The Republican had 1,136. In the General, the Republican pulled 16.45% of the vote, with another 6.21% voting for the Pacific Green Party member. Under the top two plan, the election would have been between two Democrats.

In the governor's race, the top two vote getters would have still been Kulongoski and Saxton. However, in the General Election there were candidates from other parties participating - and just shy of 90,000 people voted for those candidates statewide. None would have had a chance to be on the November ballot when people are most paying attention and most likely to vote. The funny thing is that one of those candidates that would have only had the chance to be on a May ballot was Keisling (he received more than 20,000 votes).

Has anyone noticed that civility tends the lowest among people who post anonymously?

Kari, what ever happened to the changes you were considering around site registration and anonymous posting? As a new dad and a small business owner who s coming into his busiest season, we all know that you are wallowing in free time. Why not schedule some time between 2 and 4 am to get er done?

Has anyone noticed that civility tends to be the lowest among people who post anonymously?

Kari, what ever happened to the changes you were considering around site registration and anonymous posting? As a new dad and a small business owner who s coming into his busiest season, we all know that you are wallowing in free time. Why not schedule some time between 2 and 4 am to get er done?

LT:

If there's only one person from the two major parties running, then this likely wouldn't make a difference (other than the minor parties that might run in these areas wouldn't be on the November ballot). Where it would make a difference in those areas is where you have two Republicans with high name recognition running against each other and one Democrat with low name recognition. It's possible that the two Republicans could turn out more people because of their name recognition, meaning a Democrat wouldn't even end up on the ballot.

And I think it could mean that Future PAC would get even more heavily involved in races in May, as they now need a candidate who can pull enough votes in May to be one of the top two. Which means more money, resources, etc. needed even earlier to be considered viable.

Jenni, why shouldn't districts with a massive partisan advantage have 2 candidates of the same party running in a general election? There are districts in Oregon where the partisan advantage is literally 6-1 or more.

Why shouldn't such districts have a general election between 2 candidates of the same party? Is it really more important to create rules that artificially prop up a candidate of one of the major parties in such districts rather than to give voters a real choice in the general election?

Sal: In another thread, Miles raised a fair point that Oregon taxpayers currently foot the bill for partisan primaries. Nothing in the Keisling proposal would prevent Democrats from setting up their own nominating process to select their candidate to run in a One Ballot Primary. I believe that's currently the case in Washington, which also has an Open Primary system.

I'm hesitant about the details of this, which I frankly don't fully understand. And the wildly different characterizations in this thread haven't helped any. If Paul G. is correct about this not being a true "open primary" then I'm inclined to agree with his reasoning for opposing it. But I strongly agree with Sal, and by extension Miles, about the gross inequity of the current system.

Verisoi: If I had a knitting club, and wanted to elect a president of the knitting club, why should anyone who doesn't belong to my knitting club, and perhaps doesn't even know anything about knitting or is even openly hostile to knitting, be able to have a voice in picking the president of my club?

The difference here is that folks who don't belong to your club and perhaps don't even know how to knit are being forced to fund your knitting club's election. That is a patently unjust situation. If you don't want them to have a vote in your knitting club, which is your right, then you need to stop forcing them to pay for it.

I'm not sure how Frohnmayer entered into this conversation, but if you are worried about him being a spoiler, then you should support a top-2 open primary system, like the one that Keisling has proposed. In that case, the spoiler issue will be eliminated.

As to the rest...

I can't quite decide whether your cynicism, your contempt for the people of this state, or that you lack the courage to put your own name to your comments to be the least persuasive elements of your argument (such as it is).

We'll ignore for a moment that, as Paul has pointed out, the Louisiana system is not a top-two system, and is therefore fundamentally different than the system being proposed in Oregon.

It would appear that everyone is a moron that disagrees with our anonymous friend. 2 former governors -- John Kitzhaber and Vic Atiyeh, 2 former secretaries of state -- Keisling and Paulus, and a US Congressman -- Earl Blumenauer. Not just wrong. Morons.

This, according to a person who lacks the courage to post under his or her own name.

This is supposed to be persuasive, how?

My friend, the issue is not that you are wrong, it's that you know so much that just isn't so.

If you really are a strong and effective advocate against this proposal, and you appear to have convinced yourself that you are, then I'm feeling pretty good about our chances.

I see. So your basic point is that we should trust an anonymous poster with anger management and civility issues rather than people who have made careers out of studying and understanding public policy?

I honestly can't begin to fathom the ego needed to suggest, on the basis of the fact that they happen to disagree with you, that John Kitzhaber, Victor Atiyeh, Norma Paulus, Earl Blumenauer, and Phil Keisling lack respect for the people of this state.

No wonder you post anonymously.

I think all parties should have a shot at being on the ballot in November when everyone is paying attention to the election. Even in Texas where everyone can vote in the primary, you still have much, much lower turnout than you do in November.

And would we be moving the primary back further in the year? Because if we go to annual legislative sessions, this would put incumbents at a huge disadvantage since they can't raise funds during the session. Under the rules now that wouldn't be a big deal since you don't typically have a serious challenge in the primary. But under this plan since you have to be in the top 2, you're have a serious race at a time of the year where the bulk of the population (even those who are registered with a party) couldn't care less about state and local elections.

There's already enough party in-fighting in the primary, which is why the state party stays out of the primary and many county parties are staying out of it as well. It could get nasty in a general where you have two Dems running against each other. I know it got nasty here in '06 when we had two Dems running against each other for county commission - we were trying to coordinate efforts with the party, unions, etc., but we were on opposing sides of the race. It came down to that some would not even canvass for the governor if they couldn't also canvass for their selected candidate.

You aren't denied the right to vote. You can still vote in the primary if there are non-partisan positions on there. And you still get to vote on who the eventual elected official will be. You just don't get to participate in the process of selecting a party's nominee unless you're a member of a party.

If we were talking about a true open primary - where anyone can select which party they're going to vote for on the day they vote - this would be a completely different topic. I can understand the benefits and downfalls of such a system. I grew up and began voting in Texas where this is the practice. There you declare which party you want to vote for when you get your ballot. But what is being discussed here is different.

With this system, only the top two vote getters in a race would move to November. There would not be nominating conventions or anything for minor parties to put their candidate on the ballot in November - they'd have to run in the primary.

A few points...

The Open Primariy proposal allows anyone to vote for any candidate in the primary, top two advance to the general election.

That's as open as a primary can get.

What it is not, is a partisan primary. Again, nothing in this proposal would prevent political parties from setting up their own partisan nominating process, as I believe is currently the case in Washington.

I'd be interested in seeing a definition of the word "primary" that includes the non-partisan primaries that many Oregon counties already have, but excludes the Open Primary system being proposed by Paulus, Keisling, Kitzhaber, et al.

I disagree with Neel's assertion that an open primary system would prevent all minor party candidates from being on a general election ballot. There are multiple districts around the state where minor party candidates outperform major party candidates.

They would be much less likely to appear on statewide ballots, but in the case of Frohnmayer, or someone like Kitzhaber who has expressed an interest in running for statewide office as an independent (small "i"), the major delimiting factor is not party ID, but the ability to raise money from the special interests that provide most of the financial resources for targeted partisan candidates.

In the past, folks like Neel, and some of the others that oppose this proposal, have argued that third party candidates are "spoilers", and in some cases have worked to limit ballot access to "spoiler candidates". I share Neel's sense of irony seeing his reversal of those past positions in this discussion.

Finally, Neel raises the issue that an open primary would extend the campaign season and force partisan candidates to reach out to a broader range of people, earlier.

Good. That's exactly the point. Candidates should be reaching out to all Oregonians, not merely to those in their partisan base.

Proponents should respect this right and make their case on merits directly to the parties.

You mean like how the parties made their case on merits to me before I was forced to help fund their respective "members only" club functions?

While I support the party's right to decide, I for one, believe Democrats are missing a profound opportunity this election cycle by not inviting NAVs to participate in this historic primary.

I definitely agree with that. In fact I've been saying much the same thing for a long time now.

would do nothing to end partisanship but would undermine the effective party discipline that led Democrats to victory in 2006 and resulted in the most productive legislative session in two decades.

Saying that an open primary would weaken party discipline, but that this would do nothing to increase bi-partisanship in the legislature is like saying that cleaning pollution would do nothing to help the environment.

When Oregon's legislature has worked the best, it has worked in a bi-partisan fashion. The preservation of Oregon beaches, the bottle bill, and other McCall era reforms emerged because of bi-partisan coalitions that no longer exist today because of the strong caucus model that has emerged over the last 30 years.

Unless 1 party controls all branches of government, strong caucus discipline is the main reason why we have logjams in the legislature.

Again, look back to the Vic Backlund example. When the Republicans took out Backlund and the other legislators who worked in a bipartisan fashion, they created a culture of fear among Republicans in the legislature that has made the entire GOP caucus totally beholden to roughly 15 percent of the voting public. That would not be the case under an open primary system.

non-affiliated - I don't agree that an open primary forces non-affiliated voters to pretend they are anything. Put every candidate on one primary ballot and let voters pick the one they like the best. If the Democrats or Republicans or Greens want to nominate their candidate, then they can hold a caucus or nominating convention.

Steven's point is an interesting one. What happens if multiple candidates file for a primary election in a legislative race?

The fact of the matter is that the parties usually discourage contested primary elections, and in Oregon it is fairly rare to have more than 1 partisan candidate in a primary election.

Out of 120 partisan primaries for the state house in 2006, there was a grand total of 12 races with more than 1 candidate.

Sal Peralta: The preservation of Oregon beaches, the bottle bill, and other McCall era reforms emerged because of bi-partisan coalitions that no longer exist today because of the strong caucus model that has emerged over the last 30 years.

Sal, you're blaming "the strong caucus model" for something else entirely: the degree of extremism in the Oregon Republican electorate. That's what keeps a caucus together.

But this "fix" you're proposing doesn't actually fix that kind of extremism. All it does is shift it elsewhere, such as into the Initiative system, and all the Sizemore turds dropped on this State, which even members of the GOP caucus were too smart to support.

I'm sorry, but you're seeking a legal solution to a cultural problem - and that just plain doesn't work.

It's especially silly now, because voters on their own have begun to reject GOP extremism, so the strong caucus system is being swept aside. Just today we had a major contentious vote on sub-prime mortgage reform that did not break on party lines.

Destroying minor parties access to the ballot (even if Constitutional, which I doubt) is bad medicine for a problem that is quickly fixing itself.

Steven, I repeat the comment that I made to Neel earlier. You have been deeply critical of the role that 3rd party candidates play in spoiling elections. I find it ironic that you are now, in this context, offering a clear repudiation of that rhetoric.

The rest of your assessment is simply wrong, in my view.

If you broaden the electorate in the primary, you greatly reduce the chances of an extremist winning in the general in the majority of legislative districts that are currently non-competitive.

The "cultural phenomenon" you are describing is really an electoral issue. The 15 percent of people are electing Republican candidates in partisan primaries are basically the same 15 percent who voted for Al Mobley in 1990.

Kathleen

Point taken, but your individual example (and the examples of most of the people who post here) do not disprove the general observation about independents.

I knew I'd get that reaction; I do every time I post this information. But this is a longstanding empirical fact, based on more than a half century of survey research.

You can investigate this yourself; just go to sda.berkeley.edu, go to the archive, and there is an online statistical program that allows you to analyze the National Election Study.

Break down strength of party affiliation by anything you wish: media consumption, self-described political interest, number of political activities engaged in, political information levels, frequency of voting.

Sal, this statement: If you broaden the electorate in the primary, you greatly reduce the chances of an extremist winning in the general in the majority of legislative districts that are currently non-competitive.

Is simply not true, either theoretically or empirically.

Empirically, I point you to the examples (cited once again) of LA, also Fujimori's election in Peru. More are available in the Cox book.

Theoretically, here's why this happens.

Voters in the extreme ends of the ideological and political spectrum are much more committed to their positions and are more likely to turn out. Voters in the middle tend to be much more diffuse, more easily swayed, and are less likely to turn out, especially in a lower profile "primary" held in May.

Layer on top of this institutions: party organizations (of all ideological stripes); at the extremes, they are more disciplined and organized, which means they are likely to propose one or a small number of candidates. Parties and politicians in the middle are more numerous, and are less tied to existing organizations.

Consequence: you get more candidates splitting the moderate votes, and a smaller number of candidates at the extremes, holding firm to their followers (who are turning out at a higher rate).

Outcome: two extreme candidates proceed to the second round.

What it is not, is a partisan primary. Again, nothing in this proposal would prevent political parties from setting up their own partisan nominating process, as I believe is currently the case in Washington.

Yes, they'd have their own nominating process. That's what I have been saying - the Party would want to stop the chance of there being competing Dems and the potential for neither to make it to November. And it would likely end up being that the decision would be made by PCPs, Congressional District members, SCC members, etc.

So instead of the nearly 80,000 people who voted in the Multnomah County Dem primary deciding the Democratic nominees, it'd be the hundred or so PCPs that show up and take a vote. Yea, that's really giving the voters a choice.

Just in case things aren't clear...

An open primary is a primary election in which voters, "are not required to publicly choose one party or the other. Rather, they enter the voting booth and choose the party ballot on which they will vote in secret."[1] Hence, one does not need to be a member of a particular political party in order to vote in that party's primary. In particular, a registered voter of one party can vote in the primary of another party. However, one can vote in only one primary. For example, the Virginia Open Primary Law states that "[a]ll persons qualified to vote... may vote at the primary. No person shall vote for the candidates of more than one party."[2] Source

An open primary is still partisan - you're still selecting the party's nominee. You just don't have to be a member of the party to select their ballot.

This is what my home state of Texas has. You state which party you're voting with when you arrive to get your ballot.

Neel, as ED of the DPO, you have taken legal steps in the past to keep spoiler candidates off of general election ballots. Before accusing me of being disingenuous, please have the integrity to acknowledge that fact as a caveat to your vigorous defense of third party rights.

The "blanket primary" or "Cajun Primary" you and Lindependent are describing, is called a non-partisan primary in Oregon.

It is not the same thing as the open primary being promoted by 2 of Oregon's last 4 governors and 2 of the last 3 secretaries of state.

I believe that the real reason you object to the use of the term "open primary" to describe the kind of non-partisan primary that we are discussing is that you understand that it is less confusing to voters who can easily understand that a primary system that allows any voter to vote for any candidate in a primary election is "open".

The use of the term "blanket" in this context is opaque, and does little to help voters understand how this is different from a "closed" or partisan primary.

The antithesis of "closed", by any common understanding of the term, is "open", not "blanket".

Paul, Louisiana and Peru, the only examples you have given to justify your assertions are not top-two open primary systems. They are more similar to the non-partisan primaries that we currently have in many counties and municipal elections in Oregon.

I find it curious that you insist on drawing conclusions from such systems even though you have already acknowledged them to be different from the open primary.

I am not questioning the integrity of the people who disagree with me, but at the end of the day, I doubt I will come to a meeting of the minds since we simply have different goals in mind.

Neel, Lindependent, and Paul are primarily concerned with protecting the party apparatuses with which they are associated. My primary concern is allowing all Oregon voters to have an equal opportunity to vote for their candidate of choice in the May Primary.

Parties are simply a banding together of people with similar vaules to acheive common aims. In a sense, a club. If you have a problem with clubs, it's your choice not to join one but it's not realistic to rail against their existence or the simple fact that others recognize that many hands make light work.

This measure is aimed at blocking people from forming groups (called parties) to promote their issues and select their own leadership; it's basically looking to make parties irrelevant. But the main alternative to parties will be self-financed plutocrats like Mitt Romney or established politicians who already have sufficient name recognition to pull together financing and volunteers.

The measure is also looking to solve something that isn't a problem--"non-affiliated" candidates can already put themselves on the ballot and do. Sometimes partisans like me even vote for them. As for this measure, ask "just who does this benefit?" and the answer is "the short list of individuals promoting it."

Jenni, the fact that Texas calls its system an open primary in no way discounts the fact that the term may be equally applicable to other primary systems in other states that differ from that system.

The state governments in California and Washington have both used the term "blanket primary", "top two primary", and "open primary" interchangeably to describe systems that are virtually identical to the one being proposed here in Oregon.

Louisiana, which is dissimilar to Oregon, but which has been used by opponents to the system being proposed here as a basis for why Oregon's Open Primary is not a "real" open primary, also refers to its system as an "open primary". In Oregon, we call their system simply a "non-partisan primary".

Open Primary is a fair and accurate term to describe a primary in which any voter can vote for any candidate based on the plain and clear meaning of the words "open" and "primary".

What matters, is that voters who consider this proposal understand that any voter can vote for any candidate in the primary election, and that the top-two candidates will advance to the general election.

Actually, I don't know what they call it in Texas. I quoted the definition of an "open primary" and then said that it's what Texas has. I base that on the definition of an "open primary," not based on what Texas calls it.

By definition, an "open primary" is when you choose which party you want to vote with and you vote their ballot.

What is being discussed here is nowhere close to that.

Jenni, we already know that the wikipedia definition is not comprehensive, since we have 3 or more states that have used the term to describe systems that are similar to the one being proposed here in Oregon.

I don't think it matters so much what the states call it - it's a matter of what the definition of an "open primary" is. So I'' take it straight from the dictionary, then:

open primary

a primary in which any registered voter can vote (but must vote for candidates of only one party)

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition

<hr/>

open primary

A type of direct primary open to voters regardless of their party affiliation. Voters need not publicly declare their party affiliation but must vote for candidates of only one party. The opposite is a closed primary, in which only registered members of a party may vote.

The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Neel, Your defense of your actions with regard to Nader mirror your current argument about third parties and the open primary. Then, as now, you are using a false pretense to mask your real motivation.

I don't have a problem with your advocacy in either case, but your use of the word 'disingenuous' in this particular context has all of the moral force of the pot calling the kettle black.

open primary –noun a direct primary election in which voters need not meet a test of party membership. [Origin: 1930–35, Americanism]

As best as I can tell, the terms "open" and "closed" primaries predates 1930. The first reference I can find is by Ernst Christopher Meyer in "Nominating Systems: Direct Primaries Versus Conventions in the United States" (1902).

http://books.google.com/books?id=nCYSAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA333&dq=%22open+primary%22+ernst&ei=bEi_R67YCZS6iQHFlv3BAQ

Well worth reading if you want to better understand the etymology of the phrase.

Oregon has major problems in the way it conducts its primary elections: the Democratic and Republican parties are provided with elections that are funded, legitimized, and conducted by the state, by citizens including non-affiliated and minor party taxpayers.

Those elections exclude anyone outside the major parties, for all partisan positions.

Those elections are, in many races, the determining factor of who wins the office, because the district leans so heavily toward one party or the other; so an electorate that is technically limited by party rules, is limited even further by voting habits, leading to an electorate that is a tiny and non-representative sample. This "elite group" effectively chooses for the entire district, although everyone sees a "choice" (that is not really a choice) on the November ballot.

The major parties passed legislation (HB 2614, 2005) which went even further. Citizens' votes or signatures are now invalidated if they both submit a partisan ballot and sign a petition for somebody outside that party.

There are many ways to address these problems. I personally believe the Open Primary is the best way to do so. I welcome debate, but am disinclined to lend much weight to any argument that fails to acknowledge the problems listed above, or suggest a better way to resolve them.

To all you guys arguing over how to refer to the initiative, can I suggest you start another thread? I find it an enormous distraction from discussing the substance of a proposal that would change how our elections work. Believe it or not, there are probably people reading this thread with the intention of educating themselves about the proposal.

I consult for the Open Primary campaign, but I'm speaking for myself.

Those elections are, in many races, the determining factor of who wins the office, because the district leans so heavily toward one party or the other; so an electorate that is technically limited by party rules, is limited even further by voting habits, leading to an electorate that is a tiny and non-representative sample. This "elite group" effectively chooses for the entire district, although everyone sees a "choice" (that is not really a choice) on the November ballot.

So what happens if this change in nominating process goes through? The parties will then institute a process to nominate their candidates. Then the party PCPs in a district get together and nominate the one Dem who will represent them on the ballot.

So now instead of thousands of Dems voting in the district, you have a handful of people selecting who that candidate is. And since the district leans heavily Dem, that candidate will then win.

Even if we filled every single PCP position in the county, that would only be around 1,600 people. Almost 80,000 Dems voted in the '06 primary.

The ballots typically have more on them than just the partisan positions - there are usually some non-partisan positions like county commissioner, ballot measures, etc. There is still an election, some people just get more on their ballot than others. And yes, we're all paying for it. Just like people pay for schools they don't go to, roads they don't use, etc. We all pay into a collective that is then used for a variety of services.

If we want to truly open up the primary and look at allowing people to select which ballot they want to vote on, that's one thing. But this concept is completely different and totally changes the way we nominate candidates. And in the end, the candidates the public votes on are going to have been selected for them by an even tinier sliver of the population than the group that selects now (primary voters).

Jenni, I don't buy that scenario, sorry. If parties are so myopic as to do what you suggest very often (and I don't think they are), many of the good candidates who get frozen out of the process will run without the party's endorsement, or will seek the endorsement of third parties. Of course, the D's and R's would lose credibility if that were to happen, so there's a good incentive for them not to be as heavy-handed as you suggest.

No need to justify yourself to me, Neel. If you say that your concerns about Nader were limited to process, and that you had no other stake in keeping him off of the ballot in Oregon, then I'll take your word for it.

I didn't want him spoiling the race either.

As to the rest...

As to your claim that "minor party candidates would be forever excluded"...

Can you actually point to thousands of elections where the open primary system, as it has been proposed by Keisling et al, have been tried?

The only examples I can think of are nonpartisan municipal and county elections, where the data shows that 3rd party candidates are far more likely to get elected than is the case in legislative races.

If you need further proof, all we need to do is look at the Oregon House races in 2006.

Out of 52 contested elections, 4 minor party candidates finished in the top 2. Additionally, there were 8 races in which the partisan advantage was so great that there was no challenger to the incumbent.

So if 2006 was a "normal year", we can expect upwards of 1 in 5 races where we might see a minor candidate on a top-2 general election ballot.

Similarly, 2 of the last 20 gubernatorial races have seen a 3rd party or non-affiliated candidate finishing in the top 2 in a general election.

As to your questions about partisanship...

Legislative elections have changed a great deal since the 1970's.

For starters, we now have smaller single member legislative districts, which heightens the voter registration advantage for one party or the other.

Next, more money flows through caucuses than directly to candidates. I've spoken with most of the "targeted" candidates from 2006, and in most cases none of them could have raised more than $100,000 on their own. The remaining $200,000 to $250,000 either flowed through the caucus, or came as a result of intervention on the part of the caucuses.

This serves to heighten partisan divisions in the legislature since the caucuses and their candidates are now much more divided along the interests of the donors who fund the bulk of campaigns in Oregon than was the case in year's past.

An open primary cures both issues (partisan divisions along financial lines and lopsided districts) by broadening the electorate that selects candidates in the primary.

Kim Thatcher, for example, was clearly a strong candidate to beat Vic Backlund in a partisan primary. But it seems equally likely that Backlund would finish in the top 2 in such a district.

Given the choice between Thatcher and Backlund, it seems likely that voters and the special interests tied to Democrats would back Backlund.

Backlund, by virtue of where his support is coming from would be more likely to support those interests in the legislature, regardless of his party affiliation. The result? Bipartisan cooperation.

Are voters better served in such a district by having 2 credible candidates to choose from, or are they better served by having rules that artificially prop up weak major party candidates in such a way that the general election outcome decided in the primary, as currently happens in 55 out of 65 legislative races (or more) during a typical election cycle?

The difference being that everyone can send their children to public school and everyone can drive on the public roads if they want to. But not everyone can vote for Governor in the primary, even though they pay for it and even though they want to. They're being forced to pay for your party primary, but you won't let them participate.

Actually, it's the same thing. You can choose to affiliate with a party and vote with them in the primary. There are a lot of people who do this just for the primary and then switch back to NAV or to a minor party.

There would be an election whether or not our party primary was on there. There are county commission seats, the non-partisan statewides, local seats like Portland City Council, ballot measures, etc. However, turn out would likely be even worse than it is now. Which means you'd have nearly the same costs for a much, much lower turnout.

And like I said, this isn't about opening up the party primaries to everyone. I'm not necessarily against changing it so you can choose which party you want to vote for without having to register with that party. It was like that in my home state. There are some difficulties with that, but there are advantages too. However, that's not what this idea does.

It would end up taking the party primaries into a party nomination process where the one person listed as a Democrat/Republican has been put there by a very small number of people. And when I say very small, I mean it - an endorsement meeting of the Mult Dems is usually 100 or less. Almost 80,000 Dems voted in the Multnomah County primary in '06. Even if every PCP position were filled and came out to a meeting to vote, that's about 1,600.

I have little doubt that if this were to go through that the parties would start an internal nomination process. They won't want to see their party potentially not in the race in November because of a vote split by multiple candidates.

Jenni- which is it? Either:

• Political parties are meaningful alliances of like-minded folks, and we should respect their right to freedom of association, and their autonomy in their decisions.

Or:

• Voters should be encouraged to choose a party for strategic, rather than philosophical reasons; if you're a conservative in a heavily Democratic district, you should join the Democratic party if you want to have a voice.

Can't really be both ways. I tend to favor the first, seems you're favoring the second. Is that accurate?

Jenni, on your final point, just to clarify how the system will work:

Any candidate who is registered with a party will have that party listed next to their name. Regardless of whether they have been "nominated" (actually, endorsed) by that party.

In addition, if a party endorses one or more candidates, those candidates will have that party (or parties) listed as endorsers next to their name.

So I can still run as a Democrat, even if the Democratic party doesn't nominate/endorse me.

Yes, the parties could use threats or other coercion to try to chase me off the ticket if they want to...but they can do that already, no?

Your idea about opening up nominations to NAVs or other parties is, I think, not something that can be mandated by law without running afoul of the Constitution. A nice enough idea, but unless you have a plan for persuading both parties to adopt it, not something we can count on.

Pete:

No, that's not what I'm saying. You should definitely join the party (or no party) that you agree with the most.

Under the current system, if you want to vote in a party's primary to choose their nominee, you need to join their party to do that (and obviously you'd be joining that party for philosophical reasons since you're choosing to vote for their candidates - there must be something you like about them). You could join just for the primary. But the fact is you're participating in choosing the party's nominee for the office.

If we go to a true open primary system, then you would be able to vote either the Repub or Dem ballot if you'd like if you're NAV and potentially if you're with other parties. That would all depend on the rules set up - some states allow only NAV to do this, some allow NAV and minor parties, and some allow all.

But if we go to the system that is being talked about here, the party primary gets taken out of the election system. It would instead becomes a process decided upon within the party, where a very small number of people are selecting who would be the party's nominee.

In addition, if a party endorses one or more candidates, those candidates will have that party (or parties) listed as endorsers next to their name.

So I can still run as a Democrat, even if the Democratic party doesn't nominate/endorse me.

Endorsements by the party often times don't mean a whole lot in the primary. A big piece of that is it being in the voters pamphlet, which often has to be in before county parties would vote on endorsements. Which means no one really knew. If it was on the ballot next to the person's name, candidates that didn't get it would be extremely likely to drop off the ballot. And I'm sure you'd see a lot of encouragement to do so. And that's assuming that there doesn't end up being court judgment that says the party can decide who is on the ballot in their name, and therefore you can't have more than one D, R, etc. on the ballot.

Also, this proposal changes other rules too...

If there is a vacancy in the state legislature, their replacement does not have to be from the same party. I guess that's great in Multnomah County where we could easily replace a Republican legislator's seat with a Dem since our county commission is heavily dem/progressive. But what about other areas of the state?

If there are less candidates for PCP than there are spots, there will be no election listed. A good half of PCPs often come from write-in candidates. And it's often not until they get the ballot for PCPs that they realize there is such a thing and they could be one.

It also says the term of office for a PCP shall be four years. This is a problem since most county parties elect officers at a re-org meeting either yearly or every other year. You must be an elected PCP residing in the same precinct or an adjoining one to vote at re-org. You end up losing a lot of potential voters the further away you are from the election of PCPs.

People really should go through and read the entire thing to see what all would be changed if this passes.

Miles:

No, what you're talking about is a true open primary - where NAVs and minor party people have the chance to vote on either the Republican or Democrat ballot. Then they get a say in who one of the (potentially) top two finishing candidates in November will be. As has been pointed out, sometimes one of the top 2 are indeed a minor party person.

But if things change to this system of no party primary and a top-two type system, the party will have to devise its own system. And there's no way it can afford caucuses around the state. That would cost more than the entire budget available for everything the Party does. And it gets complicated because you can't do it by county because many seats run across county lines. It would likely end up being the PCPs who vote, as they are the elected (or appointed in case of vacancies) representatives of each precinct to the Party.

Jenni: that makes more sense, but I still don't agree. Just because a single candidate I support in a single election cycle happens to belong to a certain party, doesn't mean I want to join that party.

The more we discuss this, the more I realize that my main problem with the current system is the concept of "nomination." Nomination implies that a group has some kind of special access to determining what gets on the ballot. That is the thing have a problem with. Endorsement is fine; any interest group can endorse, by whatever process they like; parties should be no exception. Nomination also implies some kind of deliberation, and it's hard for me to understand how the unrelated voting of the diverse and dispersed people who join a party passes for deliberation.

I've kind of lost track of what your objection to Open Primary (the initiative presently being discussed) is. I understand that you have a problem with O.P. as a moniker, that's fine. But I'm unclear on what your problem with the substance is. I get that it'd be hard for the big parties to conduct endorsement meetings; but no harder than it is for minor parties right now. Leveling the playing field has its consequences; I think the parties are resilient enough to adjust.

Sal Peralta: Steven, I repeat the comment that I made to Neel earlier. You have been deeply critical of the role that 3rd party candidates play in spoiling elections. I find it ironic that you are now, in this context, offering a clear repudiation of that rhetoric.

I have indeed been critical of third parties on the left, acting in the capacity as spoilers. Speaking of ironies, I'm not I'll ever get over the role of the Green party in preventing Al Gore from being elected President.

I think I'm on fairly solid ground when I say that's the stupidest political move in US politics, since, well, maybe ever.

That said, Sal. There is a difference between being critical of and attempting to pass a law to unconstitutionally disenfranchise third parties. I may not agree with them, but they're Americans. They have a right to have their voice heard, and their names on the ballot.

And I find it ironic that you, a big proponent of the independence of voters, choose to ignore that serious defect in this proposal.

Pete:

I have several problems with it.

Yes, the minor parties do nominating conventions. It's something that is most often done for statewide positions. Once you get into districted races, you start running into all sorts of problems since you need the people voting to actually live in the district. If you're voting on state reps, state senators, statewide offices, U.S. Rep, and U.S. Senator, things get extremely difficult. Minor parties have much smaller numbers- the largest is around 14,000. There are 756,221 Dems and 685,677 Republicans as of December 2007. If you allow all party registrants to come to the nominating event, whatever it may be, you either have them all over the state, which is expensive, or you have one big one that then limits the number of people participating from some areas of the state. The process will be an absolute mess.

I think the way it would end up being done would be through a vote of the PCPs. Maybe it would be through a mail ballot sent out by the Party. In that case, a very small number of people are choosing the nominee for the Party. Like I said, best case scenario in Multnomah County would be 1,600 (extremely unlikely since we're usually in the 400-500 listed PCPs and 200-300 active PCPs range) PCPs voting on something 80,000 usually vote on. This limits voter participation - it doesn't increase it.

This makes it hard on incumbent legislators, especially if we go to annual sessions. They can't raise money during the Session, which means in the months before their election they couldn't raise a dime. Neither could Future PAC or SDLF.

Minor parties are shut out of November. Right now they can hold a nominating convention or an independent candidate can gather signatures to be on the ballot in November. November is when voters are paying attention, more engaged, turn out twice has high (or more), etc. By knocking out the minor parties in May, you don't get to have their ideas out there to people when they're listening the most. Many of these candidates run knowing they'll never win, but can have the opportunity to influence the race, get their voice heard by the most people, and the like.

This initiative changes more than our nominating process. It changes how state legislative vacancies are filled, how long a PCP's term is, and more.

These are just a few reasons why I'm against it. Like I said, if someone wants to bring forward the idea of real open primaries (as have been defined by the courts) where you can vote on either primary ballot regardless of your registration, then that's something I could potentially support (it's all in the details - some states do it better than others). I mean, right now 22% of those who have voted in the presidential primaries have been from independents. It could very well be because of them that Obama gets the nomination. That's probably the first time that's happened, and it's great to see a larger portion of the population getting to have a say.

But in my opinion, the changes to our nomination system actually decrease the amount of the population having a say in the first round of the election.

And I find it ironic that you, a big proponent of the independence of voters, choose to ignore that serious defect in this proposal.

I do not agree that allowing any voter to vote for any candidate in a non-partisan primary disenfranchises anyone. Parties can still have their nominating process, and I am generally optimistic about the idea that an open primary system will result in stronger (albeit fewer) credible challenges from minor parties.

As I've said elsewhere, this is something that reasonable people can agree to disagree about.

Jenni and Steve, let's talk constitution for a sec. I have explained several times how (a) the present initiative is not subject to the same constitutional objection as the system in Washington, and (b) a law that requires parties to perform nominations based on the input of NAVs would likely be unconstitutional.

Thus far, neither of you have addressed those points, but continue to make points that I believe are incorrect. It's possible that my understanding of the constitutional issues is incorrect, but I don't think so.

So what's up?

I can see plenty of ways the pieces of this item could end up in court. I hear people say it can't be challenged, but that isn't necessarily the case.

One outcome of such a case could be that a party could chose a single candidate to represent them on the ballot. Which gets me back to the point of this lessening people's say, not increasing it.

It should be called a "top two" system because it is clearer and more accurately descriptive of what it would be.

The desire to call it an "open primary" is a transparent propaganda desire akin to rightwingers calling a regressive flat tax a "fair tax."

Another example of an extremist getting on a ballot in a system something like this is Jean-Marie Le Pen's making it to the second round of presidential voting in France, which is done with a "top two" system based on party nominees of mulitple parties.

Jenni raised a concern way up thread that no one has come back to, which is the fact of much lower turnouts in primaries than generals. I think this shifts the problem of selection by fewer for a greater number but doesn't fundamentally change it.

I also wonder why it should be restricted to "top two." If you really want to open it up, why not every candidate who gets more than some threshold (15%, 20%, 25%)? Top two could easily result in situations where top A was 30%, next B was 27%, next C was 25%, next D was 19%, but most of D's supporters would prefer C over A or B given a choice among the three.

Instant runoff would be a better approach.

Pete Forsyth: Jenni and Steve, let's talk constitution for a sec. I have explained several times how (a) the present initiative is not subject to the same constitutional objection as the system in Washington, and (b) a law that requires parties to perform nominations based on the input of NAVs would likely be unconstitutional.

On your item (b), I completely agree. Fusion voting is constitutional, but forcing any group to accept the opinion of outsiders as its leaders and/or standard bearers is simply not under the Oregon Constitution. I'm not even sure by what bizarre logic the Supreme Court allowed it under the US Constitution.

And your point (a) is moot. This measure has another much clearer Constitutional violation: Article 1 Section 14 states that general elections must be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November - not during the primary. Because this measure disallows names on the ballot during November, that ballot held during November is therefore not a general election.

In other words, while it is Constitutional to eliminate Primaries entirely, changing the nature of the general elections held in November simply is not. In the current system, Primaries put absolutely no limitation on who can run in the general. You can always run under your own name (and/or own party) if you want (that's what happened with the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party on the East Coast). You don't even have to run in the Primary if you don't want to. But this "Top Two" system violates that, so it's unconstitutional.

LT,

IRV is not a great priority to me, but I agree with Lindapendent that it would be a better solution to the problems the top two proposal says it aims at, because it would not cause some of the new problems top two would create. Any system can be gamed; our current one can be and has been.

Personally I don't think it would be hard to explain to most people. I've given lectures to church basement groups on HIV/AIDS in Africa and on the civil wars in the Sudan, both of which I assure you are more complicated than IRV. Rotary Clubs typically are made up of business people who handle more complex things daily -- if you can work an Excel spreadsheet you can understand IRV. City Club regularly sponsors studies of much more complex issues and then debates them. Ordinary people quite regularly learn much more complicated rules for board or card games.

Whether ordinary people see much of a problem with the current system is of course a different question. Would lots of them be interested enough to pay attention? Maybe not.

I guess the question you don't quite ask that worries me more might be the risk of disfranchising people who get confused, like the folks in the Florida districts in 2000 with the "butterfly ballots." The instructions on the actual ballot would need to be very clear and state clearly that you may choose to express only a single preference.

Your question about districts with only two candidates applies to pretty much any system, doesn't it? All of these systems are aimed at situations with more than two. I would venture to say that a substantial majority of Oregonians live in districts with more than two candidates (and of course larger units such as congressional districts may have multiple candidates while encompassing smaller units which may be of the sort you describe).

That an issue is irrelevant to the situations of a minority of Oregonians is no reason not to address it if it is relevant to the rest -- indeed an issue irrelevant to a majority which is serious for a minority ought to be addressed, such as the rural healthcare access crisis or the timber compensation payments. We have laws that differ for municipalities of different sizes because they have different needs. This is no different.

It may be that folks who live in perennially one or two candidate districts would see IRV as irrelevant to them -- I can imagine some voting against for that reason, some abstaining, and some supporting the principle because they think it would be good for other parts of the state.

Personally I don't see any problem at all with the alliances you describe in response to Lindapendent. I think they could be a rather good thing, actually. But maybe I'm missing something.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by county clerks "finding flaws in the implementation." If I were going to seriously propose an IRV measure for either an initiative or by seeking sponsorship in the legislature certainly it would make sense to consult with county clerks about potential problems they could see & be open to adjusting a proposal accordingly, as it would also make sense to research the experience of jurisdictions where it has been applied for lessons to be learned.

On the other hand, I don't think county clerks should have some sort of veto over questions of reforming the electoral system if there are problems with it, nor that their convenience should outweigh questions of fairness, equity, encouragement of participation and so on. (This is a general statement & not just in relation to IRV).

This whole debate is interesting and at the end of the day I am not sure what I think about Miles' arguments on the one hand vs. freedom of association arguments. I grew up in a closed primary state and it seems pretty natural to me as a result; the idea that people from other parties or no party should get to choose the candidate of a party seems weird to me. It may be that parties should pay the state for running party primaries; on the other hand, it may be that in fact a majority of Oregonians want the state to run primaries (as opposed to caucuses to which parties might turn depending on cost) & that NAVs paying taxes that go to that isn't really different from many other situations where taxes go into a general pool out of which come payments that benefit some but not all of the people for one public purpose or another.

Neel Pender states:

Nader's troops led by the litigous Dan Meek didn't like the outcome and essentially tried to wage a PR and legal battle to force the state to let Nader on even though they were afforded MULTIPLE opportunities to qualify legitimately.

In fact, I had no role in the Nader effort to get on the 2004 ballot, until after the SoS rejected the signatures. I was then hired to appeal that decision. The appeal prevailed in Circuit Court but failed in the Oregon Supreme Court.

Also, calling an attorney "litigious" makes as much sense as calling a doctor "medical." Yes, litigators do litigation. Doctors do medicine. Each describes the person's profession. Attorneys are not "litigious." Their clients may be.

BTW, you might want to spell check your comments in the future.

Proponents of IRV couldn't even pass it in Ashland. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but I've seen polling on both IRV and Fusion (which I would also support), and let's just say that spending a million dollars to move public opinion from 30% to 50% + 1 is something of a stretch.

The real question isn't whether IRV is better than a top-two open primary, the real question is whether a top-two open primary is better than the current system.

Reasonable people can agree to disagree on the latter question, which is a matter of practical policy consideration since there is a strong possibility that voters will be asked that question in November. The question of whether IRV or fusion or a top-two open primary is better is purely academic.

I favor a top-two open primary over both IRV and fusion because it is simpler. "Any voter can vote for any candidate in the primary, the top two advance to the general election."

Also, the top-2 open primary creates a sort of fusion voting since parties can cross-nominate candidates in the general election ballot, and have the party endorsement appear next to the candidate's name on the general election ballot.

Finally, I repeat the earlier statement: If a top-2 open primary is similar to our current system of non-partisan primaries, and if the open primary really does disenfranchise 3rd party candidates, then how do people account for the fact that there are many more 3rd party candidates elected to public office under the non-partisan system than the current system?

Lindapendent: ORS 249.048. Eligibility of unsuccessful candidate ... No "Oregon for Me Party" possible.

If that statute were ever subjected to a court challenge, it's highly unlikely it would survive. Fundamentally, any scheme that forces a Primary to be determinative (i.e. placing preconditions on what is allowed in the General Election, rather than merely advisory by affixing party "branding" labels), it's in deep Constitutional trouble.

Steve, most states have sour grapes laws on the books. What case law do you base your assertion on?

Steve,

Glad to see you're backing off your previous arguments about constitutionality. Your new concern does seem like a potential problem, but it is also a technicality -- relying on specific dates and definitions of certain kinds of elections. I don't have the legal knowledge to get into that, except to address it in a more general way. The intent of the passage you cite seems to be that everybody should have a shot at getting on the ballot, and that voters have a genuine choice. The Open Primary initiative brings us much closer to those ideals; if it does so in a way not contemplated in the Constitution, I'd be inclined to call that progress. I'll leave it to the lawyers and courts to argue the legal case.

I will bow to your opinion, Lindapendent, if only because what I learned was from a class on the subject 25 years ago. I still believe that removing even the possibility of having a write-in candidacy is unconstitutional, but heavens knows, this isn't the first time the courts have surprised me by seeming to take the reverse position to the plain meaning of the text.

Sal, can you clarify something for me? A couple of times you write a variation of this: Paul, Louisiana and Peru, the only examples you have given to justify your assertions are not top-two open primary systems. They are more similar to the non-partisan primaries that we currently have in many counties and municipal elections in Oregon.

I don't see the difference. In application, the top-two primary being proposed here functions precisely like the system in Peru and in Louisiana.

Multiple candidates from multiple parties are on the first round ballot, and only the top two candidates move onto the second ballot.

The only difference w.r.t. Louisiana is the provision that a candidate that receives greater than 50% in the first round wins automatically.

In practice, that is a distinction without a difference.

The predicted effect of these systems on how candidates will behave and on how voter preferences will be translated into the final outcome is the same--the 50% cutoff just chops off one set of candidates in the first round and does not bother running a second round.

The only time the two systems will deviate is when a first round candidate who receives more than 50% is then defeated in the second round, and I'd assert that this empirically is a very small percentage of the real world.