Write-ins in primary races
It's official. John Kroger won the all-write-in election for the Republican nomination for attorney general. He'll appear on the ballot on one line, however: The Democratic one.
There was no Republican candidate on the ballot, so elections officials counted the 13,043 write-in votes.And Kroger won. ... Here are the final official results:
Kroger: 2,885
Macpherson: 1,391
Saxton: 883
Mannix: 317Kroger said he would accept the nomination, so no Republican will appear on the ballot. ...
Although his write-in victory makes a November victory nearly inevitable, Kroger still could face an opponent from one of Oregon's five minor parties. None have so far nominated a candidate, though.
There's an interesting tidbit in the story - about legislative races and write-in votes:
In fact, this year primary winners in 24 of the 75 state legislative races won the write-in vote of the other major party.In the Senate, it occurred in districts 5, 21, 22, 28, 29 and 30.
In the House, it happened in districts 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 21, 25, 31, 40, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 55, 56 and 60.
In another twist, two Portland Democratic primary losers won the Republican write-in vote: Gordon Hillesland, in House District 42, and Cyreena Boston, in House District 45.
But Hamilton said neither Hillesland nor Boston will appear on the ballot because of Oregon's sore loser law, which prohibits primary losers from running in the general election under a different party banner.
Discuss.
|
June 20, 2008
Posted in in the news. |
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
Jun 20, '08
Looks like a good case to look at, maybe, giving Oregonians a shot at Fusion ballot voting. (I call it Fusion ballot voting because I can not recall, right at the moment, the issue BO was talking about that concerned fusion voting some months back)
10:08 a.m.
Jun 20, '08
I love that we have a law referred to as the "sore loser" law, even if it's not precise (I'd call it more of a "no mulligans" law or somesuch).
Jun 20, '08
Evan, maybe we should call it the "Lieberman prevention law"!
Jun 20, '08
According to the Secretary of State's website, it looks like Peter DeFazio won the write-in election for the Republican nomination in the 4th district.
sos link here
10:59 a.m.
Jun 20, '08
Yeah, fusion voting would be an excellent reform. In short, it would mean that candidates could seek the nomination of more than one party. If they get more than one nomination, they'd appear on the ballot multiple times. The votes on each line would be reported separately - but then totaled up for the purposes of selecting a winner.
Like this:
Joe Conservative - Republican - 800 votes Joe Conservative - Pro-Life Party - 400 votes Lucy Liberal - Democrat - 700 votes Lucy Liberal - Green Party - 400 votes Lucy Liberal - Working Familes - 350 votes
In this case, Lucy wins 1450 to 1200. If it was just D vs R, she might have lost - or she might have won with the help of Greens and WFPs. But with fusion, she KNOWS that she won with the help of the Greens and WFPs - and will work hard to keep their support for the next election.
11:13 a.m.
Jun 20, '08
I'm not sold that fusion voting would really make that much difference. However, since it's a fairly simple reform that would cost virtually nothing and be fairly simple to implement, the lack of potential downside (unlike many other suggested reforms) makes me a strong supporter.
Jun 20, '08
This fusion voting idea confuses me. We've seen problems with overly complex ballots (remember the 'butterfly ballot' in FL's 2000 mess?) Would you need to have balloting by party to avoid that?
11:46 a.m.
Jun 20, '08
Ed -- read my above comment. It's not that hard.
Here's your ballot.
PICK ONE: [ ] Joe Conservative - Republican Party [ ] Joe Conservative - Pro-Life Party [ ] Lucy Liberal - Democratic Party [ ] Lucy Liberal - Green Party [ ] Lucy Liberal - Working Familes Party
Jun 20, '08
You forgot to add: []Barry Budwieser - Beer Party.
(had to have SOME fun here)
12:13 p.m.
Jun 20, '08
Sore loser law? Wish they had one of those in Conneticut in 2006, and today we would all be reading about the good works of Sen Ned Lamont.
1:00 p.m.
Jun 20, '08
Does the Oregon no mulligans law prevent an independent (old sense) individual candidacy? Because that's essentially what Lieberman did. He may have called it a party, but if another party nomination was not permissible, he'd just have defined his vehicle another way.
Kari, how would fusion work in primaries? Could a candidate run in the primary of more than one party? Typically in Oregon small parties nominate by convention or some other means without a primary, but I suppose there is some threshold percentage over which the state would have to run a smaller party primary as well as D & R?
Jun 20, '08
In SD30, I and some other Ds started a grassroots effort to write in Jim Gilbertson, who had nearly won in HD 59 in '06. I knew Ferrioli had won when I looked at the returns from Wasco COunty where we had made the biggest effort. Jim won 79 votes, but Ted won 81, and in fact won in most counties, except for Jefferson as far as I know. Ours was pretty much a last minute word of mouth attempt. Ferrioli apparently worked it. Jim himself received a letter form the Ferrioli campaign targeting Democratic farmers when the ballots hit. Without money or a major grassroots effort, it's tough to run a successful write in campaign against an incumbent, even against an incumbent from the opposing party
Jun 20, '08
Last minute word of mouth effort and Ferrioli only won by a few votes?? "returns from Wasco COunty where we had made the biggest effort. Jim won 79 votes, but Ted won 81,"
Kari, perhaps you can explain why fusion would be such a great idea for rural areas like SD 30 where it is sometimes fortunate that there is a candidate to run in each of the major parties?
7:04 p.m.
Jun 20, '08
LT, fusion would not be relevant to counties like that, but that is a small, even tiny part of the question of whether it would be good for the state.
The needs of Wasco county and many other areas away from the Metro area, or outside of the Valley from Portland down to Eugene, should not be ignored. They should be a matter of systematic concern for Democrats and progressives, and those of us who live in the metro PDX area, and in the valley (which includes you if I'm not mistaken) need to work harder and do better to make that true.
People in small population counties are a demographic minority, but the DP is in fact a coalition of a lot of minorities, more of which happen to be more geographically concentrated. The claims of the several rural constituencies (given our several rural ecologies) deserve as much attention as the claims of any of the other many and diverse minorities that make up the totality of us.
But that does not mean that things that might be good for a large majority of the population of the state should not be considered or adopted merely because they are irrelevant in some places. That's like saying 11 player football should be banned because rural school leagues sometimes need to use the 8 player teams.
If something about fusion actually threatened harm to rural communities, that would be a different question entirely. Do you think you see such harm?
10:24 p.m.
Jun 20, '08
Does the Oregon no mulligans law prevent an independent (old sense) individual candidacy? Because that's essentially what Lieberman did.
Yes. Connecticut, unfortunately, is one of the VERY few states that does not have a sore loser law.
I don't know what the most recent version of the fusion legislation says about cross-filing in both the D and R primaries. Can someone else help out?
Jun 21, '08
Here's my problem with fusion voting:
It might be the greatest thing in the world in certain circumstances. But how does it get passed and implemented? And how does it get explained to folks who are not political junkies?
"You want a new system of voting, and this will be good for us because....?". "Why on earth do we have to change how we vote and have all those parties?"
I live in and next to state rep. districts (blocks from the district line) where we are thrilled when there are valid candidates. These districts have been "purple"---held at one time or another by members of either party. The only time there was ever a valid 3rd party candidate was one time when one of the legislators had no Democratic opponent. This 3rd party candidate was truly independent--a local small town guy who ran as a local small town guy because there was no other opponent.
One district is rural with a bit of S. Salem. In today's terms, the last Democrat to hold the seat would be a Blue Dog Democrat. A farmer in a rural district. The best Republican ever to serve in that district (dumped by term limits)was a great guy but we didn't agree on everything. He was very good on issues including water quality, and better constituent service than maybe anyone else who ever served in that seat.
In such districts, it is not Joe Conservative vs Lucy Liberal. It may be the Republican farmer against the Democratic farmer.
I know there are folks here that don't like the open primary/ top 2 proposal. But it would have prevented Kim Thatcher from becoming state rep. by dumping a moderate R. And I think it would be easier to explain to the general public (at the Grange Hall, county fair, etc.) than either IRV or fusion.
11:55 a.m.
Jun 21, '08
OK LT, that's a pretty good argument against spending one's time actually working to get fusion, and a very good one that if one chooses to pursue it, you may not find so many other politically involved people interested in joining, because they're skeptical of the practical likelihood of success. Both important points.
But it isn't really an argument about whether it would be a better system or not.
One thing to consider is whether it would accomplish some of what "top two" is intended to accomplish, without the drawbacks like the Kim Thatcher one you cite.
Which partly comes back to my question about how fusion works at the primary stage.
I vehemently dislike "top two" anyway, whether or not fusion is better, btw.
10:54 p.m.
Jun 21, '08
But how does it get passed and implemented? And how does it get explained to folks who are not political junkies?
LT, sounds to me like you're recycling objections to some other plans out there.
To recap, fusion voting IS NOT A NEW SYSTEM. There's nothing to explain to anyone. Just like now, you vote for one person. That's it. (Except that you might see one person listed three times - under three parties. Pick one. Anything you like.)
One more thing: Fusion voting IS NOT A NEW SYSTEM. It was the way that all elections were done in Oregon for decades. It's specifically authorized in our state constitution - but the law was amended later to disallow it.
Oh, and how will it get passed? Legislators will vote for it. Pretty simple actually. In 2005, it passed the House and failed in the Senate. Not sure why it went nowhere in 2007. Too much other good stuff to do, I think.
2:10 a.m.
Jun 22, '08
I think Kari does know why the 2005 and 2007 Legislatures passed no bills allowing fusion voting. The 2005 House passed such a bill, as the House was under R control. The Senate, under D control, failed even to grant that bill a hearing. In 2007, both bodies were under D control, and neither passed a fusion bill. Clear enough?
2:13 a.m.
Jun 22, '08
I think Kari does know why the 2005 and 2007 Legislatures passed no bills allowing fusion voting. The 2005 House passed such a bill, as the House was under R control. The Senate, under D control, failed even to grant that bill a hearing. In 2007, both bodies were under D control, and neither passed a fusion bill. Clear enough?
Also, fusion is a technique for general elections, not for primary elections (except perhaps for general elections posing as primary elections, such as the "top 2" proposal).
Jun 22, '08
It's been a looooong time since I left the east coast, but anecdotally I remember fusion voting working pretty well in New York.
The most common thing I remember is that, given that NY is very liberal, they tended to have pro-choice candidates on the R line, so the Conservative Party became a haven for the pro-lifers. They and other small parties could leverage their voting block to try to move their issues with the major party candidates, which I think is a good thing.
I think even die-hard Democrats should support a fusion voting law in Oregon. In some ways that might be counterintuitive, because it could result in fewer people identifying as Democrats. However, I think it would ultimately get more of our candidates elected, which is our real goal.
John
Jun 22, '08
"I think even die-hard Democrats should support a fusion voting law in Oregon."
OK, John, how many Democratic audiences outside the Portland area have you presented this idea to?
John, I will support fusion voting when I see a legislative candidate (or for that matter even an elected legislator) from outside the Portland metropolitan area explaining it at a town hall meeting, answering questions, gaining acceptance. By that I mean a town hall meeting held in a school, in a church basement, in a Grange Hall. The advocates should be required to explain it to those ordinary folks. And then reporting here or elsewhere, "these were the questions, and the answer which satisfied most people was..." Voters have the right to be skeptical of ANYONE who says "we have a great idea, therefore it will work".
In many downstate areas, voters are thrilled to see candidates in both parties running for office--why change to some fancy system just because some people like this theory and say "It worked in NY"? My experience with people who say "this worked in another state, therefore it will work in Oregon" has NOT been "well of course we should adopt it and not ask any questions, because Oregon is just like every other state". Oregonians like to think for themselves.
(Too many times, I have heard advocates saying "are you saying voters are stupid and couldn't understand it?"
No, I am saying the family with kids and working parents, the small business owner, the people who don't pay much attention to politics are not required to adopt someone else's bright idea without the advocates educating them on it, and asking for their approval.
I can just hear "Now you want to change the way we vote because you like how it worked elsewhere?" And yes, I do think this is more complex than the top 2 primary measure which may or may not make it on the ballot and pass.
How would this have worked in the Dist. 24 race where Peralta lost by roughly the 3rd party vote (or close, if memory serves)? How would this have worked in 1996 (Jan. or November) when the Senator was elected by a number smaller than that the 3rd party vote?
So far, all I have seen from those advocating either IRV or fusion voting is "We think it is a good idea. You should adopt it and not ask any pesky questions".
That sounds like the dictatorial attitude of Minnis et. al and I don't see why that is a good procedure to change anything.
Don't "we the people" have the right to open debate on all aspects of changing the voting system? "We believe in it, that settles it" has never been (in my experience) the way to sell major change of any kind.
Jun 22, '08
Okay, great. No, I did not take my thoughts on a tour of rural grange halls before posting.
"We believe in it, that settles it" has never been (in my experience) the way to sell major change of any kind.
Uh, yeah. That sounds like what I said.
For the record, I care very much what rural Oregonians think of fusion voting. What you think of it, I couldn't care less.
John
11:18 p.m.
Jun 22, '08
LT,
It may be that those of us open to thinking about possible new ways to organize voting somehow have not hit the magic formula that would meet your approval because you want us to state the obvious.
Any effort to make any such change will require persuading people. I'm not saying anyone should do anything just on my say-so. Can you quote me where someone is saying that?
Someone said that fusion already is in the constitution and has been changed by statute, so I guess that in principle that might mean that the legislature could make this particular change without an initiative or a referral, though I don't know if what that person said is really true. In that case proponents would have to persuade enough legislators.
But more likely it would take persuading enough voters for an initiative. The most likely candidate for putting forward such an initiative would be the Working Families Party, which would tend to cross-endorse a lot of Democrats.
Why can't it be someone from Portland area coming to a meeting outside the area to make a pitch, try to explain a proposal in a straightforward clear way & answer questions? Saying, I'd like you to consider this, here's why I think it would be a good idea, what do you think, what questions would I need to clear up to persuade you? That really isn't dictating, is it?
<h2>On NY, there are less rosy views of the Liberal and Conservative parties as essentially patronage vehicles.</h2>