Merit pay for teachers? I can tell you right now that teachers at West Linn and South Eugene will get better test scores than in Woodburn and Jefferson. Does that make them better teachers? Bill Sizemore seems to think so.

These schools in lower SES areas are already at a disadvantage for retaining good teachers. This would make it even more difficult.

"Merit pay for teachers? I can tell you right now that teachers at West Linn and South Eugene will get better test scores than in Woodburn and Jefferson. "

I thought they were tested within the same district. DO you have a solution for grading the ability of teachers then?

The devil is in the details on merit pay. There's nothing inherently wrong with the approach. However, paper qualifications don't equate to good classroom performance, and the earlier commenters are correct that standardized test performance also is a poor measurement tool.

The bigger issue is the "brain drain" of good young teachers from lower performing schools in communities with poor support of their schools (eg Lebanon) to higher performing schools in supportive communities (eg South Albany, Corvallis). To be blunt, a good teacher makes a bigger difference in a "bad" school than in a "good" one, but all the incentives are for moving to the "good" school. We should be paying good teachers more for going to lower performing schools.

Sue,

You're right -- it's not an "Open Primary" where you can vote in a party primary whatever your party registration. What is being proposed by Keisling, Paulus and Co. is correctly called a "Jungle Primary". The state best known for the jungle primary is Louisiana, where former KKK Wizard David Duke faced the corrupt Edwin Edwards in a battle for governor. Simply calling it the jungle primary would go a long way toward defeating it IMHO.

Interesting that currently 18 year olds can't vote in School Board Elections. Anyone know why that's in the constitution? Or can anyone think of any objections to this being changed?

What about local measures? The entire media fell down on the job in the primaries, apparently not even aware of the issues that appeared on the ballot, issues that confused everyone once we saw them.

Sal,

Most Oregonians associate the phrase "Open Primary" with a system like Washington state. What is being proposed by Keisling and Paulus is NOT the same as the one in use in Washington state. What IS being proposed is a nonpartisan blanket primary (aka jungle primary).

Incidentally, the term "jungle primary" does not originate with me -- and Louisiana is currently the only state where the jungle primary is currently in use. This is the system that has given us the spectacle of a creationist like Governor Bobby Jindal as governor of a U.S. state.

I'm most troubled by the measure about legal contingency fees. I'm not a lawyer, but I do believe in the basic tenets of capitalism. Businesses, especially non-essential businesses like legal advice, should be allowed to charge whatever the market will tolerate.

I find it interesting that consevatives who think any regulation of business is socialism are so keen on regulating law firms, which are small businesses. I can't imagine any other industry where conservatives would argue strenuously for price fixing. Why have they abandoned the principles of the free market?

"We could talk about grading the ability of teachers, but the standardized test outcomes of students don't measure teacher ability."

OK, do you have an objective way to measure teacher's merit? I'd like to be able to encourage good teachers and help poor teachers become better, but if you can't measure performance how od you tell?

Measuring teacher performance is one of the difficult challlenges facing education right now. However, taking a system that we know is very flawed "just because we don't have a better idea" isn't the right approach.

Its also pretty well established that parents have more to do with classroom performance than teachers do. That's not to say that there aren't bad teachers out there, but it explains why lower SES communities tend to have "underperforming" schools. It has less to do with the teachers in those areas than the support that many students get at home.

See my post on this at: http://www.loadedorygun.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=1220

Dave, you are right. Some parents read to their kids, make sure homework is done, are in regular conversation with teachers, enforce discipline ("if I hear that you are disrespectful to your teacher..." or telling a teacher that certain behavior by their child will not be tolerated). Others don't do it(or can't if they are working 2 jobs, or whatever.)

Toledo has a peer review system to weed out bad teachers, but it relies on more than standardized tests. But Sizemore wouldn't like it as it was developed by the teachers union as a quality control measure.

The merit-pay-for-teachers proposal is nonsense. There are no reasonable standards I know of for measuring teachers' performance; the folks promoting this measure will of course blather about standardized tests. Guess what? Some of us are parents of bright kids with learning disabilities who perform poorly on tests--standardized or not--owing to time constraints.

Beyond the point above, we all know that the merit-pay scheme is simply one more attempt by the wingnut ideologues to demonize public employees and union members, and to destroy public education...BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. And since they can't do it via a frontal assault, they try stealth, over and over and over.

An Open Primary is a non-partisan primary.

Sal - What do you mean by the term non-partisan? Since presumably every candidate is a supporter of a cause, faction or ideal, and most are members of a political party, how does the term even make sense?

I'd argue that partisanship is the most important feature of democratic elections. After all, what's the point of an election where voting does not indicate support for, or rejection of, a party, cause, faction or ideal? A truly "non-partisan" election would be a "non-election" election.

"I'd argue that partisanship is the most important feature of democratic elections. "

Have you noticed the number of people who refuse to choose a major party when they register? Or the folks who register with a party to vote in a particular primary but may not remain registered with that party in years to come?

For that matter, what did partisanship have to do with this year's AG election?

I live in a legislative district where in 2006 an underfunded challenger kept a well known incumbent to a victory margin roughly half the number of voters registered outside major parties. Was that a partisan election, a reflection on the 2005 session and the party in power then, or about which of 2 individuals the voters decided to back?

God damn Phil Keisling and Norma Paulus. their "open primary" idea is simply assinine. for chrissakes, if you support this, get your head examined. we have political parties for a reason. Keisling, please promptly remove head from butt. if this passes...i dont even want to think about it. Phil, you're in outer space on this one buddy. get a clue.

Kari said:

As usual, right-wing conservatives dominate the field.

I know you didn't mean to group the Open Primary folks into this group? Last I checked, Phil Keisling and Norma Paulus were NOT right-wing conservatives. (I'm just givin' ya grief)

My personal feelings. We should be much more concerned about Russ Walker, Kev Mannix, and Bill S.

PS - Paulus is a Republican but she ain't no nut-job.

Anything sponsored by Mannix, Sizemore, and Walker gets a NO vote - regardless of the issue. it is time to stop them abusing the system for thier own personal and childish attitudes. Also, anything refereed to us by the legislature that SHOULD HAVE been dealt with during the session and not sent to us because they were too lazy to resolve it themselves. We put them in Salem to work, not to be lazy. Just because they can't do thier jobs does not entitle them to shift it to us and then blame us later.

No on everything!

Last I checked, "dominate the field" isn't the same thing as "are the only members of the field".

If I did vote yes on anything, it would be the open promary. It was given to us by Phil Keisling, and the legislature had nothing to do with it coming to us for a vote.

I have not studied this initiative yet, but I did not like Keisling's last effort. Still, Sal is right to object to the term "jungle" to describe the plan, though opponents may want to try to pin that name on it. "Jungle" has plenty of emotional charge, but little rational informational content. I have quite a bit of political experience, but have no idea what makes a primary jungley. It sounds dark and scary though.

Eric P. - Changes to the Oregon Constitution must to be referred to the voters for approval.

LT - My point is that being a partisan means more than belonging to a major political party. Anyone who supports or opposes a cause, faction or ideal is also a partisan. That’s why a non-partisan election is a nonsensical idea. And yes I think that the AG's race was an extremely partisan affair since different factions backed different candidates.

"The parties will hold some sort of nomination process outside the ballot and will choose the candidate who will represent their party that way".

And you know this how?

Jenni, as I have said many times before, any argument against open primary has to explain why it wouldn't have been for the common good in the District 25 primary (2004, as I recall) when Kim Thatcher defeated moderate Vic Backlund.

"The party" wasn't behind her--many were supporters of Vic Backlund--but that was right on the heels of the Measure 30 election, and that whole volunteer base was behind her. Backlund only lost Marion County by something over 200 votes, and arguments have been made about different campaign decisions which could have helped him win Marion County (I have no understanding of Yamhill County politics.)

The candidates filed that year were Thatcher and Backlund for Republicans and Pike on the Democratic side. As I understand this measure, the ballot would have been given to all voters, with the names Thatcher, Backlund, and Pike. Many people who were not going to give up the right to vote in a Democratic primary just reregister GOP to defeat Kim were upset with the result. I believe in that situation, the vote would have been Backlund, Pike, Thatcher--so those 2 men would have been on the fall ballot, and Kim Thatcher would have been out of luck.

"The party" cannot do anything without the actions of individuals. Having been involved in a few replacement nominations (vacancy on the ballot), I believe any party action would be determined largely by the actions of the party officers, rules committee, and pct. people. Are you thinking that appointed pct. people would have a hand in actions of "the party" in your scenario, or only elected pct. people?

A friend of mine was once state Rules Comm. chair. That committee is generally a very hard working group concerned with concrete specifics, not just theory.

What leads you to believe that county, cong. district, or state central comm. would create a caucus system? Would the votes be there among those with the power to create such a system--how can you know without knowing who is involved? If this passes, any such decisions would be made by those elected at Reorganization meetings. As I well know (was nominated and elected to state central comm.without being asked first if I would serve) sometimes surprising people get elected to party office. And you know how those people would react?

One more thing: people who are not registered with a party will be allowed to vote on this proposal. Is it your position that parties deserve to maintain a monopoly on voting and if anyone doesn't like it they can register to vote in a party primary the way people did to vote in the presidential primary? If so, say so. But please don't tell us how you know the actions of State Central Comm., 5 cong. district. committees, and over 30 county parties will play out here in Oregon. No one can know in advance how all those people would react to the passage of this measure. There are those who admire Phil and Norma and don't like the current management of parties.

Again, why is the majority of this conversation so focused on the Open/Jungle primary? Have you seen the garbage Mannix, Walker, and Sizemore have put out there?

They didn't need to canvass & gather signatures (wholly) in rural and conservative places for the signatures either. I saw them all around downtown Portland getting plenty of folks to sign to get this garbage on the ballot.

I'd be most worried about teacher pay and union dues

"the folks promoting this measure will of course blather about standardized tests."

OK, explain to me why universities insist on MCAT, PSAT, LSAT, etc. to determine who goes to school or not?

Again, if you have a better method to sort out which teachers are doing well and which need help, I think voters are open, we just haven't heard it yet.

Jenni, you say this has been discussed by county parties. Does that mean if I talked to the chair of the Marion or Polk county Dems, or to someone in another county farther away from Portland, they will say they have discussed this? I belong to a Yahoo Group of one local party which sends out emails to those who sign up for the service. Can't remember this ever being discussed.

And about this: "Having spoken with plenty of people within the party ever since this came up some years back, it has become obvious real fast that the parties will come up with some system in order for members of the party to choose their party's nominee."

"Plenty of people within the party" are specific individuals--a party does not make decisions, specific people do. Let's (for the sake of discussion) call them Pam, Ray, Edie, Richard, Sam, Wayne, Judy, Mary, Larry and some others.

Could it be that, say, Pam, Ray and Larry look at the election result and say it is time to discuss it openly and not blindly go in one direction?

My point was that in the next re-organization, even if Edie, Richard, Sam, Wayne, Judy, Mary, Pam and Ray are all elected to party office, there may also be people elected with a different point of view(if not from Mult. Co., perhaps from counties with people who admire Phil and Norma, or have friends who got fed up and registered NAV). Do you know for a fact that the state or county parties would create a caucus system for, say, legislative nominations? How exactly would that work in districts which rarely have primaries, and if so only 2 people? Do you know the steps it would take to create a caucus system? Has the current Rules Committee done the research necessary?

It is one thing to say there are people who oppose Phil and Norma's measure who have been active in the party. But I know how change can come quickly after Reorganization. Most recent example: Jenny Greenleaf defeating M. Botkin for DNC member. Imagine that level of change happening in everything from state chair to county officers, not to mention leadership of some of the standing committees, and you will know what happened at the various re-organization meetings after the 1984 elections.

I gotta tell you that there were former legislators at the Public Comm. on the Legislature debating this: Phil and Norma did the presentation for the idea behind this ballot measure, and others did the same for other ideas like IRV.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/pcol/final_report/Part12SupInfoCommSummaries.pdf Page 9 will give you a paragraph about what the relevant committee decided about open primary. There were highly partisan individuals (current/former legislators and others) on the Commission. And yet, if you use the URL http://www.leg.state.or.us/pcol you will discover that one of the pieces the commission proposed was open primary.

I was on State Central Comm. for 4 years, and a friend was once Chair of the Rules Committee. What you suggest will not happen overnight, there might be legal concerns, and even if there are absolutely no changes in state or county central committee leadership, no one will be able to snap their fingers and create a caucus system. There would be a very detailed process to react to this measure if it passes. And unless that process took place out in public where everyone could see, it would violate the ethic of an open party ---which, in the case of delegate selection rules, has been part of party rule since 1964.

I know all the background of why party presidential primaries are supposed to be closed to people who aren't registered Democrats. But, contrary to 1984, in 2008 states like Wisconsin did allow independent voters to vote in the presidential primary, and I understand why.

I understand why people oppose this measure, but I knew Phil and Norma each before they became Sec. of State. They were great moderate legislators who believed in open process. But parties in the last few years have not been as open--PCOL was more open to the general public.

The legislature has been too polarized and caucus-driven in recent years. No, it was not like that when Phil and Norma were legislators. Actually, when Norma was a legislator there were 10 women in the House in a year when it was split something like 31-29. This was in the 1970s before the common sense modernization of laws which created such things as fair credit reporting. Much like the "5 under 35" legislators in 2007, the 10 women were a voting bloc. Since they were not all of the same party (imagine a political spectrum wider than the one from Minnis to Merkley) they formed a bloc more powerful than either party and were able to pass some amazing legislation.

In recent years, the legislature has been more about "my caucus right or wrong" rather than about passing legislation. There were many quality legislators elected prior to the formation of groups like Future Pac, and maybe this measure would help bring those days back. No opponent of this measure seems to want to address the District 25 scenario which gave us Kim Thatcher.

Focus on Walker, Sizemore and Mannix is right.

It would be fantastic to see a progressive measure, one to counter Sizemore's tax initiative, for instance.

An initiative to eliminate entirely the deduction for federal taxes paid might do it.

Of the 41 states with broad-based income taxes, only Alabama, Louisiana and Iowa allow an unconditional full deduction for federal income taxes -- as would Sizemore's regressive initiative. Only three others join Oregon, and permit taxpayers to deduct not all, but a portion of the federal income taxes they pay.

A large or unlimited deduction for federal taxes advantages the wealthy; it lowers their taxes, and without it showing in the state's tax rate tables.

The Sizemore excuse for granting this advantage is that it constitutes "double taxation." But if double taxation is the real concern, why does the initiative not address the “double taxation of wage earners by allowing a deduction for payroll taxes? It seems these aren't the taxpayers Bill Sizemore is concerned about. The only Oregonians his initiative will help will be those paying more than $5500 in federal taxes.

The question facing Oregonians in November, clearly put, is whether they wish to cut taxes by nearly $400 million in order to benefit the least needy of their fellow citizens. Do we really want to pay the price of reduced government services and crumbling public structures in order to lower the taxes of the richest Oregonians?

Instead of embracing Bill Sizemore's proposal, Oregon should join the vast majority of states and allow NO deduction for federal income taxes. Between 1989 and 2002 four states eliminated or scaled back the deductibility of federal taxes. In Oregon, however, we increased the cap on the federal deduction from $3000 to $5500 and then indexed the cap. If we were to reduce our cap back to $3,000, we'd have $140 million a year to pay for kids' health insurance. Reduced it to zero, as in most states, we'd add nearly $400 million a year in revenue - that could give us back a decent university system or pay for more jails, if that's what we vote that we value most.

Only Louisiana and Nebraska have heretofore used nonpartisan elections (aka "open primaries") to elect their state legislatures. One would be hard-pressed to show how those two legislatures are improvements over any other state's.

During California's failed 2004 "open primary" campaign, a state judge forbade it from being called "open primary" in the Voter's Guide. (California voters first defeated this monstrosity in 1915, as did North Dakota voters in 1925.)

If the "open primary" is such a great idea, why is it that only Louisiana has heretofore used it to elect all of its state and congressional officials? (And Louisiana has this year restored party primaries for its congressional elections.)

Washington state's "top two" (a much more accurate term for it) faces more litigation in the future. The first round is scheduled for August 19, but the 9th Circuit is considering whether to block it.

"OK, explain to me why universities insist on MCAT, PSAT, LSAT, etc. to determine who goes to school or not?

Again, if you have a better method to sort out which teachers are doing well and which need help, I think voters are open, we just haven't heard it yet."

Actually, many universities are dropping the SAT/ACT requirement because of the flaws. What you're promoting is using a system that doesn't work just because "we don't have a better idea." Sometimes, standing pat for now is better than implementing a "solution" that doesn't work and is bound to fail.

Looks like a decent list. I'll vote for most of them. Merit pay looks like a good thing to try, not even sure why we need any years of non-English instruction in public schools much less 2 years, and the union dues proposal makes sense.

Regardless of the issue, I am really disturbed by the fact that these propositions are on the ballot because of the industrialization of the process. Two or three men in our state make a living from coming up with ideas for propositions that are popular with out of state companies, start the petition process, get paid by these out of state companies to do it, and profit from the voting system. If an individual cannot sell his vote, then why can these men get paid to collect petitions? It seems morally corrupt to me.

I'd like to know when the judicial branch of the government is going to stand up for itself and rule that mandatory sentencing violates the third branch of government's rights and roles in the legal process. Unless a mandatory sentence is codify in the Constitution, then a judge, as the third branch of government, is not bound to followed that "rule" imposed by the legislative branch. Common sense dictates that mandatory sentencing rules violates the separation of powers rule in our state and federal constitutions.

First, one thought: Bill Sizemore et al. are intent on turning Oregon into Alabama. To a fair extent, they already have.

More important. Please indicate on your list which measures are constitutional. Having spent two years researching the Initiative and Referendum process, I can tell you that I will NEVER AGAIN vote for any constitutional measure unless it applies directly to the structure and responsibilities of the government or the rights of its citizens. This includes progressive as well as conservative measures.

A short review of the Oregon State Constitution will reveal that it is fraught with ridiculous measures allocating funds, reducing taxes, splitting up lottery revenues, telling people whom they can marry, and many other things which have no business in any constitution.

Fellow citizens, review your history classes. Reread the United States Constitution. Renew your understanding of what a constitution should and should not do.

It may be difficult, if not impossible, to clean up Oregon's constitution, but we can, at least, stop polluting it even more.

Rick York

"I am really disturbed by the fact that these propositions are on the ballot because of the industrialization of the process. Two or three men in our state make a living from coming up with ideas for propositions that are popular with out of state companies, start the petition process, get paid by these out of state companies to do it, and profit from the voting system."

That's why you vote NO on everything. Eventually they will get the message that NO means NO and it should be respected as such. Just because you have enough money to do an initiative, does not entitle you to go forward and abuse the system.

No on everything!

"Fellow citizens, review your history classes. Reread the United States Constitution. Renew your understanding of what a constitution should and should not do."

...The constitution is a bluprint to interpret the law - not BE the law. If anyone remembers what happened with the Volsted Act and alcohol, you will see the point.

Thats why you vote NO on everything....and then we won't have to worry about any repercussions.

Sal Peralta says, "The open primary as envisioned by Keisling, Paulus and the rest is not that different from the systems that most Oregon counties already use for commission, city council, judge, etc."

Nonpartisan elections ("open primaries") are fine for local and judicial elections. Local officials are almost totally concerned with providing services, which is why the big majority of US municipalities use "open primaries" to elect their officials.

State and congressional officials, in contrast, are involved with policy issues, which is why almost all states empower political parties to officially nominate candidates for those offices. Additionally, the national parties often get involved in state and congressional elections, which they don't in local elections. (Louisiana has had elections in which the national party and the state party backed different candidates for the SAME office.)

Why should the voters be limited to two choices in the final, deciding election? In a system of party primaries, each party may have a nominee in the general election. And there is no limit on the number of independents who can run in the general election.

California has had "open primaries" for its county and municipal elections for almost 100 years. But the voters there have wisely rejected this system twice for higher offices, in 1915 and 2004. In 2004, it carried only seven of California's 58 counties.

Sue Hagmeier says, "... [nonpartisan elections ('open primaries')] allow an outright win with over 50% in the Primary. (Mandating that a successful candidate run the equivalent of two general election campaigns will certainly be a boon to the political consultant/mailing sales industry.)"

The big difference between the Louisiana "open primary" and the Oregon/Washington setups is that a Louisiana candidate who gets 50%-plus in the first round is elected to office, whereas there is ALWAYS a second round in Washington/Oregon. It makes little sense for a candidate who gets, say, 80% in the first round to then have to undergo a second general election campaign.

The "double election" mandate also discourages candidates from running, since it makes campaigns more expensive. In recent years in Louisiana, two ex-governors have considered running but decided against it. If Louisiana had had party primaries, they likely WOULD have run, which would have given the voters more choices.

When the two runoff candidates are from the same party: not only is that party split, but all other parties' faithful voters are disenfranchised.

Suppose two teams from the same conference played each other in the Super Bowl. What if the two World Series teams were both from the same league?

LT, Focus and others,

the reason the open primary thing is getting so much room here is simple - this is BLUE oregon. enough with the nonpartisan posturing, this is a democratic site. and basically very VERY few here will consider ANYTHING from sizemore et al. hence, no need to really discuss it.

The open primary idea, however, IS coming from so called "progressives." and it is a HORRIBLE idea. if anyone can tell me anything good about it, I will show you a misguided person without all the facts. the open primary system as designed by keisling is a BAD idea. should i say it again?

it will utterly disenfranchise third parties COMPLETELY. think about it: third parties WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RUN. unless they come in the top two during the primary. a primary is not and never should be a system for disenfranchising candidates unless they belong to a political party. it is there choice to run 1 candidate not mine. as an independent i utterly resent the idea that only 2 people should run for a SW office. it is HORRIFIC. did you even consider any of this Phil? This is such a misguided idea i am utterly baffled as to why anyone would find it rational to support it. I've heard straight from Phil last time he brought this idea up, and i'd like to hear from him again - WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU THINKING THIS TIME?

Eric, when you said, "That's why you vote NO on everything. Eventually they will get the message that NO means NO and it should be respected as such," you're dreaming. These guys are making a LIVING off placing ultra-conservative propositions on the ballot. They are paid by out of state supporters regardless of whether the proposition is passed or not. The state of Oregon has attempted in the past to curtail the commercialization of the proposition process, but the federal courts have bowed to the White House and sided with the out of state lobbyists. I don't have a solution, but I can tell you that it is immoral.

Two or three men in our state make a living from coming up with ideas for propositions that are popular with out of state companies, start the petition process, get paid by these out of state companies to do it, and profit from the voting system.

This is precisely the message that should be on the airwaves this fall.

The cabal wins simply by forcing unions and others to spend money and energy to run a dozen different campaigns, arguing the merits of each issue. This is money and human energy that would have been spent on other, closer races.

Instead, there needs to be a coordinated campaign that will hammer Sizemore, Parks and Mannix directly. Put the question to the voters: Haven't these men caused Oregon enough problems?

John

"Sometimes, standing pat for now is better than implementing a "solution" that doesn't work and is bound to fail."

OK, then compare schools 20 years ago with now and tell me what direction standing pat moved us.

Unfortunately, life is a series of tests whether at school, or for a job exam, or even applying to the state for a driver's license.

"Also, there would be issues like, should you be measuring absolute test scores, or progress at the end of the year from where students were at the beginning of the year. "

Chris, there is another point. This quote brings up an issue some do not want to discuss.

There are some schools where you could take the roll sheet from the first week in September, and the roll sheet from the end of May, and the names would be the same (perhaps give or take one or 2).

However, there are schools where there is such turnover for a variety of reasons (new kids coming in, kids moving, etc.) where the kids tested at the beginning of the year are not the same kids tested at the end of the year--Johnny moved, Karen arrived, that sort of thing.

And about schools 20 years ago and schools now? 20 years ago the schools were often better funded. The adult-child ratio was much better in many places.

And anyone who doesn't think ratio is important should be in a schoolroom as the only adult with 30 kids, or in a school age after school care situation as the only adult with 15 kids and THEN talk about these issues. I've been in both situations. I was a substitute 20 years ago, and I know what classrooms were like then. I hear there are some K-2 classrooms where the ratio is one teacher (no assistant unless there is a volunteer), and I know from student teaching in a small town school (in California where they had public school kindergarten 40 years ago) with that ratio, it is very difficult to deal with. My supervising teacher dealt with it by having student teachers--one for morning kindergarten, one for afternoon. She was an excellent teacher, but what standardized test of kindergarteners should have been used to judge her as a teacher?

"However, there are schools where there is such turnover for a variety of reasons (new kids coming in, kids moving, etc.) "

OK, how about comparing teacher effectivenes via testing within just that school. I don't think anyone ever said we should expect the same thing from Lake Oswego vs. ROosevelt (not to pick on either, but theya re probablyh extremes of achievement.)

However, if testing doesn't work, then how do we help bad teacheers become better or do we just make excuses like not enough taxes for the next 50 years? And even if funding is the issue, there are still bad teachers and good teachers.

Nonpartisan elections ("open primaries") are devastating to minor parties and independent candidates. If you look at Louisiana's "open primary" experience since 1975, as well as Washington's experience (1936-2003) and California's experience (1998-2000) with the blanket primary, you'll see that independents and minor party candidates almost never reach the second round.

If a minor party's message is kept out of the final, deciding election, the party loses its main reason for existing.

Jesse Ventura, who was elected governor of Minnesota as a minor-party candidate, got only 3% of the total vote in the party primaries. If Minnesota had an "open primary," Ventura would not even have reached the second round.

California has a number of minor parties, and they campaigned hard in 2004 against Prop. 62, the "open primary" initiative. This was a factor in its defeat, 54% to 46% (another factor was that many Californians did not like the possibility of having two candidates from the same party in the runoff). The "open primary" lost in 51 of the 58 counties.

Sal you are ENTIRELY misguided if you think this open primary idea will be a benefit for third parties. ENTIRELY. it simply will not. the idea is so poor it boggles my mind. i guess you'll just have to learn for yourself.

Ya know....if there is such a stink over open primaries, why don't we just say NO and then we don't have to worry about it.

Sal,

I really do not need substantiated facts my friend. The open primary as being pushed is INHERENTLY UNDEMOCRATIC. i need no more reason than THAT to not support it. However, in an, i assume, futile attempt to convince you of the wrongness of this measure, i will do my research and see if i can find "facts" to back my assertion that this is a bad idea - especially for third parties.

it is inherently undemocratic for one VERY simple reason - - it allows ONLY TWO candidates to run in a general election. this alone is bad enough for me to not support the idea.

hey, if I'm wrong on my "fact" there, by all means, let me know. but as i understand it, there would be ONLY 2 candidates in a general election. now, by definition, this disenfranchises a third party. perhaps, perhaps, not minor parties, but third parties and even second parties for sure. i just do not understand how you can support something that seeks to limit the number of candidates running. you are attempting to redress a wrong by a greater wrong.

i say it again. this idea is assinine.

"Giving every voter a vote is inherently undemocratic?"

excuse me? what kind of newspeak is this? i expect this kind of talk on right wing blogs, but you have got to be kidding me.

what on earth are you talking about?

hey sal, let me clue you in on something. every voter ALREADY has a vote.

i dont know wtf you are talking about.

i suppose you are trying to say that giving non 2 major party affliated voters a chance to vote in one of the 2 major parties PRIMARY election is giving them a vote?

yeah, good luck with THAT. if you go that angle you are no better than sizemore my friend. that is the biggest BS line i've heard in a good long time.

look it up Sal, you got the right to vote. end of story. how a political party determines its candidate has NOTHING to do with it. you are simply attempting to inflitrate and redesign a system for your own purposes.

it is a bad idea and it is a terrible idea for third parties

Local officials are tasked with providing services, and the national parties don't get involved in local races, so what difference do their party affiliations make?

However, as to state and congressional officials: (1) they are involved with policy issues, and (2) the national parties DO get involved in those races. Louisiana has had instances of the national party and the state party endorsing different candidates for the SAME office in the SAME election.

Lots of local officials in the US are chosen in nonpartisan elections, especially in municipalities. But only Louisiana has heretofore used "open primaries" to elect all of its state and congressional officials (and LA has now restored party primaries for its congressional elections).

Washington state is this year implementing the "top two" (a much more accurate term than "open primary"), but it faces more litigation.

For years, Louisiana did not have any minor parties. Recently, with the return-- after 30 years-- of congressional party primaries, three minor parties have re-appeared there.

California used a blanket primary[1] in 1998 and 2000. No minor party member, or independent, polled first or second in any primary. California also has used a blanket primary in all special elections 1967 to the present. Again, no minor party member, or independent, ever placed first or second. Obviously there is an exception in the cases in which only one major party member was running. (This paragraph refers to state and congressional elections. California has used "open primaries" [nonpartisan elections] for all of its local elections for nearly 100 years.)

In Washington state, I looked at all state and federal elections 1980 until Washington stopped using the blanket primary in 2003. There was only one instance when someone other than a Dem or a Rep ever placed first or second (again, ignoring the obvious cases when only one major party member was running). That was a legislative race in 1996 with 6 Democrats and one Reform Party member. The Reform Party member placed 2nd.

In Louisiana, in all the years since 1975, no minor party member ever placed first or second. There were a handful of instances when an independent placed first or second in state legislative races. Once more, of course, there is the obvious exception that this doesn't apply to races with only one major party member running.

Even Audie Bock, the Green who was elected to the California legislature in 1999, only placed third (8%). Under blanket primary rules, she still advanced to the runoff, which she won. And I always like to mention that in Minnesota's open party primaries of September 1998, Jesse Ventura only got 3% of the total primary vote, yet he was elected governor in November.

<hr/>

[1] Blanket primary: all candidates of all parties are listed on a single ballot, with the top vote-getter from each party advancing to the general election.

There is no genuine reason to even have a primary, if the initiative passes. The primary should simply be abolished. There should only be an election in November, period. That way, no candidate is shut out of the intense campaign season (September and October).

The traditional function of primaries in federal and state elections has been for parties to choose nominees. Since the initiative eliminates that, why have a primary at all?

Richard, I agree with you. The US is the only party-dominated representative democracy that has primaries, with poor results and participation. The British/Canadian/Australian system is far more efficient in that regard.

I agree that it should just be a one-round election, if the initiative passes. This would make it possible for each party to have at least one candidate in the final, deciding election.

Regardless, parties have the First Amendment right to nominate candidates. It's just that, in the "open primary," the ballot is not limited to one candidate per party per office.

Sal: It sounds like one or both of Oregon's major parties need to do a better job of recruiting candidates. That's not the fault of the system.

Why should the voters be limited to just two choices in the final, deciding election?

And don't forget that write-ins are allowed on the final election ballot, so there's no guarantee that the winner will get 50%-plus of the vote, even if there are only two candidates listed on the ballot.

It's my understanding that non-affiliated voters (navs) are not now allowed to vote in Oregon's party primaries for state and federal offices.

When the commenter asked "why have a primary at all?", he was obviously referring to state and congressional elections.

There are two States where legislators are selected at an election in which all candidates run, and which all voters may vote. The two States are Nebraska and Louisiana, and Washington will join them this November.

Both Nebraska and Louisiana have a two-stage process. In Louisiana, if the leading candidate in the first election receives a majority, then the 2nd election (runoff) is not held. In Nebraska, a 2nd election is held between the leading two candidates, even if one candidate receives a majority in the primary.

The other difference between the two is that in Nebraska, candidates do not have partisan labels on the ballot, while in Louisiana they do.

So what makes Louisana's system a "jungle primary"? Is Nebraska's system a "jungle primary". And what about all the cities and counties that use non-partisan elections with or without a runoff? What about Washington's election of the Superintendent of Public Instruction or judges? Are these jungle primaries?

Certainly, we can use disjoint descriptions for objects. For example a light can be "on" or a light can be "green" or a light can be "diffuse" or "burnt out", but they aren't as useful for classification - Is the light "green or on"? Yes.

So let's go with "jungle primary" for any system in which all candidates compete in a single election, regardless of partisan labels or lack of partisan labels.

So what will we call the other type, which are limited to candidates of one party. Perhaps "zoo primary", to evoke the case where the giraffes and wildebeests and donkeys and elephants are kept apart in separate enclosures or cages. If we need to further distinguish between primaries in which only non-members of a party are barred from voting, we might call it a "caged or 'closed' zoo" primary, and the other type an "'open' zoo" primary similar to an open-plan zoo where the animals are not kept in cages, but rather in cleverly disguised enclosures that give the illusion of openness.

Simply use these terms, insist they are the proper terms and they did not originate with you. Given an example of a devil-worshiper of your choice that was elected under such a system as to why it is bad: "Edwin Edwards was elected governor of Louisiana under both the closed zoo and jungle primary systems - therefore elections are bad."

It seemed to help back in '06, so here goes again:

FROM TODAY'S PORTLAND TRIBUNE

Open-primary bill gives pause

SOAPBOX: Consider long-term effects of shortsighted idea By MARK ELLIS Issue date: Fri, Jun 16, 2006 The Tribune

It was a Sunday afternoon, typically a downtime at the dog park, but thunder, lightning and a torrential downpour had thinned the ranks of dutiful dog owners and their pets to almost nothing. There was one gentleman present who had no dog. Who had braved the weather that day, not with a leash and pooper-scooper in hand, but a petition and pen. He visited each dog owner in turn, attempting to gather signatures to get the Open Primary Initiative on the ballot for the November election. His talking points focused on the general apathy surrounding primary elections, the ostensibly unnecessary costs involved in holding a primary in which voters can only cast votes for those in their own parties and the stranglehold that closed primaries put on moderate candidates who don’t appeal to the polarized interests of the major parties. Wouldn’t it be better, he posited, to have the primary vote open, allowing for the crossing of party lines and then having the two top vote-getters go head-to-head in a general election runoff? What the petition gatherer was not bringing to the forefront of his pitch was that the measure, if enacted, could theoretically completely eliminate a major party from contention in a general election. Political scientists have surely run the numbers on this, and probably could say in a heartbeat if, in the history of Oregon’s elections, there has ever been a time when using such a system would have spelled doom for the hopes of any party. Theory aside, it is possible to crunch scenarios from the recent primary and conclude that it could happen. What if Ron Saxon, now the Republican candidate for governor, had only narrowly bested Kevin Mannix for the GOP nod, and their distant third-place finisher had siphoned off more percentage points? Given Mannix’s close race against Gov. Ted Kulongoski in 2002, this was not an inconceivable outcome. What if the final GOP percentages were 40-39-21? On the other side of the aisle, it doesn’t take a herculean stretch, given what many Democrats think has been an undistinguished first term for Kulongoski, to imagine challenger Jim Hill doing much better than he did, with the final percentages on the blue side of the ticket clocking in at 49-41. Under this scenario, the Republicans would have been denied a voice in the general election. Should the generally left-leaning electorate in Oregon’s biggest cities manage to evolve their existing near-hegemony over Oregon politics, it is remote, but conceivable, that Republicans could be aced out of contention in many partisan general election races. Now turn the tables. What if this were red-state Kansas, and an open primary promised the same perennial exclusion of the Democratic Party? Open primary advocates say theirs is a nonpartisan quest, but it is worth a pause to wonder if they’d be out slamming the dog park turf on a Sunday afternoon if it meant ensuring that Saxton, Mannix and their conservative antecedents could potentially represent the entirety of Oregon’s electorate, in as close to perpetuity as politics gets. Further, the extinction of third-party candidates from “Top Two” elections is a foregone conclusion. The petition gatherer seemed to be encountering a good bit of skepticism and informed questioning that blustery day at the park. He got a couple of signatures and as many turn-downs, and was overheard to say that most people he approached just didn’t seem to give a darn. That’s a problem, for sure, but not one likely to be solved by eliminating choices, and the millions of Oregonian voices that could be silenced by this vaguely undemocratic dog of a bill. Portland writer Mark Ellis lives in Southwest Portland.

The vote in North Dakota was in 1921, and was held at the same day as a recall election for the governor (the last recall election for a governor before that of Gray Davis in California).

The two parties (this is not made up) were the Non-Partisan League and the Independent Voters Association. The Independents were advocating the recall of the Non-Partisan governor, and other initiated reforms, including non-partisan elections of the legislature. The Independent gubernatorial candidate was narrowly elected, but their proposal for non-partisan elections was narrowly defeated, but the two elections were closely linked.

Minnesota does not have party registration, so voters can choose which primary they want to vote in.

The year that Jesse Ventura was elected governor, the Democratic primary featured the sons of Hubert Humphrey (Minneapolis mayor Senator, Vice President, presidential nominee), Fritz Mondale (senator, Vice President, presidential nominee), and Orville Freeman (3 times governor and US Secretary of Agriculture). On the Republican side, the field had been cleared for former Democrat and Saint Paul mayor Norm Coleman, who faced only minimal opposition. Jesse Ventura was unopposed for the nomination of the Reform party.

Few people voted in the Reform party primary, and several times as many people voted in the Democratic primary as the Republican primary. When Jesse Ventura was elected governor, there were no Reform Party legislators elected, and they all received in the single digits, just as you would expect given their showing in the primary.

So we either have to suppose that Minnesotans are so stupid that if they were given a list of candidates and told to vote for the one they wanted to be governor, that they would ignore the instructions: "well yes I want Jesse Ventura, but he is the only one from his party, so I won't vote for him."

If Jesse Ventura wanted to be governor, and Minnesota had a Top 2 primary, he would have encouraged people to vote in the primary.

Washington did not have 3rd party or independent candidates on its blanket primary ballot for most of its history. These candidates were nominated directly by conventions, and adherents of the party were then free to vote for the nominees of the two major parties.

There was a satirical party whose candidates drew a few percent of the vote, and the system was changed, so that the nominees of the other parties were still selected at conventions, but then placed on the blanket primary ballot, where they had to receive 1% of the vote to go forward.

What is so important about making it to the "2nd round"? Since Oregon has vote by mail, the candidate could make a copy of the ballot and place it in his scrapbook. Years later, family lore will be that great-granddad was governor of Oregon, until one of the precocious children do some research and find out that "The Governor" had received 2 thousand votes.

What is the main purpose for a minor party existing? If it is to elect candidates, then they better be able to finish in the Top 2, if they expect to be in Top 1. If they want to be issue-oriented, they can simply support various initiatives.

The problem in California was that the legislature put a conflicting measure on the ballot, and confused the issue. Backers also lied about Washington State, where they said that the State had recently rejected a similar proposal. In fact, Governor Locke had vetoed the Top 2 primary that the legislature had passed. There was an initiative passed with 60% support at the same election (November 2004) as Prop 62 was defeated in California.

In 2000 in California under the blanket primary, the Libertarian candidate had the 2nd most votes in CD-26, and the Natural Law Party candidate came in 3rd. In CD-40, the 2nd and 3rd place finishers were reversed.

Louisiana has two elected independent legislators. That is two more than most States.

The Audie Bock case was a special election in which turnout for the final election was down from the primary, and a scandal had broke out after the primary. There was no reason to vote for Bock in the primary, since she was the only Green Party candidate (vs. 3 Democrats)

Some supporters of the 2nd place Democratic finisher voted for Bock rather than the winner of the primary. In a real democracy the final election would have been between the two Democrat candidates - unless you believe the reason for having a primary is so that the two lead cars can have an crash so that a trailing car can win the race.

May is a stupid time for a primary, especially given the large number of races that are effectively resolved at that time. The only good thing about a May primary is that it is better than a February or March primary where candidates must file for a two-year office less than 1/2 the period of the previous term.

If you want a more intense experience simply move the primary to September or October.

Here in my state, county and state judges and county election commissioners are elected on a nonpartisan basis. The first round of voting for those offices is in the November general election; if no one gets 50%-plus, a runoff is held several weeks later. (No party labels are put on the ballot for those races.)

No one ever calls those elections "open primaries" or even "primaries."

"Edwin Edwards was elected governor of Louisiana under both the closed zoo and jungle primary systems... "

The Louisiana system (popularly called the "open primary") is part of the residue of the old one-party (truly no-party) system, in which elections were decided in the Democratic primary, with a Democratic runoff if necessary.

In the 1971-72 election cycle, the great majority of voters were registered Democrats, and David Treen only had a token opponent in the Republican primary. Edwin Edwards deeply resented the fact that he had to undergo three tough elections-- primary, runoff primary, general election-- while Treen only had to run in an easy primary and the general election.

<h2>So Gov. Edwards pushed the "open primary" through the legislature, and it took effect in 1975.</h2>