Dr. K's arguments should be carefully considered. Unfortunately, this measure "opens" the primary while closing the general election where the election actually occurs. Fusion or Instant Run-off Voting or both would be better, by far.

In addition, if this measure passes, the legislature will have to fix glaring problems with the processes the measure contains for replacing nominees or officeholders and repair the election process for PCPs. See my earlier comment and others on the broken details of this measure.

I voted "No" and I hope you will as well.

Measure 65 is political union-busting.

Very few Oregonians have Kitzhaber's political influence. Most of us have to work together with many others, learn the art of compromise, and spend a lot of time and effort organizing to create change.

Measure 65 denies those who do the work getting organized the right to choose their candidate. The net result will be that those who own the media or have the money and influence to control it will call all the shots. Average folks will be silenced, because there will be no point in working together if you can't choose a candidate.

Measure 65 is political union-busting.

Very few Oregonians have Kitzhaber's political influence. Most of us have to work together with many others, learn the art of compromise, and spend a lot of time and effort organizing to create change.

Measure 65 denies those who do the work getting organized the right to choose their candidate. The net result will be that those who own the media or have the money and influence to control it will call all the shots. Average folks will be silenced, because there will be no point in working together if you can't choose a candidate.

Measure 65 is political union-busting.

Very few Oregonians have Kitzhaber's political influence. Most of us have to work together with many others, learn the art of compromise, and spend a lot of time and effort organizing to create change.

Measure 65 denies those who do the work getting organized the right to choose their candidate. The net result will be that those who own the media or have the money and influence to control it will call all the shots. Average folks will be silenced, because there will be no point in working together if you can't choose a candidate.

Measure 65 is political union-busting.

Very few Oregonians have Kitzhaber's political influence. Most of us have to work together with many others, learn the art of compromise, and spend a lot of time and effort organizing to create change.

Measure 65 denies those who do the work getting organized the right to choose their candidate. The net result will be that those who own the media or have the money and influence to control it will call all the shots. Average folks will be silenced, because there will be no point in working together if you can't choose a candidate.

(Sorry for the double post, the site's acting up. Please remove the double and this note if possible.)

Rebecca,

Your concern is legitimate. But in recent Oregon history, there's only one race I can think of where party infighting appears to do significant damage: the fifth Congressional district. At least in that case, it's been Republicans, not Democrats damaging their chances. So I think the premise that Republicans will pick a candidate and fall into line is less certain than you suggest.

Like any new system, there will be some strategic adjustment compared to how things work now. This would happen under any kind of election reform.

Personally, I see lots of opportunity for using the ever-richer communications options for organizing and galvanizing public opinion around the best candidate. I suspect that whatever party or cause is best able to tap into those opportunities would do very well; not only at winning elections, but at tapping into the public's political will.

Imagine a campaign as distributed and volunteer-run as Barack Obama's under a system like this.

There are, of course, BlueOregon posters with a stronger grounding in political history than me, who take a different view. But I find myself wondering they don't seem to take into account the rapidly-changing communications landscape.

This is the only measure that I left blank. I was leaning towards voting against it but just didn't feel enough conviction either way to vote one way or the other.

The present system has significant drawbacks, IMHO. I very strongly agree with Governor Kitzhaber that exclusion is fundamentally wrong. But I remain unconvinced that M65 would be a better system.

Given my druthers I'd have modified the existing system rather than dumping it. Let NAVs (and only NAVs) participate in any party's primary. Otherwise I'd leave the present system as is. Seems to me that this would both address the exclusion issue while at the same time preserving the party's right to choose it's own candidate however it wishes.

Rural Resident, you say:

Wrong. Legislators aren't sent to Salem by the party members. They're advanced to the general election ballot by party members in those districts. They're only sent to Salem in an election the includes ALL registered voters in those districts.

I think you've missed the point. In general elections in East Portland, Democrats defeat Republicans with 75% of the vote and more. In Eastern Oregon, Democrats often don't even bother to run. These are not exceptional cases, but common outcomes; in 2006, half the legislative general elections were decided by over 60% of the vote, and a quarter were decided by over 70%. This cycle it looks to be even more lopsided, with 21 uncontested races in the House alone.

The meaningful decisions in these districts are made in the primary, when often a majority of voters in the district are excluded (anyone not registered with the majority party).

Generally, I am disinclined to post "THIS" type posts, since they really don't add anything. But rural resident really hit the nail on the head. This is perhaps the most muddle headed argument I've heard from Governor Kitzhaber, and his post clearly shows that he hasn't really thought all the implications of this law all the way through.

By the way, for anyone wanting to see the breakdown of 2006 or 2008 legislative races:

Oregon state elections, 2006

Oregon legislative elections, 2008

Whatever you think about the good or bad effects this measure might have, it is all conjecture. We have seen arguments going both ways, for example, concerning its effects on minor parties, neither having solid evidence to offer. (My own take is that the opponents' arguments come closer to substantiation than the proponents, but that's me.)

This measure is a statewide experiment. While some of its features have been tried elsewhere, other significant details are entirely novel. Voting for this is taking a flyer based on the proponents' claims.

And you can't argue that instant runoff voting would be an improvement and also argue for this, as it actually moves us the other direction in terms of discerning the majority's preferences.

So, the proponents' argument comes down to: 1. We have a serious problem (arguable). 2. This measure would fix it (also arguable). We also have to worry about the possibility (probability?) that it could make matters worse. The answers to that question tend to beg it and recycle back to 1 and 2.

I just don't think the case has been made.

k:

I've seen a lot of well reasoned arguments against it, and the "fearful" claim is offensive. There's plenty of "fear-mongering" on the pro side of this measure, including the ones such as yours that impute dire ulterior motives to those who oppose it. To ask "why are certain organizations so fearful of it?" is to mock the motives of those organizations. I stand by the questions I asked, which did not reference the motives of the proponents, despite my curiosity.

I hope you can see the logical fallacy here: If you don't like this proposal, you must fear change. It's not an answer, it's a dodge.

I've posted repeatedly on this subject, citing, among other things, electoral theory put forward by Kenneth Arrow, 1972 Nobel Laureate in Economics. There is good electoral theory to support the idea that this scheme would lead to reduced confidence that the majority's will is expressed in the final outcome under several likely scenarios.

As I said, the case just has not been made for this complete and experimental overhaul of the electoral system. Given the extent of the change proposed, there should be a lot more evidence that it leads to improvement of some kind. We have only the proponents' assertions on that score.

I'll also point out, once again, that "saying no to the primary" is not the same as being disenfranchised. Everybody has an opportunity to opt in or out of any primary or other nominating process of a party. Registration is just the first step in the nominating process. And saying that this scheme leads to greater turnout is just a claim. There is no evidence connecting this cause to that effect.

One premise of those who support this measure is that it will drive wingnut extremists out of business in Oregon.

The implications of such a premise are deeply disturbing in light of the cosmic reality that what goes around comes around. Would progressives like Republicans trying to engineer internal Democratic party dynamics? I can guarantee that the vast bulk of wingnuts don't see themselves as extremists but do see progressives as extremists.

k, LT:

1) We don't have a problem because the 20% (not 25%) who have "no say" in a party's nomination do so by their own free will.

2) The phrase "destroy democracy" didn't come up about this measure until "K" mentioned it. Clearly you hope to delegitimize opposition to this measure by lying about people with whom you disagree. I think this says far more about you than it does your opponents.

3) What opponents of this measure do, legitimately, argue, is that it leads to pathological electoral results. We've given specific examples from history, which you refuse to acknowledge because you assert that Oregon is supposedly an exceptional place where the normal rules of politics don't apply (and you provide absolutely no evidence for this dubious assertion). This appeal to arrogance (bash the French) is not convincing.

4) You also seem to think the onus is on the opposition to prove that this dangerous, stupid, system, is dangerous and stupid. You're wrong. The onus is on you to show how this system is actually better, which is something you have failed to even mention, much less argue.

k, LT:

1) We don't have a problem because the 20% (not 25%) who have "no say" in a party's nomination do so by their own free will.

2) The phrase "destroy democracy" didn't come up about this measure until "K" mentioned it. Clearly you hope to delegitimize opposition to this measure by lying about people with whom you disagree. I think this says far more about you than it does your opponents.

3) What opponents of this measure do, legitimately, argue, is that it leads to pathological electoral results. We've given specific examples from history, which you refuse to acknowledge because you assert that Oregon is supposedly an exceptional place where the normal rules of politics don't apply (and you provide absolutely no evidence for this dubious assertion). This appeal to arrogance (bash the French) is not convincing.

4) You also seem to think the onus is on the opposition to prove that this dangerous, stupid, system, is dangerous and stupid. You're wrong. The onus is on you to show how this system is actually better, which is something you have failed to even mention, much less argue.

Sue,

I largely agree with what you've been saying here, but there is one fundamental point of disagreement which I believe is very important.

It's true that "everybody has an opportunity to opt in or out of any primary or other nominating process of a party." But nobody has any opportunity to opt in or out of the tax dollars which pay for the party selection process.

I don't see a meaningful difference between an "they can opt in" hurdle and other means of restricting who can participate in public elections (birth certificates, poll taxes, etc).

A hurdle is a hurdle. If the parties want to restrict who can participate in their internal selection process then it seems to me that they are perfectly free to pay for their own selection processes.

k says: "Currently 25% of Oregon's voters have no say in who ends up in the final election. Personally, I find that incredibly UN-democratic."

This is wrong for many reasons. First, as others have noted, any registered voter can join a party and vote in its primary. Second, as no one has mentioned, any voter can join a minor party and have very great influence on the party's nominations merely by participating in party processes. M 65 abolishes that route to the general election.

Third, as no one has mentioned, anyone can collect about 18,500 signatures statewide and put a candidate on the ballot for any statewide office. For a legislative district, the signature requirement is only about 300 for a House district and 600 for a Senate district. Under existing law, your rights as a voter includes the right to sign a petition to nominate your own candidate to the general election. M 65 abolishes that right completely.

Sorry, but every new post on M 65 needs a reprint of the expanded version of my op-ed from the Oregonian (for those new to the conversation):

Measure 65 will destroy most of Oregon's minor political parties, reduce voter choices, confuse the ballots, reward dirty politicking, and fail to achieve the stated purpose of its sponsors: to elect more moderate candidates to partisan offices.

Measure 65 Destroys Most Minor Parties

Today, Oregon's six minor parties can provide good alternatives to Democratic and Republican candidates in the general election. But Measure 65, the "top two primary" on the November ballot, effectively abolishes the Pacific Green, Constitution, Working Families, and Peace parties by removing their legal basis (getting 1% of the vote in the previous statewide general election). Under Measure 65, these 4 minor parties will cease to exist as of November 2010. Each can continue to exist after that only if it has increased its registered membership to about 10,500 ( ½ of 1% of all Oregon registered voters). The Constitution and Working families would need to increase their memberships by a factor of 4 or 5. The Peace Party would need to increase by a factor of 100. The Pacific Green Party would need a 25% expansion of membership.

Measure 65 is intended by its sponsors to remove all minor-party and citizen-sponsored candidates from the general election ballot, including those supported by tens of thousands of voter signatures.

Remaining Parties Subject to Identify Theft

Under Measure 65, any resident can register as, say, a Democrat (up to the 70th day before the primary election) and immediately file as a candidate, with "Registered: Democratic" next to his name on the ballot. That person might be a Nazi, a Communist, a convicted child molester, you name it. Any political party can have its identity stolen in this way by complete strangers who suddenly take the party's name on the primary ballot.

Measure 65 will thus force minor parties to endorse candidates they don't agree with, just to oppose the strangers on the ballot suddenly displaying their party names. Minor parties currently don't field candidates for every partisan office, rarely nominating more than a few candidates for the 75 races for the Oregon Legislature, for example. To avoid having their party labels hijacked by strangers, each minor party will be forced to endorse major-party candidates in those races, even if they differ with the minor party on the issues. This will further erode the identity of each minor party, which is usually based on a coherent, but not “mainstream,” political philosophy.

Each major or minor party will fight the resulting confusion by endorsing a candidate in each race, since Measure 65 also allows party endorsements to appear on the ballot. No party would want to endorse more than one candidate per race, as that would split the votes of the party faithful and harm its endorsed candidates' chances to finish in the "top two" and advance to the general election. If voters were to follow these party endorsements, Measure 65 will, in effect, replace the major-party primaries with backroom endorsement deals.�

The "Ringer" Primary

Under Measure 65, primary elections could become a game of "ringers," with political consultants recruiting candidates just to split the votes of the other parties. Republican consultants could recruit people to register and file as "Democratic" candidates, splitting the Democratic vote. Democrats could recruit phony "Republicans." Both of them could recruit phony "Independents" and phony "Libertarians," further increasing the party identity theft.

Expect a confusing ballot, with a dozen or more candidates for each major office who are "Registered" and/or "Endorsed" the surviving parties. In primary elections since 1979 in Louisiana, the only state where the Measure 65 system has operated for a full election cycle, there have been nine, nine, eight, 12, 16, 11, 17, and 12 candidates on the ballot for governor alone.

Not Necessarily Advance Moderate Candidates

Measure 65 will not necessarily achieve the stated goal of its supporters--to advance moderate candidates to the general election. In Louisiana, it has advanced extremists, as the moderate vote is split among several moderate candidates in the primary. Ku Klux Clan leader David Duke has twice advanced to the statewide Louisiana general election. Of the 16 candidates for Governor in 1995, the top two (with 26% and 19% of the vote in the primary) were the two considered most extreme by conventional political observers. The organization FairVote states:

A Republican state legislator, Duke ran a strong second in the 1990 U.S. Senate election and gained a spot in the runoff election in the governor's race in 1991. In that 1991 runoff, he faced Edwin Edwards, a former governor with a history of suspected corruption. Indicating the polarized nature of the choice between Duke and Edwards, a popular bumper sticker in favor of Edwards was: "Vote the Crook: It's Important."

In the 1995 governor's race, sixteen candidates ran in the opening round, including four major candidates who ultimately won at least 18% of the vote. The two most ideologically extreme major candidates were Mike Foster, a conservative Republican who earned Pat Buchanan's endorsement and inherited much of David Duke's constituency, and Cleo Fields. a leading liberal Democrat in the Congressional Black Caucus. They advanced to the runoff election with a combined vote of only 45% of votes casts, with the more centrist vote split among other candidates. Foster ultimately was elected in the runoff election.

A Louisiana-style nonpartisan primary easily can produce these kind of results because in a large field of candidates, the top two vote-getters can have relatively few votes. In a multi-candidate field, this rule tends to favor non-moderate candidates with the strongest core support that can be narrow rather than broad.

Former Governor Edwards is currently serving a 10-year prison sentence for corruption.

For more reading on this subject, see:

http://www.nwprogressive.org/Special/Primary/ http://southerncrown.blogspot.com/2005/09/should-mississippi-change-its-primary.html http://southerncrown.blogspot.com/2004/10/will-washington-and-california-cross.html http://www.fairvote.org/irv/louisiana.htm

People like to bring up the cost, but the fact is that ballots would have to be printed and elections held even if we completely removed the partisan primaries from the election and made the parties handle their nomination process.

There are a number of non-partisan elections that happen in May every 2 years, not to mention president.

What would the effect of moving them off the ballot? You'd see much, much lower turnout in the May elections (which is an even bigger problem if the double majority item doesn't pass).

Plus, you'd have a much smaller population of people picking who the nominee for each party. For instance, in Multnomah County it could be a few hundred to maybe a thousand or two, as opposed to 85,000+.

There are plenty of problems with our current system, but M65 does nothing but bring in more problems. There are other solutions that are much better than this - and yes, I have been actively lobbying for some of those changes.

I just have a real hard time believing that the parties aren't going to do everything they can to limit the number of candidates on the May ballot. And once that happens, people will have even less choices than they do now.

Particularly interesting is that some prominent Democrats support M 65, when I think it will hurt the D party most of all. Governor Arnold in California apparently agrees, as he is now puhing a nearly identical top-two primary proposal for 2010. See http://www.politickerca.com/node/See

How does it hurt Democrats the most? It degrades the value of "Democrat" on the ballot by allowing an unlimited number of candidates, including ringers (see my above long post), to display that label next to their names on the ballot. Voters now see "Democrat" only on the general election ballot and know that the person has been nominated via the primary election by members of the party. This is extremely valuable to the Democratic candidate, who is quite likely to be outspent by the R in any serious race. (For example, Governor Kulongoski was outspent by Ron Saxton by $9 million to $6 million.) Under M 65, any number of strangers can appear on the primary ballot with "Democrat" next to their names. Even worse, the label "Democrat" on the general election ballot will have far less significance, because that candidate will have been placed on the general election ballot not by "Democrats" but by the electorate as a whole. Does that candidate really have Democratic values and support the Democratic position on issues? Voters will not be able to know that, under Measure 65.

By devaluaing the label "Democrat" on both the primary and general election ballots, M 65 will greatly advantage Republicans, in my view. Maybe that is why it is Gov. Arnold's new project.

In the above post, the link to Politicker did not work. Here is it: http://www.politickerca.com/node/2889

What would the effect of moving them off the ballot? You'd see much, much lower turnout in the May elections (which is an even bigger problem if the double majority item doesn't pass).

That's a false concern. Non-partisan ballots would be printed the same way that they are today. Under Measure 65, every Oregonian will receive the same ballot in both the primary and in the general election.

Election costs will go down under this measure, if the county clerks are to be believed.

Dan's suggestions about hijacking are equally applicable to current partisan primaries, and the notion of "ringers" is just not born out by Oregon's experience in non-partisan races.

What we saw in Portland and Eugene in the Mayoral races were a whole lot of candidates filed, and just a couple of credible candidates picking up the majority of votes.

At the end of the day, Dr. Kitzhaber pointed out the best reasons to vote for this measure in that it will to allow the 400,000 Oregonians who currently have no say in who appears on the general election ballot in Oregon's biggest races to have a say, and to ensure that there are fewer non-contested races in November. Parties will still have control their process of endorsement, they simply will no longer dominate Oregon's nominating process.

Sal:

You obviously didn't read my entire posting. I was responding to the person who said it wasn't fair for everyone to have to pay for partisan primaries. So I was talking about what would happen if we pull the partisan primaries entirely off the May ballot.

No, I didn't raise a false dilemma. I was answering a concern someone brought up. A poster said it wasn't fair for everyone to pay for the party's nomination process. So I talked about what would happen if we took the system we have right now and removed the partisan primary (so taxpayers would no longer be paying for it). Then that partisan nomination process would be controlled by the parties, through whatever process they wanted to use.

The May primary would then only include the non-partisan races, ballot measures, levies, etc.

So you'd have a small number of people choosing who the Dem and who the Republican would be - which is much, much worse than what we have now. Those two candidates (one from each party) would then be on the general ballot.

By removing the races that bring out the greatest turnout, you'd see a much lower turnout in the May primary.

I want to see the most people possible voting in those nominations (which is why I would support opening up partisan primaries to NAV), but at the same time a Party should be able to choose who is allowed to nominate the person who will represent their Party.

But back to M65 - it has multiple major problems, including how it handles legislative vacancies, candidate vacancies, and PCP elections.

Jenni - There is no guarantee that the candidates would be from the two major parties, or even from different parties. The parties can endorse whomever they'd like, and the voters will select them (or not) from a list of candidates.

You assume that the party endorsement would be all-powerful. I'm not so sure. I give even odds that the DPO would have endorsed MacPherson in the AG's race had it been a caucus, but I don't believe that would have stopped the SEIU from dumping $350,000 into the race on Kroger's behalf, nor do I believe such an endorsement would have been determinative in the general election outcome.

Idle speculation aside, I think Governor Kitzhaber is right. The first question we should consider is whether it's fair to have 25 percent of the state's population with no voice in who appears on the general election ballot for Oregon's most important offices.

I caught Linda Williams talking about this on KPOJ the other day and I came away with the distinct impression that she's opposed to M65. She made it quite clear that she believes that Independents and minor parties would fare worse under M65, not better.

In retrospect I suppose it was foolish of me to make the assumption but I just figured that Sal would have a similar opinion.

Sal-

You're still not getting what I am talking about. I was not talking about M65 - I was responding to someone who talked about everyone having to pay for the partisan nomination process.

So I discussed this issue and what would happen if UNDER OUR CURRENT SYSTEM we removed partisan primaries from the ballot and instead had the parties handle their nomination process. Then taxpayers would not be paying for the party's nomination process.

I wasn't talking about endorsements, I was talking about the Party holding the nomination process outside the election system and that nominee being the only one with their party label on the general election ballot.

I understand what you were talking about. It's a false dilemma. What you were discussing is a hypothetical that is not relevant to the issue at hand.

Kevin, clearly I believe that Linda and Dan are wrong about Measure 65, particularly as it relates to the Independent Party.

Tom, why should I have to join a political party in order to have a say in who appears on the general election ballot? As I understand it, parties have no constitutional right to ballot access. Candidates do.

It's not a false dilemma. It was an answer in response to a concern that someone had. After all, M65 is one choice - but it's not the situation we have now. So discussing the situation we're in now and other options is definitely relevant to a discussion on changing our election system. Especially since many people's objection is simply that the two major parties' nomination process is paid for with tax dollars.

Would all of you staunch defenders of minor parties please tell me the last time a minor party candidate won a non-partisan election?

I can't speak to what the Greens of the Libs have done, but in this election cycle Independents are doing pretty well in such races. Jim Torrey(I) has a decent shot at being the next mayor of Eugene. Ken Wick and Col. Dale Potter have a pretty good chance of getting elected to Wallowa County Commission.

The Independent Party is only running candidates in one-on-one legislative races, and we have cross-nominated 5 strong candidates on both sides of the aisle, so I don't think that the Naderite/Spoiler tag can be fairly dropped at our feet.

Steve Rankin,

Yes, Steve Peace is a corporate-style D in California. He was chair of the state senate committee there that in 1996 authored California's disastrous electricity deregulation statute. He is now a paid political consultant. His involvement with a top-two measure is perfectly understandable.

k wrote: "Currently 25% of Oregon's voters have no say in who ends up in the final election. Personally, I find that incredibly UN-democratic ... let those 25% who currently have no say in primaries have a voice."

You misunderstand primary elections.

A primary exists to allow those involved in political parties the chance to pick their candidates. If the "25%" you mention want to be politically involved, they can do so.

Far more dangerous, to my eyes, is your scenario: restrict people's right to organize, so those who choose not to get involved can take advantage of their work developing a party, then finding and fielding a group of candidates.

Why should Republicans pick the Democratic candidate? Why should Democrats pick the Green candidate? Why should Libertarians pick the Republican candidate?

k wrote: "So, the opponents' argument comes down to: 1. We don't have a problem even though 25% of Oregon's voters have NO say in the primary ...

To be accurate, k, you need to say "25% of Oregon's voters choose to have no say in the primary".

Your argument in support of the M65 experiment is nothing but: those who do the work getting organized should have no right to choose their candidate.

The end result of your argument is that no one will bother to organize if they can't choose their own candidates, crippling the large parties and wiping out the small ones.

Who wins if M65 passes and you get your way? The rich and the media.

A primary exists to allow those involved in political parties the chance to pick their candidates. If the "25%" you mention want to be politically involved, they can do so.

No. A primary exists to determine who will be on the general election ballot. Under the closed primary system that we have today, you must be a member of a private organization in order to vote for a candidate to make the general election, and even then you are restricted to voting for other members of the same political party, not necessarily for the candidate who is most qualified.

If I lived in HD20, I would want to vote for Vicki Berger, Ben Westlund, and Kate Brown to represent me on the general election ballot but would not be able to because Berger is not a Democrat.

If a political party in that district chooses not to support Berger, or Westlund, or whomever, that is their right under M65, and their endorsement will appear on the ballot. But they will not be able to control the process, and they will not be able to arbitrarily restrict my choice to vote for the candidate I believe is most qualified, irrespective of party affiliation.

And again, opening up Oregon's primary process will mean 150,000 people voting in races in which they are currently not allowed to participate.

Your argument in support of the M65 experiment is nothing but: those who do the work getting organized should have no right to choose their candidate.

Leo, that's a false argument since the Democrats and Republicans would have ther endorsements appear on the ballot, and for every activist in a political party there are another 100 people who don't do anything but vote.

In fact, Measure 65 will reward partisan activism in a way that our current system doesn't, since candidates will need to bring their supporters into the party process in order t win in the caucuses that are used to determine party endorsements.

The only thing that changes under M65 is that parties will not be able to control the nominating process, and will not be guaranteed a spot in the finals.

Governor Kitzhaber is a skilled with political rhetoric, but be continues to promote inaccuracies.

Trust in government has nothing to do with political primaries. Trust in government declined in the country during the Vietnam War and civil rights movement. There is no evidence that citizens in states with open / blanket primaries (prior to the SCOTUS) ruling them unconstitutional had higher levels of confidence and trust.

Extensions of the franchise in this country had everything to do with equity and nothing to do with the kind of anti-party spirit that animates this measure, regardless of the Governor's historical revisionism.

It's admirable that the Governor wants to reform the legislature, but with all due respect, the legislature suffers a lot more from low salaries and a part time status than they do from non competitive general elections.

The proponents are very concerned with fixing our state legislature. Focus on that issue, then, rather than messing around with an elections system that has worked well for a century and will continue to work well.

Sean,

Many of the single-candidate races on my ballots have been the result of only a single candidate filing. How would M65 alter that? It doesn't force anyone else to file.

Paul - That's a false dilemma. The fact that M65 addresses one of the reforms that was recommended by the Public Commission on the Legislature (PCOL) in no way prevents anyone from addressing other reforms recommended by the PCOL, including raising the salary and going to annual sessions.

Kevin - Most heavily partisan districts have contested primaries and non-contested general elections. Under M65, you are likely to have a run-off between the top-2 vote-getters rather than a contested primary and a non-contested general election.

Paul - I do not agree that opening Oregon's primary elections is anti-party. Nothing in M65 prevents parties from organizing, raising money, or establishing their own process for candidate endorsement.

I doubt that Governor Kitzhaber, Congressman Blumenauer, Vic Atiyeh, nor any of the other endorsers of this measure -- many of whom have contributed thousands to their political parties and raised tens of thousands more would agree that they are "anti-party".

The only thing that changes under M65 is that parties will not be able to control the nominating process, and will not be guaranteed a spot in the finals.

Actually, the party does not "control the nominating process" for the major parties. The process is run by the State, with good reason. I've witnessed the caucus system in action, and it doesn't just invite corruption, it practically demands it. We all have an interest in a nominating process that's clean and involves a valid sample of the membership.

And anyone can file and run for nomination in the primary. I know of candidates in this coming election who won their nomination without the backing of party leadership.

The proponents of this measure seem to vacillate regarding the role of parties as a whole and party activists. On the one hand, party membership is meaningless and should be discarded as a way of sorting the nomination process. On the other hand, an "endorsement" by some portion of the party will be somehow equivalent to nomination.

The basic problem with this measure, aside from the lack of evidence or credible theory to back it up, is that increased choice in the primary is meaningless when it leads to decreased choice in the general where the eventual officeholder is elected. It's not only that the number of candidates advancing to the general would be restricted. It's also that the choice of party is a meaningful one. We should have a chance, in the general, to choose the party of our representative. Except where a party fails to field a candidate, that choice is guaranteed in the current system. It is not in the proposal.

The basic problem with this measure, aside from the lack of evidence or credible theory to back it up, is that increased choice in the primary is meaningless when it leads to decreased choice in the general where the eventual officeholder is elected.

Not at all. A winner-take-all approach in a system dominated by 2 political parties is simply not designed for more than 2 candidates to run in the general election.

Don't believe me? Ask yourself why so many Democrats hate Ralph Nader.

Most heavily partisan districts have contested primaries and non-contested general elections. Under M65, you are likely to have a run-off between the top-2 vote-getters rather than a contested primary and a non-contested general election.

IOW the General would be like that movie Groundhogs Day by rehashing the Primary.

In a district so heavily partisan that only one Party even bothers to participate then M65 won't substantively change anything. It'll just force voters who overwhelmingly belong to one Party to make the same basic choice twice, according to your scenario.

That's a really weak argument for M65 IMHO

Sal, You guys just have not made a credible case that the advancing of two candidates based on an unsorted plurality has a better chance of reflecting the will of the people than the two-step process we have now, registration and then nomination. There is solid scholarship saying it does a worse job. Absent a ranked choice system to go with it, what you propose stands a very good chance of thwarting, or at least obscuring, the will of the people. You have provided nothing but your own insistence to back up what you claim.

Sure Kev. But only if you assume that there are two and only two candidates in the primary. Otherwise, you have a winnowing as we currently do in the dozens of non-partisan races with a similar format in county and local elections all across the state of Oregon.

People who oppose this want to pretend that we don't already have similar systems in Oregon and that the sky will fall if we adopt this system, but all it really means is that our election system will look more like Commissioner or Mayoral races in Portland or many other cities and counties.

The main arguments for the Open Primary do not turn on the intricacies of any particular legislative district, or on gaming the system for or against political parties, but that it opens up the primary elections for Oregon's most important races to every voter in the state in the same way that the primary elections are already open for Mayoral and Commissioner candidates across the state.

Well Sal, we largely agree on the problem. On that point I find myself more in agreement with you than with most of your critics here. It's the solution that we don't seem to agree on.

I just don't see any truly meaningful winnowing under the scenario you posited. Sure, there are often more than two candidates in a primary race. But are all or even most of them viable? Not from what I've seen. Seems to me that most of the time only a couple of them have a meaningful shot at winning. Which is why I don't see M65 substantively changing anything in a heavily partisan district.

In more evenly divided districts it seems to me that M65 could potentially hand victory to a minority. If one side (with 49% of the registered voters) only has two meaningful candidates who sop up the bulk of the vote and the other side (with 51% of the registered voters) has three or more viable candidates who divide the bulk of the total from their "side" and thus acrue fewer vote totals. The majority would find themselves in the General with no candidates representing their values or issues.

Seems to me that the major parties would likely turn to some form of Election Whip system to pressure the rank and file to vote a certain way so as to not hand the office to the opposition. And that strikes me as a step backwards to our past rather than as a progressive step forward.

Those "similar systems" are used for local boards and councils. It won't look like those because the bodies we are electing to don't look like those. Electing a representative to a local board of 5 or 7 is different from electing to a bicameral Legislature or Congress of 90 or 535.

And it doesn't matter what the arguments for an Open Primary are, because that's not what we're debating here. Unless your authority is Humpty-Dumpty:

When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

Sal Peralta: Under the closed primary system that we have today, you must be a member of a private organization in order to vote for a candidate to make the general election...

Sal, candidates don't need votes to "make" the general election. They can "make" the general election simply by filing - and show up as non-affiliated candidates. (This is unlike the jungle primary, which actually does prevent people from running in the general election.)

What you are really complaining about is the fact that you can't pretend to be a major party member in the general election when the majority of the membership of that major party rejected your candidacy in the primary. (And, thanks to Oregon's sore-loser law, if you file in the primary in one primary, you can't switch to another party if you lose - although you can still run as a non-affiliated candidate).

Get your facts straight.

Sal, candidates don't need votes to "make" the general election. They can "make" the general election simply by filing - and show up as non-affiliated candidates.

Filing is not a simple process for non-affiliated candidates under the current rules. They cannot simply just pay a fee as major party candidates do to get into the primary, and the rules put into place in 2005 ensure that they will need approximately 2x the number of signatures than would be needed if they were to file as a member of a major party.

Of course, this is something of a red herring, since I have repeatedly pointed out that this really isn't about candidates or political parties, it is about giving the 400,000+ people in this state who currently have no say in who will appear on

Not really sure what point you were trying to make about a candidate "pretending" to be a member of a party.

Kevin - The key difference in "winnowing" in heavily partisan districts will likely have a significant effect. This is one of the reasons why LT keeps bringing up Vic Backlund, who was defeated by Kim Thatcher in a Republican Primary, but who would likely have beaten here handily in a top-two general election.

One can contrive any number of hypothetical scenarios to make a point for good or for ill, but I can't help but wonder why opponents of this measure prefer not to use real world examples from any of the county or local elections where similar systems are used? Can anyone point to "gamed" mayoral elections in Portland, Multnomah, Clackamas, Washington, or Yamhill Counties, for example?

In any case, I would not expect a majority of party apparatus types to agree with me. Dan M, Steve B, Steve M, Sue H, Jenni -- basically all of those folks are good and thoughtful people who also happen to be hardcore party activists. Of course they will oppose a system that they believe will weaken the role of political parties in determining electoral outcomes.

I don't have any ideological problem with weakening the role of the biggest two political parties. But I remain unconvinced that this measure will help more than it hurts.

In any case, I left this measure blank on my ballot because I'm also not convinced that it'll hurt more than it will help. So those on both sides can take small comfort in the knowledge that I haven't canceled out anyone's vote.

Sue, shall we convince ourselves that some outlier races in Peru, France, Louisiana, or Argentina are somehow damning of a top-two system, but similar races that are run every two years in Portland, Eugene, or Multnomah county are entirely irrelevant?

The sky did not fall in Washington State. It will not fall in Oregon if this measure passes.

We should expect more rationale than "we should do this because the sky will not fall if we do." The sky is not falling now, either. One more time and then I'm done: Where is the evidence that THIS change will make something better, and not worse?

When was the last time a minor party candidate won a partisan election in Oregon?

Gil, it has been more than 100 years. There have been a few non-affiliated state legislators, and a non-affiliated governor, but the closest a minor party came to electing someone was when the People's Party (pseudo)fused with the Democrats in 1890 or so in a gubernatorial race. If you search the threads, Steve Bucknum posted a link a few days ago.

Having said that, Ben Westlund, Kate Brown, Jeff Merkley, Vicki Berger, and Jim Gilbert have all been cross-nominated by the Independent Party, and all have a decent chance of being elected in this cycle. We may also elect a couple of Independent Commissioners in partisan races in Wallowa County.

Sue - No amount of new information is going to change your opinion, which has been set about this for months. Why pretend that you are willing to be convinced otherwise?

Tom - What we have now is a collision of rights. Currently, political parties control the state's nominating process. Under Measure 65, all political parties will still be able to choose what candidates they support, and have that choice printed on the ballot, but they will no longer control the state's nominating process.

Sal keeps trying to compare M 65 with the current system for nonpartisan elections on the Oregon state and local level, claiming that, since there is no "gaming" in nonpartisan elections, there will be no "gaming" in partisan elections under M 65.

This makes no sense. Under M 65, it may well be a very effective strategy for the R Party to recruit persons to run in the primary as Ds, merely to split up the D vote and make it more likely that one or even two Rs will advance to the general election. The reason this gaming will work is because party label on the ballot is the single most influential piece of information to most voters. This has been proven many times by research.

The reason there is no such gaming in nonpartisan elections is because there are zero party labels on the ballot. Adding a new candidate does not necessarily draw away votes from your opponent, because adding a new candidate does not allow that new candidate to masquerade as somehow connected to your opponent's party or philosophy.

Far more comparable are elections in Louisiana since 1975, when the top two system was put in place there. We should expect statewide elections with literally over a dozen candidates on the primary ballot for each office, with maybe 6 Ds, 3 Rs, and some candidates displaying minor party labels, whether or not they have any connection to those parties.

Also, LT incorrectly states current law. He says, "Under that law passed by the legislature, someone not with a 3rd party must collect signatures only from people who don't vote in primaries." That is not correct. It does not invalidate signatures of anyone who votes in the primary, except Rs and Ds. That is still a very significant restriction and is bad policy. That is why I was one of only 3 people to testify against that bill, HB 2614, in the Legislature. The others were Blair Bobier of the PGP and Richard Winger of Ballot Access News, himself a contributor to this thread.

Dear Gil,

When is the last time that a minor party candidate won any election under a top-two primary?

Tom - Measure 65 respects the right of the individual to have the label of the party of which they are a member to appear on the ballot. It respects the right of the party to choose who will represent them on the ballot. It respects the right of the voter to choose from the broadest possible list of candidates in the primary. It also extends the franchise in the primary to nearly a quarter of Oregon voters who currently have no voice.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree as to whether those are good things.

Dan - Can you point to any examples of such gaming in the Washington system? More to the point, what makes you think that some unknown shill for "the other team" would fare any better than any other unknown candidate who currently runs in non-partisan races?

Does it matter if Pavel Golberman runs as a Democrat, or in a non-partisan race? No. He is going to get 1-2 percent in either case.

Would Ben Cannon or Jefferson Smith or Chris Edwards or any other Democrat seriously have something to fear by Joe Republican re-registering as a Democrat 70 days before the primary?

I doubt it. And that's doubly true in statewide races. Kevin Mannix or Bill Sizemore or Ron Saxton could certainly re-register as a Democrat to run in an open primary. They are all well known people. Would they get many votes? Probably not. Neither would someone no one had ever heard of.

Politics is not just about party labels. It is about people building a campaign to communicate a message to voters.

But again, this is not about strategizing about who is going to game the system under what hypothetical scenario. This is about extending the franchise to the 400,000 Oregonians who currently have no say in who will appear on the general election ballot in the state's most important races.

Currently, political parties control the state's nominating process. Under Measure 65, all political parties will still be able to choose what candidates they support, and have that choice printed on the ballot, but they will no longer control the state's nominating process.

Dan, I think Jim Torrey has a pretty good shot, having made the top-two in the Eugene Mayoral race.

In Texas, where there is no party registration and you choose which ballot you want on election day, we had on multiple occasions problems with Republicans finding people to run on the Democratic ballot. The most famous example from where I lived was when Nick Lampson ran for election to Congress against incumbent Steve Stockman.

There was a change to the district (a slight change to add more Rs and take away more Ds) after the primary. This meant that the general election was opened back up to all candidates.

The Republicans got a woman who had run in the Democratic primary to run on the general ballot, and paid all her expenses. They got a second Democrat whose last name was Brooks to also run - and they got him on the ballot as "Jack Brooks." For those who don't know, Jack Brooks was the representative for the district for more than 40 years and was only defeated when he switched his stance on gun control.

Lampson had to sue in court to ensure that Brooks would not be listed as "Jack Brooks" since that was not his name. That wasted campaign time and resources.

This election was an open primary, with a top two general following in December.

Stockman and the Republican Party did everything it could to game the election so they could keep the stronger candidate (Lampson) from making the top two. Had Lampson not been successful in court, that election could have turned out quite different.

If you don't think that's a big deal, ask the families of missing kids who were helped by the work he did in Congress if they feel the same. Lampson was only on the job a few months when the district was hit by two missing girls, and he went on to be a huge advocate in Congress for resources for helping find missing people.

Sue - No amount of new information is going to change your opinion, which has been set about this for months. Why pretend that you are willing to be convinced otherwise?

Geeze Sal, you have yet to directly address the arguments; you just keep repeating your talking points. No amount of information is going to change your opinion, which has been set about this for years. Why pretend that you are willing to be convinced otherwise?

And again, your "extend the franchise" stuff is an insult to people who have actually had to fight for the franchise. All somebody has to do to participate in any party's nominating process is to opt in by registering. So we should obliterate the nominating concept because some folks choose not to?

This is more about change than about improvement. I'm all for change, but I want some evidence that it makes things better. You haven't offered any. When pressed you go for the dodge.

LT: If Paul and George win the top 2 slots, would John and Ringo be as out of luck as someone who loses a primary under the current system?

They'd be even more out of luck, because under M65, there is no way to qualify for the general election ballot than to come in first or second in the primary.

LT: Under the sore loser law, the primary loser is out of luck. [S]omeone not with a 3rd party must collect signatures only from people who don't vote in primaries.

There's a simple answer to this: if you really are trying to establish an entirely different political doctrine, around which you intend to form a new political party that does not fit within the current two party structure, don't compete in the primary of one of your rivals. Voilla! No impediment to your candidacy.

Either that, or, you can qualify using signatures from people who did not vote in the primary.

But let me make it clear. I am not saying the current system is perfect. Fusion voting seems not only the way to go, but I'm at a loss to understand why the Courts think forbidding the practice is not a violation of Free Speech.

LT: I tell this story because so many people are worried that if 65 passes, we will go back to "smoke filled rooms". That 1986 process was very open and the exact opposite of "the fix was in".

Never forget, LT. You're talking about Democrats. The good guys. The people who love the underdog to a fault. But there is more than one major political party.

And even if the decision process gets "blogged", please understand what you just described: a closed process decided by insiders. This is not "fixing" our current system. It's making it worse.

Do you remember just this spring, when it looked like the DNC Committee members (aka "Supah" Delegates) were going to select the Democratic nominee for President? What M65 does is make that system permanent. We'll get hordes of new "PCPs", none of whom are interested in volunteering for Democratic party activities, but who are just signing up to stuff the ballot box to mark the "true" Democrat in the primary.

And don't pretend to yourself that Oregonians are better than that. In Washington County we had a number of nominating and ballot replacement conventions, and in every one I attended, there were "PCP" ringers signed up by one or more of the candidates - who we never heard from again.

Sleaze doesn't have to be secret, LT. In many places around the world, it's practiced right out in the open. Bottom line: if you want to bring Louisiana "Vote for the Crook" style politics to Oregon, vote for M65. If you want our politics to remain clean, vote against it.

RuthAlice, please take a closer look -- this is a very different system from the Montana primary. There's no opportunity for that kind of strategic voting. (Of course, like every voting system, there is some possibility of strategic voting...but nothing so unappealing as what you're remembering.)

Paul,

The measure does NOT abolish parties. Candidates will have their party labels listed on the ballot. Plus, parties will have the option of endorsing candidates and that endorsement will be listed on the ballot as well. I don't particularly like the provision, but it was an effort to ensure that parties continued to have an active role. Some folks actually believe that this provision (and thus this measure) may actually strengthen parties. Parties are so weak (not to be confused with the interest group funders who lord over the parties) and are virtually irrelevant to most voters now, perhaps this will help re-energize.

I also guess I'm a little surprised you think our politics is not broken. You have certainly followed the decline since 1990 (M 5) and the lack of mitigating responses to all the ballot measures. The partisan and geographical divides are not overstated here in ORegon and nationally. While having D's in office will surely restore some civility and better discourse, we need to be encouraging people to run for office who have the confidence to challenge the interest groups of both parties to make the necessary changes in our static institutions. (In exchange for more resources we have to be able to convince the public that modern accountability measures are implemented, too). D's are just as guilty as R's for cowtowing to the overlords of their party. M 65 is not a silver bullet, and certainly not perfect, but it at least gives us a chance to create new dynamics where our candidates can challenge party/interest group orthodoxy during their campaigns, and behave a bit more independently while in office. We need some serious innovation right now, and it is going to require creative, confident, and courageous people from both parties to get the job done.

The many good people who support M 65 (many good D's among us--Sten, Randy Leonard, Schrader, Westlund, Betsy Johnson, Ben Cannon, Sam Adams, Tom Potter, Dan Saltzman to name a few) recognize the imperative to try new approaches. We need to let all the voters vote in the partisan primaries, and the top-two component has great potential to allow candidates to approach issues in untraditional ways.

Sal Peralta wrote: "Leo, that's a false argument since the Democrats and Republicans would have ther endorsements appear on the ballot, and for every activist in a political party there are another 100 people who don't do anything but vote."

I'll see your "false" Sal, and raise you an "unconstitutional" (grin).

Washington's top-two experiment was declared unconstitutional for violating the right to free association. Not surprising, since it's fundamentally unfair to deny those who do the work to politically organize the right to choose their candidates. Measure 65 would likely meet a similar fate ... after an expensive court fight.

I just don't get your argument. Politics is not a spectator sport. I mean, sure, I'm glad people send in ballots. But if that's ALL they do, why should they be dictating who will represent those who do the real work: build a party, democratically build a platform and agenda, recruit candidates, and move that agenda forward?

You're arguing that political passivity should be rewarded. That we should simply trust the rich and wealthy who will buy their way into the top-two every time, instead of trusting average folks working democratically to recruit and choose good candidates (within an organization anyone can get involved with any time they wish).

If it were hard to get politically active, you might have a point. But, it's not, so you don't. Getting politically active is quite easy. Newly active party members are greeted with open arms, at least in the DPO.

I just hope voters don't feel like wasting valuable time and money on the Measure 65 experiment, when we're already short on funding for schools and roads, and there are much less suspect and more effective electoral reforms to pursue, such as IRV.

Tom,

I'm a big fan of campaign finance reform, so much so that I think one of the few ways to get there is to have M 65. Under the current system the big groups on both left and right prevent anything meaningful from happening. They hated the contribution limits I ran under in 1996 and have done nothing since them to even talk about a better system. They looooove the current system.

Yes labor hates M65, though 78% of labor households actually support the idea of our measure. Go figure. Gee, let every voter vote. How novel. As for big business, they like this because they are so dang frustrated with the lack of progess on any of the major issues facing our state. They are willing to try this as one way to get better dialogue on issues. There are plenty of progressive business people who support this too, people who support many of the causes expressed on Blue Oregon. We need to get away from the rhetoric in this state that lumps all businesses into one intractable camp that is against all progressive ideas. Oregon businesses would gleefully support a gas tax to build roads constructed by labor-represented employees. Likewise, they would love to see major new investments in higher ed and support for programs overseen by liberal faculty and the like. Things have deteriorated for so long in Oregon, that many of us, business or otherwise, know we need new structures to improve the decision making processes.

But again, the core issue, is just one of letting every voter vote for whomever they dang well please. This is a good thing.

Sal, Jim Torrey is not the candidate of a minor party. He has not been either nominated or endorsed by any minor party.

Torrey is also not a non-affiliated candidate in a partisan race. Mayor of Eugene is a nonpartisan contest.

Dan, I said nothing about party nominations. I have merely pointed out that Jim Torrey is a member of the Independent Party. If he is elected Mayor of Eugene next week, he will be the first Independent to be elected to public office in the party's history. As the race was non-patisan, he did not need to seek the party's nomination.

As usual, Ron nails it.

Not much worth adding, except to say that I don't think it's fair to tar the entire Oregon business community with the Grover Norquist brush. Dan has told me in the past that lining up the business community was a key to the passage of SB408. And it was the leadership of OBA, OBC, and the Electronics Association that allowed the state to seed the corporate kicker in the current biennium.

Many of the businesses that stepped up on those issues support the open primary, and I believe that there are a significant number in Oregon's business community that recognizes that the legislature has failed for 20+ years to adequately address transportation, higher ed, infrastructure, and trust Phil, Norma, Kitzhaber, Atiyeh, and others who are telling them that what is needed is a structural reform to loosen the grip of the organizations that seem to have a stranglehold on our legislative priorities.

What is different is our analysis of what M65 would do to the political process. Ron, Sal, and Chris seem to believe that political parties are the linchpin in the subversion of the political process by special interests.

I wouldn't characterize my position that way. I'd say that by opening up the primary election, voters will be able to select the candidate whose views most closely match their own, irrespective of political party.

The top-two feature fixes the spoiler problem, and the endorsement line allows parties to retain the right to choose their own nominee without actually controlling the state's process for nominating candidates to the general election ballot.

For me this is not about some strategy to move policy or to game elections. It is about allowing Oregon's 400,000 non-affiliated voters to participate in the nominating process for the state's most important political offices and allowing all voters to select the best candidates in the primary election, irrespective of political party.

Tom - Again, I think M65 more accurately fixes the rights of all involved. Political parties may continue to choose their candidate. Candidates may have their party affiliation recognized. Voters may choose any candidate irrespective of party affiliation. All voters may participate.

Tom, one other point, although it is true that any person or group may endorse a candidate, only political parties will have the right to have their endorsement appear on the ballot if Measure 65 passes.

Bruggere won the Democratic primary, LT. Why do you think he wouldn't have come in the top two in a jungle primary?

I read you and Ron Buel and Sal Peralta, and all I see is a bunch of people saying to themselves, "If only we had this super magic primary system with fairy sprinkles in some past election, then the voters would have picked the candidate I liked!"

With not one whit of evidence, or even a hint of logical reasoning, that would lead one to that conclusion.

The scary thing is, it's nearly certain there's a bunch of whack-job "Constitution Party" voters (who think we should prosecute "abortionists" for murder) voting for this idiotic measure for nearly the exact same reason.

The Oregonian's editorial page editor, Bob Caldwell, picked up this piece this morning: Kitzhaber gets it right on Oregon Measure 65

(I posted this in the wrong thread earlier, sorry.)