There are many arguments on this one, pro and con. For me, there are issues that date back to the founding of this country, and I see M65 as a violation of the basic check and balance of power.

But more fundamentally, it comes down to a simple math problem.

Does 2 ever equal more than two?

How in a general election can two candidates ever be more than the two big parties and all the little ones that are on my ballot now? I have already voted, but I had about 5 choices for President. I had several for the Senate race. Now M65 won't change the Federal elections, but locally here on the Oregon ballot, I had several choices also.

So, 2 in the general is never equal to more than two. Simple math. M65 is therefore proven a violation of more than my sense of right/wrong and intention of our founders - it's a violation of simple math rules. 2 is never equal to more than 2, it is always less than more than 2.

Like I've said elsewhere, anything that pisses off the GOP, the Democratic Party and the Libertarian Party can't be all bad.

Hypothetical (posed at the City Club debate): four Democrats and two Republicans run for Governor, all of whom have decent support from their respective parties. Say that 60% would vote D, and 40% would vote R, and those votes are split evenly. The four Ds each get 15% of the vote in the primary, and the two Rs each get 20% of the vote in the primary. For the general election, we'd get to decide between which of the Rs would be governor. Adding non-party affiliations doesn't really help, this kind of scenario -- it actually led to David Duke's victory in Louisiana.

I was undecided on this until the City Club debate, when (I think) Paul Gronke posed lots of good questions about the lack of a need for this ("a solution without a problem") and Phil Keisling didn't give many good answers (with probably the most compelling being akin to "Oregon loves being a maverick, so let's try it").

I'll vote no on this one.

This is a bad bill. It will mean that the more people in a party who are interested in running, the less chance any of them will be successful. This will ultimately lead to the party leaders putting even more pressure against anyone but the "chosen", cutting off funding for anyone else. The party with the most "discipline", not the most qualified person, will always win.

I went back and forth on this, but eventually voted No. I'd rather see instant run-off and don't want to vote for something just because it's what happens to be on the ballot this time. My wife voted Yes though, so we cancel each other out.

Now, can someone help me with these stupid East Multnomah Soil & Water Conservation District Director candidates so I can turn in my ballot? Thanks!

At the time I refused to sign the petition for this initiative, the signature gatherer was flogging the idea that this all-comers primary (or whatever you want to call it) would have the salutary effect of forcing candidates to the "middle". Wonderful. That's just what we need: fewer clear choices.

When they were gathering signatures for this, the gatherer tols us that "it ain't written by Sizemore or those people. It is written by Phil K(eyes)ling"

I knew something was wrong when the gatherer couldn't pronounce the author's name correctly - an author who is well known in some parts of Oregon.

I also went NO on this because it would create mountains out of molehills in several confusing areas, making it a prime canidate for court challenges that would cost us more money that it originally intended.

There are many problems with political parties and ballot access in Oregon, but I do not see how M65 remedies any of these. What I believe it will do is increase the already too great power of special interest campaign money.

I haven't seen any well articulated reasons why this passing would be good for Oregon. But I can see reasons why it might be bad. So for the various reasons cited above by other posters, I voted no.

I am convinced that the party endorsement feature of Measure 65 will, almost always, determine the outcome, especially in highly contested statewide races. Is anyone talking about this?

Democrats and Republicans central organizations will give this endorsement to one candidate, who will be chosen in a smoke filled room. If they don't, they should be sued for political malpractice.

Unless I'm mistaken, this feature makes the Oregon proposal completely different from the process now used in Washington State. If I am wrong about this, please elucidate.

The "self declaration of party" feature addresses this problem? The legendary self-declared Democrat Lyndon LaRouche comes to mind.

Suppose Jeff Merkley had received the endorsement in this year's Senate primary. Do you think Steve Novick would have had a prayer of landing in the top two, even with independents participating? I don't see how.

I can accept the principled argument that the state shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing the nomination process of private organizations while excluding some voters.

But do you honestly think, as a practical matter, that disenfranchised independent voters are waiting to rise up and seize the nomination process in highly contested races? Not me.

A final complaint: would it have killed the proponents to propose testing this process on state legislative races first, in order to prove the concept?

The truth is that NO minor party supports this measure. AND THREE MINOR PARTIES ACTIVELY OPPOSE MEASURE 65.

The Keisling team pushing Measure 65 has been working tirelessly in OR for many many years to get a top-two passed. But it's the wrong solution.

I was at the Portland City Club when Keisling himself thanked SUSAN NEILSEN of the Oregonian for helping him over the LAST SEVEN YEARS bring a top-two to OR.

This time around they are taking advantage of rising discontent over partisanship at the national level to get a smooth-sounding "reform" measure passed in our state. They've gathered huge corporate donations (check it out on ORESTAR) and they've even convinced a few currently elected officials to endorse the measure by convincing them it will pass anyways.

The "NO on 65" campaign did not have the same head start as the Keisling's team - BUT it's making up ground, fast.

The No on 65 campaign needs all of our help. Every dollar donated helps the campaign reach more and more people with the truth about top-two failures, and the truth about the better alternatives.

Make a donation today: http://www.voteno65.org.

cut and pasted from the vote no on 65 website (www.voteno65.org):

REMEMBER: Minor political parties will NOT appear on the general election ballot if they do not make the “top two” cutoff.

According to fairvote.org:

"...since only the top two finishers in the opening primary have had any chance to advance to a runoff election, it proved to be very difficult for minor party candidates to appear on Louisiana's November election ballot for federal and state elections. Not surprisingly, there have been no effective minor parties in Louisiana in the years since the present election system was put into place in 1978."

Fairvote.org is an org dedicated to trying to ensure fair and open access to all voters... Kari- come on. Do you really think this will strengthen minor parties? When the minor parties themselves are opposed to this measure?

Sal. Let's be honest. When 7 of the top 11 financiers of the YES campaign are: The Standard; PacifiCorp; Portland General Electric; Providence Health System; J.C. Milne Real Properties Bank of America Corp. PAC (Fed); US Bank...

don't you think Oregonians should be just a little worried?

Why is it these corporations are so interested in 'fixing' the Oregon electoral system? Could it be because they see an opportunity to flood campaigns with candidates and money in what promises to be crowded fields, with more expensive campaigns that are longer and longer and longer?

Makes me nervous. A NO vote from me for sure.

Sal, I (mistakenly) assumed that the Independent Party opposed Measure 65 after reading complaints about a top-two from Independent Party members. Maybe the party hasn't come out with an official "No" position (which makes me wonder why not), but many of the members are certainly AGAINST measure 65.

The fact still remains: no minor party has said "yes, this is good for us." At least two have voted to oppose a top-two. And many minor party and unaffiliated voters across the state (such as myself) are ABSOLUTELY SURE this is NOT the change we're looking for.

As for which campaign is being bankrolled.. I challenge you to look up the top 15 or so donors for the YES side. Most of them are banks, insurance companies, utilities companies, and real estate developers - to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars EACH. WHY? Shouldn't we be curious why these corporations and big money funnels are interested in a measure that deals with ELECTIONS AND CAMPAIGNS??

There are many problems with Measure 65's top-two primary. (1) It will make races more expensive, making it harder for people lacking big money connections to get into politics (that's why union folks are concerned: they want workers to be able to run for office, not just well-connected elites).

(2) It will eliminate minor parties, which is why 3 minor parties in Oregon oppose it and no minor parties support it.

And (3) it will take away the ability for members of major parties (Ds and Rs) to nominate a candidate; instead, the political parties will have to endorse certain candidates (which is why even the major parties are against a top-two: they want ALL their members to decide rather than a select few).

There are problems with the political parties and ballot access in Oregon. And, of course, we ALL want everybody's vote to mean something. We all want politicians to pay heed to their constituents, and we all want the political make-up of the state to reflect the diversity of beliefs throughout Oregon rather than polarized extremes from the national level.

BUT Measure 65 WON'T solve these problems; in most cases it will make it worse.

If you're worried about these issues, VOTE NO ON 65 and save your yes vote for real election reform.

Here are two helpful sites: saveoregonsdemocracy.org

www.voteno65.org.

Sal wrote:

The main benefits of the Open Primary:

1) It eliminates spoiler candidates in the general election. 2) It will give voters in more districts an honest choice on the November ballot. Currently, 44 percent of legislative races, including 8 out of 15 in the Senate, are non-competitive. In districts like Shields' or Kotek's, you might see 2 Democrats or a Democrat and a Green, but at least the race will be contested. 3) It creates a fairer elections calendar for all political parties, and strengthens the hand of parties that choose to cross-endorse candidates (as Kari pointed out). 4) It will tend to weaken the more extreme elements of both major political parties, and strengthen the reasonable middle.

1) I agree, but this is not often a crucial matter. 2) This is probably the strongest argument in favor of M65. 3) I don't understand the minor party process well enough to comment. 4) This is my major objection. Candidates who do not please those with the big money [progressives, mostly] will not have the ideological support of parties to compensate. This is why, I believe, big business interests support M65. It will make buying candidates even easier than it is now.

This is part of the problem i have with the current system, eveyone focusing on the party instead of the actual candidates.

I'm entirely against this measure. Here is what happens when you have open primaries: One party's activist base (radio talkers, local activists, etc.) get a percentage of their people to vote in the other party for the perceived "weaker" candidate. If they can effectively sway that vote, their own candidate goes up against the weaker primary candidate in the general election, which helps the party playing the other side against itself to maintain a stranglehold on a seat (or at the very least, cause a disruption in the other party). That's how they game the system, they've been doing it in Michigan for years now. Does anyone really want our political system to wind up like Michigan's?

And, as I was going to add, Louisiana's system isn't really all that great either. The same scheme that scumbags use in open primaries would work in this system, possibly even more effectively. It's really not that great an idea. Vote no on all of them and send a message to Bill Sizemore and Kevin Mannix to stop gaming our initiative system.

What I found fascinating in the Voters Pamphlet was the lists of people for and against. Sal is in there, so are multiple former governors.

Imagine if this had been in place in Dec. 1995 when Norma was running against Gordon Smith in the primary to replace Packwood. A well known Democrat we knew re-registered R so he could vote for Norma.

Norma was my state rep. and did an excellent job. I happen to think she and Phil are right.

Yes, campaign finance reform is important. So is having competitive candidates on both sides. Maybe we could have a serious issues debate in the 2010 Gov. race (unlike what we have had recently) if a current Dem. legislator or statewide elected official was running against an intelligent Republican such as St. Sen. Frank Morse. As I understand M. 65, a 3rd party candidate could also run. Suppose we had 3 candidates for Gov. of each major party. Suppose the Republicans were Jason Atkinson (if he is healthy enough), St. Sen. Morse and some former candidate like Saxton. Would Morse pull Atkinson toward the center and would they both sideline Saxton?

Last time I looked, Louisiana is at the other end of the country. The closest thing we've seen to David Duke has been Sizemore and Mabon. Could either prevail in a multiple candidate primary? What makes you think they could?

And my experience in local politics and on state central comm. is not the game playing some have suggested. The game playing I saw was some people concerned about a ballot measure passing a resolution (late, after some had left for a long drive home) taking a stand in opposition to what Democratic legislative leadership wanted, winning by a 6 vote margin, and then saying "all good Democrats" supported their side of a proposed ballot measure.

That was in 1985. It succeeded in driving some people out of party politics, but it isn't the kind of game playing some suggest would happen under M. 65.

Jennie, are you saying that if people file for Precinct Person in Mult. County (file before filing deadline instead of running a write in campaign) that their names don't appear on the ballot? That's what this sounds like.

"Also, unless there is a contested election for PCP, the race would not be on the ballot. Anyone who has ever had anything to do with a PCP election knows that a contested election is a rarity - most precincts have less people than positions."

Are you saying that those not affiliated with a party shouldn't have the right to vote to nominate candidates because it might mess up pct. committee people elections?

Alright, as a former Louisianan, I feel like I have to set this straight- David Duke didn't win anything in the 1991 LA gubernatorial race, except the right to lose to Edwin Edwards in November. The results of the jungle primary were as follows:

34% to former Gov. Edwin Edwards (D); 32% to David Duke (R); 27% to incumbent Gov. Buddy Roemer (D-R); 5% to perennial candidate Clyde Holloway (R)

Edwin Edwards was a relatively popular but somewhat-corrupt three-term governor. Buddy Roemer was elected as a moderate Democrat to Baton Rouge in 1987 and switched to the GOP in 1991. Clyde Holloway was a conservative niche candidate. David Duke was David Duke.

In 1991, the LA electorate got exactly what they wanted from the November runoff- a showdown between the Democratic candidate most popular with Democrats and the Republican candidate who best represented GOP voters. I think there's a good case to be made that with polarized electorates (as was/ is the case in LA and also in OR) the top-two primary system in statewide elections can find the two candidates who best appeal to the largest factions in an electorate. It's a way to advance the consensus favorites, rather than the least-worst options.

What's so wrong with David Duke getting to a general election, anyway?

Jenni, About this:

"The parties have the right to decide what the qualifications are for being able to run under a certain party's name.....There's no way the Democrats and Republicans are going to run the risk of splitting the vote so much that no candidate from the district/area's major party ends up in the general."

Where is that in law? Party caucuses are not in the Oregon Constitution--years ago I looked.

You may be confusing custom/tradition with law.

Don't forget, one of the advocates of this measure ran for legislature and was ignored by FP ("lousy R to D ratio" nonsense, as if no one votes in the general election if they are not registered in a major party) and lost by a few hundred votes.

When did it happen that we quit electing individuals to the legislature and started electing members of caucuses? How many people elect to the caucus instead of electing the individual now? Has anyone done research on that? Or do partisans just assume people think that way?

If anyone were to be elected to House Dems from one of those "impossible" districts, would that person have the same rights as a member of the caucus ---including questioning the whole FP scene which didn't exist 20 years ago--as someone elected as an FP target? If not, why not? Do legislators pledge allegiance to their caucus, or were they elected to represent their district?

Jenni, have you ever been to a county party meeting outside of Multnomah Co? Are you a member of State Central Committee?

Parties act according to the words, actions and votes of "the people in the room". That means platform, passing resolutions, setting up caucues within the party (Rural Caucus, for instance) according to what the voting delegates at the state level or pct. people at the local level decide. When the membership changes, the party decisions change.

There was a time in the early 1990s when the state campaign committee tried to force views on certain issues on the whole party, saying all good Democrats stood for the same side of certain issues. Trouble was, one of the issues was a coast vs. inland issue, and they took the inland side. Were they saying the campaign committee didn't want to win seats on the coast? The state central committee blocked that cockamamie idea. Jenni, you are imaging what parties would do in the future without knowing what the voting members would do or even who those voting members would be in the future. The party of Howard Dean is not the party of Terry McAuliffe, and neither are state or local parties the same always.

Back before 1991 when the state party office was in Salem, the party was more connected to the state as a whole. Portland is not Oregon, and generalizing that the rest of the state thinks/acts like people in Mult. Co. has been an issue here as long as Blue Oregon has existed.

By all means vote no if you are worried about 2 members of the same party being on the ballot in the fall. But I think it would be good to pass M. 65.

And just to throw another log on the fire, what if this year's Senate primary had been held under Measure 65? What if Gordon Smith turned out to have to run in the primary and turned out to be so unpopular that Merkley came in first and either Novick or Neville had been that 2nd candidate?

That scenario is every bit as possible under Measure 65 as I understand it as "There's no way the Democrats and Republicans are going to run the risk of splitting the vote ".

The whole point of the measure is that all those people out there who aren't partisans (estimated to be over 60% of the voting public) have grown tired of the partisan attitude, "this is about Team D vs. Team R and if you are not active in either one just shut up and be a spectator".

The first words of the Oregon Constitution are "We the people" and I never found anything in writing which required Oregon voters to state their allegiance to a group to take part in Oregon democracy.

When Phil and Norma were in the legislature, there was no FP or any other caucus campaign arm. How do I know that?

Not only did I volunteer a few decades ago on the campaigns which put a couple of young men in the Oregon House (named Jim Hill and Peter Courtney), but in a graduate class where the term paper was a major part of the grade, I wrote on 2 women who were first elected to the legislature around the time of the founding of the Women's Political Caucus. I read a lot about Norma's first run for office for that paper, incl. lots of old newspaper articles.

One headline was "Woman lawyer runs against farmer" (I think that was the opponent's occupation) because it was a big deal for a woman to run for the legislature. When the Tom McCall statue was dedicated here in Salem's Riverfront Park recently, there were speeches by Democrats as well as Republicans. They talked about how individuals influenced legislation, party being secondary.

Jenni, I never understood when/why politics in Oregon became a team sport. I haven't been registered to the same party all my life, and some of the people I admire are not Democrats.

As a young man in Kentucky during the late 70's and early 80's I registered democrat in order to participate in the one-sided election process. Since moving to Oregon in 1994, I've been non-affiliated and by that choice am currently locked out of primaries.

I can accept that and was going to vote "NO" until I heard independent Pete BelCastro last night. He believes that the two major parties have stunted the growth of progressive politics in Oregon over the past 50 years.

I am willing to give it a chance. There are anywhere from 25% to 33% of the eligible voters ocked out of primaries as the system currently stands.

Kurt, Thanks for that comment.

I wouldn't go back 50 years, though. When Tom McCall was alive (esp. before 1980 when the Reaganites took over the GOP) there were lots of progressive things done in Oregon by members of both parties working together.

Jenni, "Unless we're going to open up filling vacancies to the voters" sounds like you don't trust voters!

I do like M.65 Sec. 17(e) as it saves a lot of paper for uncontested pct. person elections, it would just have to be publicized that write-ins were no longer allowed. But Sal's right--why should taxpayers who might well be registered outside major parties be paying for those pct. person ballots to be printed and included in the ballots?

Thanks for your comments, Sal.

Jenni, you say you have heard from other pct. people from other counties at SCC meetings or whatever. Are they representative of all registered Democrats, or just speaking for themselves?

I have seen local parties be strong enough to recruit new pct. people, to fundraise and create the opportunity to rent and operate a storefront party office during an election and with luck afterwards. Also, to have a luncheon series called Demoforum where candidates come to speak on a regular basis. But that's not about law, it is about organization, and about the quality and experience of volunteers. There may be consultants who say money is all that matters and only professionals know how the game is played, but that doesn't describe the health of county Democratic parties.

Back when I was a pct. person, we once had a county chair who thought selling tickets to a party spaghetti feed was more important than canvassing precincts. That was a weak county chair, not having anything to do with law or party rule.

Speaking as someone who was registered NAV from after the 1996 primary until March of 2002, some of this debate sounds like people who have bought into the status quo and don't want it changed.

Well, it changed when the NAV + Other registration went above 20%. Find the registration figures and the margins in House races for the last several years and look at how many races were determined by a margin smaller than the number of those registered outside of major parties. Those NAV + other, as I recall, decided the margin of control of the legislature in several recent elections. But they have no right to determine legislative nominees?

Paul, "Calling bullshit on this one. Estimated by who? I have never ever seen any estimates anywhere near that. The number of Independent affiliators tops out at most at 33%, and many of those admit "leaning" to one party or another."

I'm not talking about published studies, but then I don't work in an academic setting. People who vote split ticket DO exist, whether there are published studies or the hallowed exit polls which say that or not. How many of the people who registered Dem to vote for Obama are going to vote all the way down the ballot, much less become active Democrats next year or in 2010?

A relative who voted for Bush in 2004 is voting for Obama. A friend who had real doubts about Obama was impressed by what Colin Powell said in supporting Obama (my favorite swing voter, he voted for Bush/Hooley in 2004, Kitzhaber for Gov. has always voted for Gordon Smith). A friend in church who still has the Jackie Winters for Congress sticker on his back bumper said the GOP had gone too far to the right and he hadn't gone with them. And that he'd vote for Colin Powell in a heartbeat!
Are these people "Independent affiliators" or just people very busy with their own lives who vote for the person instead of the party?

I'm talking about what some call political lore:

Some say there are maybe 20% of the voting public who are as active/rabid about party politics as the people here, the sort of people who show up at Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin rallies and then go out and campaign for the ticket, etc. 20% Dem. partisans and 20% R partisans would add up to 40%. Leaving 60% as those who are more concerned about the new baby in their extended family, their 2 jobs, the friend who has been hospitalized, or the World Series than what is going on in politics.

The other source is my dear friend who got totally jaded and burned out to the point she won't discuss politics anymore--marks her ballot in private, recycles the voters pamphlet, puts the ballot in the mail and never talks about it--she's got a nice private sector job she really likes. She grew up with an activist parent, was knew a future candidate in jr. high, was a volunteer, a campaign manager, a staffer for an elected official over a period of decades. Then she quit cold turkey. Paid political professionals and the activists who work on campaigns every year drove her to it. "Those people are no more than 5% of the electorate, but they think they decide elections. They don't. It is the 95% of the public who spend most of their time thinking about work, family, sports or whatever who start getting interested right before the election and then cast ballots who decide the election!"

I think she's right.

Sorry I can't give you a link to a scholarly report, Paul, but my political knowledge comes from personal experience at the grass roots level.

Okay ... can someone please explain exactly why we need this ballot measure? The endorsements - pro and con - in the voter's guide were sort of informing. I actually like and to a certain extent trust "some" of the endorsers on both sides of the measure. But ... since I don't vote based solely on endorsements, I have, instead, tried to understand what benefit(s) Oregon voters will realize if M65 passes. Frankly, I don't see any. Until and unless I hear some compelling argument how it improves things, I'm voting no.

Full disclosure: I've had no problem changing my party affiliation for primary elections to vote for the candidate I like best.

Thanks, Sal:

"For third parties that are in it to win, the Open Primary gives us a much better chance than our current system. "

For anyone who has ever been disgusted with the years of "my caucus, right or wrong" (a big problem when one lives in a district represented by an R who listens to caucus first and constitutents second), there have been dreams of a 30-29-1 House.

At the moment, I would love to see a 36 Dem. House, but I understand the frustration.

Phil, about this comment:

"Let's track what might happen. In one example, a progressive voting district, there are three candidates in the primary, the progressive incumbent and two conservatives."

Depends on what you define as a "progressive voting district". I live in the House district which elected Norma Paulus, Jim Hill, Rocky Barilla. None of them were conservatives by any stretch of the imagination.

Jim ran for State Senate and after the absentee ballots went out, the incumbent dropped dead one night at an event and local activists learned how the process worked. In that case, the Republicans nominated the son of the late incumbent, and we Democratic pct. people met and renominated Jim. There was no third candidate running. Jim won the election.

Sal's point holds: what example can you give of a progressive and 2 conservatives in a legislative district, or is that just a hypothetical?

Footnote on my legislative district:

Despite electing the first woman, first black, first Hispanic to the legislature from this county, the seat went Republican in 1988. Well known local businessman (known by generations of Salem residents) Gene Derfler defeated Barilla in an election so close it was decided by Polk Co. votes for Derfler edging out Marion votes for Barilla---but not until 2 days later.

Since the creation of FP, it has been treated as a "lousy R to D ratio" district until an unfunded candidate knocked the incumbent down to a victory margin less than the number of registered NAV. This year party registration switched to Dem. So now is it a progressive district, or was it always a swing district but someone looking at a spread sheet in a central office didn't know that?

If you wonder why some good Democrats support Measure 65, the story of my district should provide a clue. Has my district been a "red" district until this year?

Or does support for Measure 65 come from folks tired of hearing that current partisan registration is the only way to judge if caucus campaign arm staff will take a candidate from this district seriously?

BTW, I worked on every legislative campaign in my district from the time Norma left to run for Sec. of State until we got Jim Hill elected. I believe legislative elections were better before they became so caucus-oriented.

Sal wrote:

I would argue that without campaign finance reform, no system will level the playing field for progressive candidates.

Agreed, but I am concerned that the weakening of party ideology as a political factor will increase the power of money in elections. That would be a very bad outcome for democracy. It would be a good outcome for monopoly utilities, for whom influence over those who make law and select regulators can increase profits by millions. It would be a good outcome for the business lobby, in general, that opposes effective environmental regulation and any increase in taxes paid by big business.

The upshot is this: there are a myriad of scenarios that could play out, and not even the proponents of this measure have a firm take on how it will transform our election system.

I chose to become a Democrat long ago; I consciously remain a Democrat in order to move a more progressive agenda from within the Party. Every registered voter has made a personal choice as to their alignment.

M65 throws this into a disarray. With passage of M65, either I will have to play a strategic game, anticipating the vote of the Republican voter in order to be sure a Dem advances to the final round or I will have no choice at all since the most favored Democratic candidate has already been pre-selected and other Democratic candidates have been dissuaded from running.

Either way, I'll have less choice as a voter.

Minor parties may be split on the possible ramifications of this measure, but you can be sure of one thing: while the field may be wide open to voters, the choices will be limited, the discourse will be narrowed, and the top candidates' best friend will be the cash that they will desperately need in order to contend.

I'm sure Loren Parks would appreciate our passage of M65.

Come on folks, get real!

If Measure 65 passes, it will be the end of Oregon politics as we know it? Or possibly just the end of some partisan games?

I've got news for you--Norma Paulus as the first woman and Jim Hill as the first black elected in my state rep. district did not get elected because of what party they belonged to. They got elected because people who knew them voted for Norma and later for Jim as individuals they knew and admired.

Recently, party has seemed more important than the individual being elected. Those of us who vote for the individual have done it in the past and will do it in the future----whether 65 gets 51% of the vote or 15% of the vote. Saying the state will turn into Louisiana (complete with the corrupt politics and hurricane danger?) if 65 passes is just hysteria or propaganda.

Which is why I agree with this:

Posted by: Chris Paul | Oct 21, 2008 7:08:14 PM

This is part of the problem i have with the current system, eveyone focusing on the party instead of the actual candidates.

Paul, how long have you lived in Oregon? Which was the first campaign you volunteered for?

Give your students a project sometime. Have them go to a major parking lot or other gathering place(Costco, Washington Square, downtown Portland, etc.) and stop people randomly --every third person who walks by or whatever. Ask those who will talk to them, "what party do you belong to, and why?". I'm guessing your students would get a lot of "why do you want to know?" or "what do you mean I belong to a political party? " than people proud to be a Democrat or a Republican. You are more likely (would be my guess) to meet people who say "go away and don't bother me" or "I'll be glad when the election is over and all those negative ads are off TV" than fierce partisans below the presidential level.

But what do I know--I'm not on a political payroll so I am inexperienced, or naive, or misguided, or just plain wrong because everyone who knows anything does politics for a living. Yeah, right, tell me another one.

I first worked on Tom McCall's re-election campaign as a volunteer going door to door. I was a volunteer who gave one evening a week in the local Democratic campaign office in 1974. My first legislative campaign was 1976.

I hear you loud and clear--you belong to the school of thought which says "political professionals" always know more than long time volunteers. Institutional memory can only come from those who get paid for their political work.

I put my faith in long time volunteers first and "professionals" second. What campaigns was Lisa involved with prior to Wyden for Senate? I remember Mark as a young legislative staffer. I have often questioned Hibbits as a source of infinite wisdom about Oregon politics. I don't know anything about Mike Riley.

You said, "Don't rely on the academics, rely on the political professionals. Ask Tim Hibbitts, Mike Riley, Mark Weiner, Lisa Grove, anyone who runs statewide campaigns in the state."

You don't want to admit there is a grass roots tradition in this state made up of people who don't earn a living in politics. I get that. I just don't belong to that school of thought.

And I think Howard Dean is a better DNC chair than many of his predecessors because he realizes the importance of the grass roots tradition. Remember when the Assoc. of State Democratic Chairs came out for Dean? The friends of Terry McAuliffe and his "big donors and well connected national political figures" strategy said WHO ON EARTH IS ASDC?

Some of us who were involved in party politics (State Central Comm. level esp.) knew about the unsung hard work of ASDC over the decades and were glad to see them get some recognition.

I have not always voted for Norma, but I admire her. She's a local, and many people here knew her husband and were sad when he died unexpectedly. Some of us had been to her home. Except for her run for Gov. when she let herself be made over by the consultants, she's always been the same down to earth person who was our state rep. decades ago when we moved here. But we shouldn't trust her on a ballot measure because bloggers spin all these hypotheticals?

I understand that "grassroots involvement matters" kind of attitude "does not compute" in your world, Paul. But you will never totally understand Oregon politics (no matter how long you teach Poli. Sci.) until you understand that the grass roots tradition in Oregon is not dead.

Jenni, about this, " I've been hearing some talk from people in both parties that if this passes, additional requirements could be added to the qualifications for candidacy under a party's name."

I say BRING IT ON!

In order to do that, it would have to be proposed to the party (state, cong. district or local level?) possibly as a bylaw change. Then it would have to be voted on by the members.

There are legislators on both sides of this measure. There are activists on both sides of this measure.

For all the talk, there might be a heated debate on any specific " additional requirements ", just like when in the early 1990s the state campaign committee at a state central comm. meeting was trying to push having all candidates agree on issues to the point of having all Democrats side with the inland vs. the coast debate on a major issue. That didn't pass, and some people told the story for months if not years afterwards as an example of the stupidity of some in the party.

Blogs are just talk. To impose "additional requirements" would require debate and vote in actual party meetings. And unless things have changed, such bylaw or other changes must be made with advance notice of the meetings.

Whatever you may think of M.65, Jenni, I don't see those "additional requirements" being passed in the dead of night in either party by some secretive cabal. They would have to be passed by the full party body, and there are still enough individuals in Oregon that I don't think such things would pass like a hot knife through butter.

What kind of additional requirements are you hearing? Or is that too specific a question?

Jenni, thanks for the specific: "The one I'm hearing about the most is adding that a candidate has to be endorsed/nominated by the Party in order to be listed on the ballot as a Democrat. "

OK, let's imagine that passes. I'm not sure it would, but let's assume it does.

Let's assume that for a particular primary that Ben, Jim, Jeff, and Catherine are running for the same position. Ben has some really great ideas. Catherine did a great public service years ago by getting a problem solved which took more organization than money (like getting the speed limit reduced on a curvy, dangerous stretch of road). Jim was the first Democrat ever elected in a particular district earlier in his life. Jeff has spent decades working for a union, was once a rather polarizing county chair,and when he ran for office previously, he got the AFL-CIO endorsement.

(All those are real people I have known, but they never ran against each other.)

Suppose that under the scenario you outline, those are all running for the same office, and all have some tie to the Democratic Party.

Who would the party endorse, what would be the process, and would it matter?

Suppose that Jeff got the party endorsement as a former county chair and longtime activist, but Ben and Jim had inspired lots of people over the years. Suppose Catherine had once alienated former supporters by something dumb like telling them that if they had worked on her campaign, she had the right to tell them how to vote in a later election.

I maintain that in that sort of a very possible human dynamic, Ben and Jim might fight it out in the campaign (whether or not they fought for the endorsement) and they might end up being the 2 winning the spots on the M.65 type of general election, even if the party gave their blessing to Jeff.

This is why I say that I don't trust anyone predicting what would happen if 65 passed. Maybe you have not lived through the sort of situations mentioned above. Maybe you've never been called "not a real Democrat" because you had the "gall" to vote in SCC on the side of a resolution backed by legislators you admired and against some activists playing games.

But that is my life experience.

To me the bottom line question is this:

Are parties organizations where people play political games and if someone doesn't have the time and energy for those games, then tough luck they are just a spectator?

Or are parties a place to debate ideas and solve problems? I was just listening online (because I missed the broadcast) to this NPR interview with a former GOP Congressman who sides with Powell on Obama rather than with McCain. He says that the GOP used to be the party of ideas but that they need to get out of the gutter John dragged them into, and if they can't be the party of ideas, maybe people should leave until they do get their act together (he mentioned Susan Eisenhower as another Republican supporting Obama).

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=95906249&m=95906240

It is the Opinion Page from Talk of the Nation Oct. 20.

My question is this:

People are leaving the GOP in droves in a way they haven't since anyone not a Reaganite in the early 1980s was told the GOP didn't want their kind.

Will these folks vote for Obama and then go back to their old ways, or should a dialogue on ideas emerge between these folks and Democrats?

I'd rather be discussing ideas than involved in political gamesmanship. Maybe I should consider re-registering NAV, regardless of what happens to 65, if this is the way that Democratic Party activists look at the world. (Although I am not sure that all county party officers see the world the same way you do, Jenni, given the interesting division of support/opposition of some very well known names in the Voters Pamphlet.

What do you think, Jenni---do I belong in the same party you belong to? Or am I just an old fashioned grass roots person who campaigned for a lot of Democrats but also admired a lot of Republicans back in the old days, and now I'm just a dinosaur who doesn't understand that, as Paul claims, political professionals have taken over politics and there is no longer any room for the institutional memory of long times volunteers?

Jenni, I understand your concern, but where are the rising conservatives? Isn't that movement falling apart because there are so many 21st century problems that ordinary folk want problem solving, not ideology? The past is not always prologue!

Jason Atkinson (hopefully he will be healthy enough) is of a younger generation, as is Bruce Starr. Minnis and Scott have been discredited, and if Richardson tried to run statewide, this would be passed around in very short order. http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/05/representative_.html

Mannix has run for statewide office 4 times, Saxton twice, Larry George was on the losing side of M.49.

I'm guessing there would be a greater likelihood of someone whose ideology is not of the 20th century (Obama drives Republicans nuts because they can't pigeonhole him, Max Williams the former state rep. would probably do the same thing. Frank Morse is no Ted Ferrioli, and I doubt Ted F. would sell very well outside of his Senate district. )

Jenni, this is the 1968 of your generation. Young people are no longer waiting on the world to change http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/johnmayer/waitingontheworldtochange.html

Mac Prichard's speech when he ran for Dem. State Chair (were you there when he spoke?) was not that of an older generation. If Richard Riggs and or Jason Brown are elected state rep. this year, they are not going to be 20th century Democrats any more than Brian Clem or Ben Cannon is.

For all the disagreements many of us have had with Brian Boquist, he turned into a statesman in the 2007 session and that speech he gave on the Iraq War resolution made it clear (as many of us suspected) that actual troops who served in Iraq were not likely to agree with McCain and L. Graham on the Iraq War. That's Sen. L. Graham, who may be in trouble--his poll results are between 50 and 54% http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/senate/Graham(i)-Conley-South-Carolina-Senate-Race.html

If someone like Boquist were to debate McCain or L. Graham on the Iraq War, who would be the "conservative" in that equation? Could it be we are living in a multi-polar world where most people see more choices than liberal vs. conservative?

Mickey Edwards, former member of Congress and then political commentator, has a new book out--something about rescuing conservatism. He has no use for what McCain has done to the GOP.

When I was your age, Barry Goldwater, the man with the strong moral code and gracious manners who believed in discussing issues, was the definition of conservatism. My Dad was a Taft conservative ("we must give up the idea we can legislate the answer to everything") and it is just as well neither Goldwater nor Taft lived to see the mess made by Hastert, Armey, DeLay and W. They would have been angry about lots of things incl. Terri Schaivo and warrentless wiretapping.

There is no conservative movement left, there are just power hungry people angry at WF Buckley's son for saying Obama is running a more issue based, intelligent campaign than McCain. I'm guessing WFB wouldn't have liked the McCain campaign--too nasty and empty of ideas.

I'd like to see campaign finance reform. If you want fusion voting, by all means lobby for it with legislators. I just think we are more likely to see those things with legislators elected under M.65 than to continue the "my caucus right or wrong" legislative elections and "rallying the base" statewide elections.

Parties could open their primaries now if they wanted. Have you ever suggested that at a SCC meeting?

Glad you and Mac are friends, Jenni. He impresses me as the future of the Democratic Party. Have you ever discussed Measure 65 with him?

About this, "There are rising conservatives - we have a number of them out here in eastern Multnomah County. I think there was a gap for a while, but there's a new generation in the 25-40 age range who are coming forward and running for office."

Haven't seen that here in the valley.

Kim Thatcher is the opposite of a rising conservative--maybe she'll get tired of being in the minority and eventually not run for re-election.

Brian Clem and Jason Brown and Hanten Day are examples of the rising stars in the Mid-Valley, and it is hard to think of any opposite numbers among Democrats. Komp's challenger has little or no chance, and even if he did win I doubt he could get any legislation passed. Few Republicans in local office who might be possible future candidates for higher office. No one ran against Brian Clem--or for that matter Jefferson Smith and some other young Democrats.

WOOPS!

"it is hard to think of any opposite numbers among Democrats" was a typo.

<h2>What I meant to say was that aside from Boquist, it is hard to see any rising stars among local Republicans. Independents or non-partisan local politicians, maybe, but not Minnis/Scott style Republican "conservatives".</h2>