Kari, I hope that with this paragraph you are saying you will be down in Salem talking face to face with legislators in favor of these issues---and if any legislator agrees with you, going to their districts with them and discussing these measures in town hall meetings.

"Most of all, I'd like to see fusion voting - where each party gets it's own line on the ballot, even if two or more parties nominate the same candidate. I'd like to see instant-runoff voting - where voters can rank their choices, instead of just picking one. Or perhaps range voting, where voters score candidates 0 to 99. Or better yet, I'd like to see multi-member districts with proportional representation (perhaps with 12 members of the Oregon House being elected in each of our five congressional districts.)"

Kari, you are probably not old enough to remember what the legislature was like before single-member districts. If you can find Russell Sadler wherever he is these days, ask him about it. As I recall, he ran for office the first year single member districts were in effect. There were reasons why single-member districts were created. If you want multiple member districts created, do the research. Find out why they were created, and then write a post saying why you think those reasons no longer apply.

As far as fusion voting or IRV, talk to people in districts where there is only one state rep. running, and see what people in those districts think of those ideas.

Something else about the creation of single member districts. If memory serves, Norma Paulus was elected right after single member districts were created. Now she is a co-sponsor of Measure 65. What conditions existed when single member districts were created which make them a bad/ outdated idea now?

Any proposal needs either 31 votes in the House and 16 in the Senate to pass as legislation, or else needs to be a ballot measure. No matter how many bloggers believe in IRV, fusion, etc., the system will not change unless either legislation is passed or there is a ballot measure.

BTW, the Public Comm. on the Legislature debated all of this. And, as I recall, they looked favorably on a nonpartisan legislature. People here might not agree, but if you want something different, go start a grass roots movement. Blogging alone will not change anything.

Not all multi-seat district systems are the same, LT. Note that Kari was plugging proportional representation in these multi-seat districts. That's a principle of representation that's truly as fundamental as democracy itself: we all deserve a voice for our interests when legislatures convene to do the people's business.

There are a lot of good proportional representation models out there. British Columbia next year will be voting on one system next year -- going to the choice voting, "single transferable vote" method described here, www.choicevoting.com. There are other examples -- most modern democracies have some method of proportional representation.

And I'll take instant runoffs for executive offices. It's crazy to keep a system that doesn't accommodate having more than two choices.

To repeat: No matter what is being done in other jurisdictions, election procedures don't change in Oregon unless: either the legislature changes the procedures by a vote of the legislature, or a ballot measure changes the procedures.

Vote by Mail for all elections was put in place by a ballot measure---Measure 60, 1998. Check out the official results (I'm looking at the print version, but shouldn't be hard to find online). Every county passed it. Our county clerk strongly supported it, and the wife of a local legislator was active in the campaign.

What I am saying is that much of the conversation here has the tone of a debating society. Even if every other country in the world has proportional representation, it ain't gonna happen in Oregon short of the sort of grass roots movement (combined with the efforts of elected officials) that passed Vote By Mail for all elections.

We definitely need open primaries, or whatever one wants to call them, to force candidates to the center. I mean, we don't have enough ideological conformity already; we need more. And a scheme to get Greens, Libertarians, and other ideologically divergent parties off the general-election ballot sure makes my day, too. Maybe Bill Bradbury can work on a way to do this (the way he tried to eighty-six Ralph Nader) in case measure 65 fails.

A lot keeps being made of the endorsement of this measure by Vic Atiyeh and John Kitzhaber. Geez Louise, what a disappointment about Kitzhaber. I moved to Oregon after Vic Atiyeh's time as governor, but I voted twice for Kitzhaber and was glad to. Does anyone remember who Kitzhaber ran against? DENNY SMITH in 1994, BILL SIZEMORE in 1998: a couple of wingnuts if ever there were any. In other words, we had exceptionally clear choices in both 1994 and 1998. Hey folks, I like clear choices. I don't want look-alikes.

JDW, The whipping boy leaves office in January. "Maybe Bill Bradbury can work on a way to do this (the way he tried to eighty-six Ralph Nader) in case measure 65 fails."

He's been blamed for "Democratic leaning districts" by Republicans who won many of those districts anyway. He's been tarred as wronging Ralph Nader.

Whatever happens with M. 65, it is doubtful that the outgoing Bradbury will do much of anything regarding future elections in his remaining weeks in office.

Seems like "doth protest too much" would apply here--what is so wonderful about the status quo that 65 will cause ruination?

Coming late to the party, I read the "Yes" arguments in the other thread Kari had started and jumped over hear to comment since Kari elaborated on his views here on just this issue. And because I voted "No" along with Kari for some, but not all of the same reasons.

The main point worth making, beyond those Kari argued quite well here and Sue Hagmeier made in the other thread, is that the "Yes" people, most notably represented by Sal, Miles, and LT, apparently have a very uneducated understanding of our history and the primary system (that's not a slam guys, that's simply what you demonstrate from your arguments.)

Political parties emerged specifically to combat the very real dangers to our representative democracy of factionalism, which itself is actually reflection of undisciplined small "d" (mob) democracy that the founders foresaw as every bit the dangerous threat to liberty that aristocratic rule is. Jefferson talks clearly about this in his writings about the first political party he helped form. Partisanship is a completely distinct phenomena which occurs in an environment of factionalism, including the environment like we have now where factionalism actually threatens the stability of political parties. (Just wait until the fights break out in the Democratic Party if the election works out the way many of us hope with Obama winning and Democrats gaining large majorities in the Congress and several state legislators including Oregon).

The solution to partisanship is not to explicitly reject the undisputable stabilizing influence well functioning political parties provide in favor of more small "d" mob democracy which encourages even more factionalism. As Sue Hagmeier pointed out, the "Yes" people are really just arguing their preference for small "d" democracy, completely oblivious to the reality of the dangers. They refuse to grapple with the serious arguments and historical evidence even here in Oregon that properly-functioning political parties are the best known antidote in a representative democracy to factionalism. We almost certainly could benefit from about two more competitive parties, though.

The bottom line for Sal, Miles, and LT about partisan primaries is this: Partisan primaries have a well understood and important role in our representative democracy. The "rights" voters have, as the courts have repeatedly stated far more soundly than you have chosen to understand, is to be able to pay for those primaries and to vote in them to best protect our representative democracy without fear of reprisal by nobles or the mob. That is an incredible right people in many other countries would love to have. It's sad you chose to absent yourself from exercising that right by not participating in a partisan primary because you instead want destabilizing small "d" democracy and refuse to accept the historically demonstrated risks of factionalism. I even agree with you the Republican and Democratic parties here in Oregon are dysfunctional, some of the biggest voices for Measure 65, starting with Keisling, are directly responsible for making them that way. The solution is to clean up the parties and to vote out the party leadership and politicians they support who are responsible for the dysfunction.

Fusion voting is essentially impotent.

http://scorevoting.net/Fusion.html

Incidentally, we're using the term "score voting" now, more than "range voting". It seems to convey the idea more clearly.

Thanks for the article.

The opponens of 65 call the mesure confusing, but things like fusion voting and IRV are totally in wonkland. Voters don't want to complicate their ballots with second and third choices and assigning percentages.

On the other hand, there really is nothing simpler than letting every voter have a choice of all candidates running for any particular office. It's done quite successfully in races for mayor, city council, district attorney, county commissioner, labor commissioner and state superintendent of education. It certainly doesn't eliminate parties since all candidates can choose to list their party affiliation.

JDW points out that Kitzhaber's opponents were wingnuts Denny Smith and Bill Sizemore. He hardly had to run a campaign at all against Sizemore. Is that a good thing? Shouldn't candidates have to earn their way to office? If a top-two system had been in effect, Kitzhaber might have had to fend off a Paulus or a Frohnmayer--candidates who actually would have some notion of what governing is about.

It's sad you chose to absent yourself from exercising that right by not participating in a partisan primary because you instead want destabilizing small "d" democracy and refuse to accept the historically demonstrated risks of factionalism.

Not sure what you mean by this, since I've been a registered Democrat since I was 18 and haven't missed a primary vote yet. Anyway, the biggest danger to the American system of representative democracy and the factionalism that can occur isn't M65, it's Oregon's initiative system in its entirety. We have castrated our elected officials and our political parties by essentially making them irrelevant to the big policy issues of the day. So don't get up on your soapbox about factionalism until you do something to solve the much larger problem.

In the meantime, I want all Oregonians to have a say in winnowing down the field of candidates that make it to the general election.

the Legislature should amend it to remove this vacancy-filling clause. It's a terrible idea, a disaster-in-waiting, and certainly not the reason why pro-65 voters voted for it.

Kari, this is a bizarre reason to vote against M65. First, vacancies throughout America are filled by executives or legislators without regard to the political party of the former member. I don't know this for a fact, but I would opine that's MORE common than the Oregon system.

Second, you're assuming way too much about party voting trends. Just because a Democrat got elected does not mean that voters in that district voted for the Democratic party. Maybe they did, or maybe the voted for the individual. Or maybe they elected him years ago, and he held on while the district changed.

Besides, if the opposing party has a majorty on a county board, that's a clear indication of a split district. Why does the party affiliation of the one member trump the party affiliations of the county commissioners? If, as you speculate, voters are casting votes based on party, doesn't it say something that they elected the opposing party to a different office?

It sounds like you simply found one very small part of M65 and are using it justify your "no" vote.

@ Gil Johnson: When you say "the voters don't want" all I can hear is you saying "I don't want. . . "

Instant Runoff Voting is "wonkland"? You mean when asked to rank your favorite movies you are unable to do so? Do you mean that the citizens of Pierce County, Washington, and San Francisco, California, and all Australians are "wonks"?

By the way, just about everywhere instant runoff voting has been on the ballot, voters have adopted it. On what evidence do you base this claim that "voters don't want" it? It's even the basic method given for conducting elections in Roberts Rules, because it's efficient and fair.

Likewise, fusion is "wonkland"? New York, with its long history of fusion, is that "wonkland"?

I will agree with you that "nothing simpler than letting every voter have a choice of all candidates running for any particular office" -- had the proponents of M65 thought to use instant runoff voting so that voters WOULD have the choice of all the candidates running, why then I'd be a big M65 backer.

But, instead, M65 proposes to use just about the worst possible election method (plurality/first-past-the-post), --- the one that is fantastically and famously incapable of producing a just result when there are more than two choices --- for precisely the round when there would likely be more than two choices! Then, because the measure's design is so inadequate, the petitioners tacked on a second round, "top-two only" election, so that every election would cost twice as much to administer as necessary, to say nothing of the fantastic sums that will be required for candidates to compete in two full elections where they must seek support from every part of the populace, not just members of a single party.

M65 is simple, that I will indeed grant you. It's simple in the same way that Bill Sizemore's "no building permits for modifications under $35k" initiative is simple -- it simply ignores all nuances in favor of an arbitrary system that is based entirely on the whim of the petition authors.

Sal, frankly your personal beliefs are irrelevant. If Measure 65 passes, it will go to court and the courts will let us know whether your beliefs or the principles I've described (whose publication history predates Federalist 10 by more than a decade) are correct. As one person pointed out in the other thread, we've only seen the first round of court proceedings in the Washington case.

But I do not agree that the current system, which excludes 400,000 people from participating in our primary elections is a good one.

But our system excludes far more people than that -- no one who hasn't bothered to register to vote can vote in primaries either. How is that fair? Just because they haven't registered to vote, why should they be excluded from helping select candidates?

(/sarcasm -- kinda. There is no fundamental reason that we don't have universal voter registration so that there is no such thing as needing to register to vote. But, currently, we do have a voter registration requirement -- and if you haven't met that requirement, you are EXCLUDED from voting. If keeping people people from being excluded from nominations is so important, why didn't M65 authors find that exclusion troublesome? And, of course, it could only be called "exclusion" if you somehow prevented people from declaring party membership. The requirement to be in a party to help select the nominees is no more onerous than the requirement that you belong to the Kiwanis or League of Women Voters to help select the officers for those groups.)

The opponents of 65 call the mesure confusing, but things like fusion voting and IRV are totally in wonkland. Voters don't want to complicate their ballots with second and third choices and assigning percentages.

As someone else has already noted, instant runoffs are in fact working quite well in some places. Don't most of us in fact have 2nd choices? I sure do....

My own reasons for voting against 65 had a lot less thought behind it. Passage of 65 would introduce more variables into the game theory of primaries. And when there are more ways to game the system, I tend to think that advantages Republicans, since Democrats are more "fair" in my mind. So, I'm voting against it.

M65 doesn't preclude IRV or fusion voting and one of those could be added in the future. One thing at a time.

But I don't see a huge clamor for IRV or any of the other alternatives from the general public. The only people touting these notions are political junkies and wonks. On the other hand, the only poll I've seen shows voters favoring the Keisling/Paulus proposal by a large margin. I wouldn't even be that agitated about this race except for the outlandish scenarios imagined by the opponents (and the sleazy OEA mailer that linked M65 to Sizemore). I can understand Kari's reasoned objections to M65, though I think those glitches can be fixed.

Posted by: tunesmith | Nov 3, 2008 10:52:35 AM

<h2>My own reasons for voting against 65 had a lot less thought behind it. Passage of 65 would introduce more variables into the game theory of primaries. And when there are more ways to game the system, I tend to think that advantages Republicans, since Democrats are more "fair" in my mind. So, I'm voting against it.</h2>

Pretty much my thoughts on 65 except reverse the "fair" charge in my mind :). Although, I really don't trust either major party these days as an independent voter (and former republican). 65 as Kari mentions in his post to me seems to complicate things, requiring me an even bigger flowchart of who's who in the political game. I want more 3rd party representation/choices but I don't see how this is really the best way to go about it.

@ Sal: I realize that you are an advocate for this thing but what you wrote above was absurd:

The notion that someone should be forced to be a member of a private organization in order to have a say in what candidates are elected to public office would probably be somewhat offensive to anyone who had not grown up in such a system.

There is no requirement to belong to any organization to have a say in who is elected. It's called voting. No membership in anything needed.

The status quo is that these "private organizations" you worry about people being "forced" to join -- at no cost and with no obligation whatsoever -- are voluntary groups of people who have freely chosen to associate in order to advance their policy views.

The officers of the Kiwanis and the League of Women Voters have every bit as much power to make public policy decisions as party nominees -- which is to say, none. Policy is made by elected officials, not nominees.

And please don't invent positions and then pretend that I hold them. To clarify, I do NOT believe that "political parties should control the state's nominating process for candidates, and that parties have a right to appear on the general election ballot." Rather, I believe that all Oregonians have the right to join together to nominate candidates for public office who will further their policy preferences. I also believe that ballot access ought to be available on a strictly neutral basis for all candidates, whether they be from major parties, minor parties, and even "independents" who refuse to develop platforms or do any of the other work needed for governance.

re: Vacancies and other party matters.

You're getting the cart before the horse. Basically you're arguing that filling of vacancies by the party that nominated an elected candidate is so important, that the candidates must therefore be nominees of parties.

This might be OK if elections were between Joe the Democrat and Joe the Republican, and for flavor, Joseph from the Constitution Party, Jo from the Libertarians, and Jose from the Greens. But presumably the Joe's and Jane's who make up the electorate are not voting for a faceless Joe of whatever party-brand they favor, but a real individual, who happened to be selected by a particular party as their nominee.

Instead, start from the basic principle that all voters should be able to fully participate in selection of their representatives, without having to navigate through obstacles erected by the major parties to preserve their duopoly.

Then devise a method of handling contingencies, such as vacancies. It really is pretty absurd to have people whose job is to maintain the roads, to be appointing legislators.

So some alternatives:

1) Special elections. Pretty neat idea for choosing who represents you, huh? Now that you have adopted elections where any candidate may run in regular elections, the only different would be the scheduling of the election. If a candidate gets a majority, dispense with the Top 2 2nd election.

2) Have candidates name an alternate, in effect a vice-representative.

3) Have a citizen's jury appoint a successor. The SoS publishes monthly reports of registration by district and party. I'm quite sure they (or county election officials) could produce the same data by election precinct, and age. And I'd be amazed if voter registration rolls are not at least one source of jury pools. So it would be straightforward to randomly select a jury that is representative of the party registration, age, and location (precinct) of the district. Bring them together, and let them elect the successor. It's quick, and relatively inexpensive.

4) Move the elections closer together. A May election means that candidates have to, at minimum, begin their election preparations a year before their term starts, which increases the likelihood that they won't complete their term. Consider how absurd the current calendar is for county commissioner elections. You have a non-partisan election in May. If no candidate has a majority, what do you do? Wait 6 months to hold a runoff???

The same logic applies to other residual artifacts of party-primary-based elections.

Precinct officers. Why should the State of Oregon tell private organizations how they should be organized, and actually conduct their elections for them? They trust the minor parties to organize their own activities. Surely the larger parties are as capable.

Instead focus on what the State of Oregon needs from parties as far as conducting elections under the new system:

1) The State needs an individual/executive body who is responsible for communicating party endorsements to the State election officials. It may be useful to have these exist at both State and county levels.

2) The State needs a standard for qualifying parties - so that a voter who registers with a party, and then becomes a candidate, can have that party registration recognized on the ballot; and so that the State knows which parties may make endorsements.

The current system may not work, because for most minor parties it is based on the success of their nominees in the general election, and under the new system the only party nominee will be that for President - and the presidential nominee is not necessarily the choice of the Oregon party registrants.

Under the new system, statewide candidates will only need 1000 signatures to qualify for the ballot. Why make it much harder for a party to be qualified for making endorsements? You could use 0.1% of the gubernatorial vote - which is the current standard for initial party qualification. This is 1300-odd voters.

Remember that the right to endorse does not guarantee a party the right to place candidates on the ballot. Candidates for statewide office would still need 1000 signatures, after which they could then be endorsed, so there should be little concern about lots of qualified micro-parties.

Minor parties might well find it easier to maintain their registrants under the new system. For example, the Pacific Greens lost 1/4 of their registrants in the first part of 2008, most likely due to voters re-registering in order to vote in the presidential primary of the Democratic Party.

Or you could also require some evidence of continued participation in party affairs by party registrants. For example, you could require a party to hold annual precinct*, county, and state conventions. Each party could establish the geographic limits of the precinct conventions. The major parties might use individual election precincts; smaller parties might combine several precincts, or use legislative districts, or even counties in rural areas. The county and state conventions could be open to all party members, or to delegates chosen at lower levels. Have each party keep a roll of registrants who participate. If 5% of a party's registrants participate, then the party may make endorsements for that year.

The State might get involved to the extent of mailing out invitations to precinct conventions (ie the equivalent of the voter's guide), and distributing proxy forms for those registrants who are unable to attend a convention in person.

This same system could be used for new parties. Simply get 1300 voters to show up to your meetings statewide (and change their party registration) and you are a qualified party.

3) Get rid of the partisan presidential primary. It is not necessary for the conduct of elections by the State of Oregon, including those for presidential elector. It does not nominate candidates for the general election ballot like for state, congressional, or legislative offices. It instead chooses delegates to a convention of the national party, a private organization. A national party is totally free to arbitrarily reject delegates chosen in a state presidential preference primary (eg Michigan and Florida this year). The state and national party are totally free to ignore the State-run presidential primary (eg Washington Democratic party). There is no guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes will be chosen by the national convention. And the state party could choose to ignore the choice of the national convention.

Simply let individual candidates qualify for the November ballot like any other candidate (1000 signatures on a petition). The only thing extra would be the name of a VP-candidate, and the presidential elector candidates.

If Mr. Obama wants to run for president, he (or his supporters) would collect 1000 signatures. If the Oregon Democratic Party wants to endorse him, they may do so. Perhaps the Oregon Democratic Party could designate the Illinois Democratic Party as its affiliate, such that Mr.Obama could be shown as a registered Democrat on the ballot.

If a political party wants to run its own presidential selection process, then it can do so. Oregon might even let the state rent its election infrastructure to the parties (ballot mailouts, ballot collection, and ballot counting).

4) Oregon may wish to provide a mechanism so that parties can ensure that those who indicate a party registration are bona fide affilates with the party. For example, Oregon could let each party determine the number of signatures from fellow party registrants are needed in order for a candidate to indicate his registration status on the ballot. So for example, the Democratic Party might require that 500 of the 1000 signatures needed to be placed on the ballot as a Democratic registrant come from other Democratic registrants.

Measure 65 should be called "Twopartiocracy"

I like leaving the door open for a third party run in the event my party nominates a dorf, a closet Republican or the candidate gets his you know caught what in the ringer with a scandal between the primary and the filing deadline.

And I don't want GD Republicans voting in my primary

Sal,

For the love of mike, are you reading anything here or just posting feverishly as you poke at a few items?

Parties are not "Private Organizations."

Voters have the ability to register with any party they wish, or they can select to be "non-affiliated," a choice that they consciously make and understand that takes them out of the partisan part of the process. This is what they, themselves, have undertaken; nobody has forced them into it.

You wanted to vote for Vicki Berger in the Primary? Fine, you have every right to re-register as a Republican.

Thanks for the dose of reality, Dan. Legislatures are bound by US Supreme Court decisions such as Baker v. Carr 1962 and Reynolds v. Simms 1964.

Laws and Supreme Court cases bind decisions about political processes in ways bloggers cannot change.

Steve, my grandfather was nominated for Michigan Atty. General under the old system. After he was the only Republican (running for County Prosector, another name for DA) in his county to survive the FDR landslide, he and his WWI buddies were able to break the county machine in 1934. Previously, the political machine had been a bunch of guys with all the morals of Sizemore & McIntire. They'd been drawing names out of a hat, feeding fancy turkey dinners to the chosen delegates, paying their trainfare to the state convention, and telling those delegates how to vote. I know this because I inherited Grandpa's clippings.

There is a wonderful picture of Grandpa's friends in evening dress (much like what Obama and McCain wore to that Al Smith Dinner in NY where they told jokes on themselves) unrolling a banner on what looks like the sort of butcher paper many schools use for large displays. It says something like WE DON'T WANT A TURKEY DINNER, WE ONLY WANT A FAIR PROCESS. Hardly likely we will ever see protesters that well dressed in the 21st century.

Anyone here who has been involved in party politics or other organizational politics may know the experience of going to an event where the temporary chair presides over the election of a permanent chair before the business of the group is done. I always thought it was a formality, until I read the clipping about the 1934 county GOP meeting to select delegates to the state convention. The temporary chair called the roll, and after calling each name once, there was a tie. So that temp. chair turned to representatives of both sides and asked if the "not answering" names should be called again. My grandfather said the chair's decision would be fine with him either way. The first "not answering" name was called, the tie was broken, and a near riot broke out--people rushing the stage with a Notary or someone like that to swear in their perm. chair candidate. Eventually, I think the police showed up.

The result was 2 slates of state convention delegates sent to the state convention for the credentials committee to sort out. They chose Grandpa's slate. Then, for the nominations, that state convention did a surprising thing. It had been the custom for the convention to select the Gov. nominee, and the Gov. nominee to select the nominees for Sec. of State, AG, State Treasurer. The AG nominee that the Gov. nominee wanted was not Grandpa, it was someone else. The convention selected Grandpa anyway, and a small town newspaper thanked that county GOP for breaking the back of the county party machine.

THAT is how things happened in one state which had primaries within the decade after that. Not every political machine was like Tammany Hall in NY or the Chicago machine which was still alive and powerful in 1968. Who in Oregon would play the role of the elder Mayor Daley in these visions of a return to machine politics--or is that asking for too much reality?

Do you folks really believe that if Measure 65 passes, within a decade Oregon will look like 1930s Michigan? State Central Comm. choosing state nominees? No voter who considers themself active in a party voting for anyone not chosen by the party to have the "stamp of approval"?

As for your last point, Steve, the GOP has "vetted" their most recent 5th Cong. District nominees (Zupancic and Erickson) for competence and "reasonable adherence to ideology "? Gosh, I guess that explains why the wonderful gentleman in our church (everyone should be doing such good works, esp. after they retire) still has the Jackie Winters for Congress bumper sticker on his back bumper. He says "people with lots of money moved the party too far to the right and I didn't go with them". I don't know how he voted on 65, but I know people like him who voted for 65. Are they advocated smoke filled rooms?

What might have happened to the more intelligent Jackie Winters (say what you will about her politics--she stood up to Minnis and Randy Miller on the subject of severe budget cuts which hurt needy people and got a lot of respect in her district and elsewhere for that stand) had 65 put Zupancic, Winters, and Hooley on one ballot in the primary? Would Zupancic have had a chance (given that under the current system we now know he didn't carry Marion County in the primary or the general election)?

If people here want IRV or fusion voting or whatever, where is your grass roots movement? This sounds like the folks who were angry in 1994 that the campaign finance reform which got the number Measure 9 collected signatures in every county and passed in every county. They didn't believe in it, so how could it possibly have that much popular support???

Folks, Norma Paulus was our state rep. when we first moved to Salem. I first met Phil Keisling when he was a political staffer. Reading some comments here, it sounds like you anti-65 people believe Phil and Norma are either naive or somehow subversive and we should trust you instead of them.

Trust is earned, folks! I trust Phil and Norma. I saw them speak to the Public Comm. on the Legislature, as well as advocates for IRV and other voting systems. I thought they made a better case. If that makes me too subversive to be a true Blue Oregonian, so be it. I got really angry at the 1996 US Senate May primary (Bruggere bought that primary more than he won it. No, I didn't think he deserved my unquestioning allegiance as soon as he won that primary, so I registered NAV for 6 years and might have stayed that way until there was a Presidential primary I cared about had 65 have been in place back then). I don't think it is the responsibility of anyone who wants to vote in a primary to register with a major party and then maybe choose to re-register afterwards, unless the parties are paying for the primary process. Otherwise, over 20% of the population are paying for a closed process. I don't think those folks are going to vote to keep the current process. And I know people who have been active in their parties who think it is time for a change.

Whatever happens with the election results tomorrow, I will continue to believe in M.65. Opponents will have the right to continue to think it is a lousy idea. But if you come to me and ask for support for IRV and/or fusion, I'll ask whether you were one of the people who personally attacked Phil and Norma. I think they and Kitzhaber have more sense than the 65 opponents. If M. 65 crashes and burns, I will still have more respect for Phil, Norma, Dr. John and the other supporters of M. 65 than for the opponents who attacked them as stupid or whatever.

THAT, folks, is one of the oldest factors in politics---individuals deciding who they admire and then distrusting anyone who attacks the people they admire. (For those who may not remember, Phil Keisling won a bruising Sec.of State primary in 1992 against someone I had once admired. I thought the attacks were insulting to the intelligence of voters.

That's what I think of many of the anti-65 arguments.