Will 2010 be "a banner year for lefty spoiler candidates"?
Kari Chisholm
Deep in the comments on Carla's Metolius live-blog thread, appeared a pair of comments from Sal Peralta.
Sal was a Democratic candidate for the legislature in 2006 (against Rep. Donna Nelson) and has since become an activist with the Independent Party of Oregon. He's been a strong advocate for fusion voting legislation in the 2007 and 2009 legislatures.
(Learn more about fusion voting generally from Rep. Chip Shields, who blogged about it in 2007 - and get the latest news, to which Sal alludes, from last week's Willamette Week.)
Anyway, I thought these two comments are worth some attention in their own thread. Posted at 8:17 p.m. yesterday by Sal:
A bunch of the Dems who voted against this bill based on political considerations should reconsider. Thanks to Richard Devlin, 2010 is likely to be a banner year for lefty spoiler candidates. The last thing some of these house candidates need is a couple of people running to their left because they are pissed off about Metolius or Palomar.Just sayin'.
And roughly an hour later:
I feel compelled to mention that I've always counseled the minor parties to collaborate with major parties. The Independent Party did not run a single spoiler candidate in 2008. The reason I pushed so hard in this session for the "fusion lite" bill was to encourage collaboration between the minor parties and major party candidates. I intend to continue encouraging such collaboration, but folks in Salem would do well to give serious consideration to these undercurrents. There is a great deal of discontent in the electorate right now around some of these local issues.
Discuss.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jun 17, '09
Rep. Brad Witt already has an announced challenger, Peter Huthula, who is the director of the Columbia River Business Alliance and a passionate opponent of LNG.
9:27 a.m.
Jun 17, '09
As for lefty spoiler candidates, every now and then I fall into the trap of believing that spoiler candidates actually exist. Spoiler to me is a term used by sore loser candidates and campaigns. If anyone spoils a campaign, it is usually the one attempting to place the spoiler label on another campaign.
With 2010 we'll have to see who the third parties put up for Governor, and what role the IPO will play in the campaign. 2008 wasn't very productive for third party candidates in Oregon.
Jun 17, '09
Spoiler candidates do certainly exist..although I don't think it's something Democrats really need to worry about...only conservative spoiler candidates can have any real affect. Jeff Merkley is a Senator today because Dave Brownlow ran and received 5% of the conservative vote..clearly a spoiler candidate. However the base of support for Democrats in Oregon is so strong, Republicans are not anywhere within striking distance to benefit enough from a third party lefty candidate. Oregon has very much become a one-party state and looks to remain that way for the foreseeable future....no Democrat (regardless of who they are) will lose to any Republican (regardless of who they are) in any statewide race in this state for many years....I don't think Democratic candidates should lose any sleep over the spoiler issue anytime soon..
10:12 a.m.
Jun 17, '09
Carl, in 2008 the Independent Party cross-nominated Jeff Merkley rather than nominating John Frohnmayer. If you don't believe that decision impacted the Senate race, think again. We also supported Ben Westlund and Vicki Berger rather than encouraging 3rd party candidates to enter those races.
As to 2008 not being "a productive year for third parties..."
I beg to differ.
The IPO was the first minor party to have its cross-nominated candidates win statewide public office in more than 100 years. The three Independent Party candidates we ran aces that would have otherwise been uncontested demonstrated that they can do at least as well as major party candidates in supposedly non-competitive districts - giving voters a credible alternative on the November ballot.
I should point out that we are not a "lefty" political party. We are organized around promoting a very narrow set of good government reforms that are intended to promote the rights and interests of non-affiliated voters and minor political parties, providing some gravity in the bi-partisan and non-partisan center, and providing ballot access for credible candidates to run in districts that would not otherwise be contested.
Jun 17, '09
Money continues to drive and control virtually every election regardless of the candidate's affiliation as right, left or middle. Incumbents seem to draw most of the money, and therefore I would be very skeptical that 2010 or any other year would see an uprising that would toss out incumbents in favor of primary challengers. Obviously some exceptions - independently wealthy, celebrities, etc. - but not very often.
Jun 17, '09
On a related issue, as regards spoiler candidates, I believe the bill which would repeal the 2005 Oregon law which denies a person voting in a primary the ability to sign a candidacy petition of a candidate of another party has this session passed the Oregon Senate by 30-0. But the House Rules Committee has tied it up- will not bring it to the floor (last I heard).
Seems a blatant major-party protectionist ploy to have ever enacted this.
10:51 a.m.
Jun 17, '09
I have to take issue with the term "spoiler candidate." You may be a fringe candidate, or a vanity candidate, but any candidate who is serious about public policy should not be called a "spoiler." In fact, small party candidates are the only way to keep the two major parties--who have granted themselves enormous institutional advantages--honest. Look at the party IDs and you'll see that the "major" parties now represent diminishing constituencies. That they assume a kind of right to be on the ballot, unfettered by the concerns of a larger and larger percentage of the voting population is exactly the problem.
Parties get things done by being large and so have a vested interest in marginalizing other parties. It's only from their view that an election is "spoiled" by a third party. I really wish we'd quit thinking like that.
10:52 a.m.
Jun 17, '09
I have to take issue with the term "spoiler candidate." You may be a fringe candidate, or a vanity candidate, but any candidate who is serious about public policy should not be called a "spoiler." In fact, small party candidates are the only way to keep the two major parties--who have granted themselves enormous institutional advantages--honest. Look at the party IDs and you'll see that the "major" parties now represent diminishing constituencies. That they assume a kind of right to be on the ballot, unfettered by the concerns of a larger and larger percentage of the voting population is exactly the problem.
Parties get things done by being large and so have a vested interest in marginalizing other parties. It's only from their view that an election is "spoiled" by a third party. I really wish we'd quit thinking like that.
10:52 a.m.
Jun 17, '09
(By the way, I have no idea why my comments keep getting double-posted. I'm not hitting anything twice.)
Jun 17, '09
Jeff Alworth: you are 100% right-on correct. Any serious candidate shouldn't be called a spoiler.
Jun 17, '09
With Democrats in control of governance, there will be more issues like LNG and eco-system protection that alienate sizable chunks of the progressive electorate. It would not be surprising to see more third party candidates who siphon votes from Democrats, but this calculus should not be necessary to gain Democratic support for HB 2414.
The quasi-fusion voting bill is quite mild reform. It's sad when Democrats are more concerned with maintaining small political advantage than with promoting democracy. I bet it would be hard to find a D in the legislature who has not bemoaned the lack of engagement among the electorate. Still, Democratic leadership is killing a reform that would promote that engagement. Bad form.
11:14 a.m.
Jun 17, '09
Jeff and Stephen - I am not using the term in a pejorative sense. I am pointing out that in the absence of reforms that encourage collaboration between minor parties and major party candidates (ie, our "fusion lite" bill or "true fusion"), or reforms that give voters the option of voting for minor party candidates without throwing the race to the candidate whose views least closely resemble their own (ie, IRV), the only role available to minor parties to "keep major parties honest" is to run "spoiler candidates".
Such candidates may have serious issues to discuss, and they may be credible candidates, but they remain a third wheel in a two-party system of elections.
If you can come up with a meaningful term that better communicates that idea in a non-pejorative fashion, I will be glad to start using it because I am not intending to use the term "spoiler" in an accusatory fashion.
11:50 a.m.
Jun 17, '09
I prefer third-party or small-party, both neutral descriptors.
I actually understood your point, but it's a term I've never liked.
Jun 17, '09
Sal...come on, seriously..how can you claim the Independent Party of Oregon is not a "lefty political party" with a straight face? As you mentioned, IPO endoresed Jeff Merkley for Senate over Frohnmayer and Gordon Smith...Merkley (who had never broken with his party on a major issue at all) was clearly the most partisan and least independent candidate in that race.....do your really maintain that the IPO is not a leftist political party, despite its "independent" name?
Jun 17, '09
Oregon has very much become a one-party state and looks to remain that way for the foreseeable future....no Democrat (regardless of who they are) will lose to any Republican (regardless of who they are) in any statewide race in this state for many years....I don't think Democratic candidates should lose any sleep over the spoiler issue anytime soon..
Statewide, you're probably right. But we're talking about the legislature, where individual districts can be competitive, and where the Republican Party is not dead. Some districts are still solid Republican. Many other districts, especially in the House, were won by Democrats for the first time in 2006 and 2008, and another handful stayed Republican in 2008 by very narrow margins, and may be competitive again.
The 2010 elections will determine whether the Democrats get to run the table on the next round of post-census redistricting, so we can expect that they will throw everything they've got at trying to win back at least one chamber of the legislature. I think the Governor and the Senate majority are definitely out of their reach unless some key Senators retire unexpectedly, so their best shot will be the House. Even there, it's kinda doubtful that they could pick up seven seats in one cycle, but a determined group of Naders could make it happen.
We should be careful. A key part of getting and keeping the majority is not just winning elections, but governing well. If our Democrats don't appear to deserve to be in charge, their days will be numbered, and no amount of advertisements and get out the vote phone calls will save them. The Republicans ALWAYS have the money advantage. We overcome that only when we have the popular advantage. We still have that for now, but if we don't have the people's backs during the legislative session, they won't have our backs next November.
12:29 p.m.
Jun 17, '09
JJ - Believe what you'd like. We supported Merkley because he is a supporter of campaign finance reform while Gordon Smith was the primary republican spokesman agains BCRA -- the federal campaign finance system. Any reasonable review of the Independent Party' nominations in 2008 will show that we supported candidates from across the political spectrum.
Jun 17, '09
If Dave Hunt runs for higher office I'm in the race if no one else is- Why bother to support Democrats for the legislature if that's what you get? And you can bet Hunt squeezed Barton's vote against the Metolius as well.
Jun 17, '09
So far the Democrats,in the city of Portland, in the state of Oregon, and nationwide, have a very mixed record so far as I am concerned. I registered as a Democrat the last election cycle so that I could have the honor of voting for Barack Obama, a historic candidate that I thought would deliver substantive change. So far (and it's early, but change usually does come early in presidential administrations) that has not turned out to be the case, in my view.
So Wyden on health care has lost me. Obama seems determined to keep for-profit health care as the organizing principle of our system. Single payer, which many of us thought we were voting for (Obama had earlier endorsed it) is not even allowed a seat at the table.
Certainly Hass's recklessness and the recent Oregon House vote on protecting the environment from development are profoundly discouraging.
Sam Adams's troubles are well-known and, although he probably won't be recalled, we aren't going to get the progressive agenda we voted for there either.
So everywhere those of us on the left who thought we would finally be on offense are once again playing defense only this time it is against the Democratic Party. I don't pretend that there is no difference between the parties, but try to see it from the standpoint of the majority of the electorate who want single payer but who are treated as ignorant children; who want to save the wilderness, but who are told to shut up, this is not in the cards; who want to stop the killing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are told to pass the supplemental.
How can we ever get to the truly core issues - the dismantling of greed as the engine of who we are - if we cannot rely on our political party and our elected officials to do even these minimum things with substantial majorities after such a historic election with large approval ratings?
In what sense is this democracy?
So, yes, I am open to going back to the Green Party or anyone else who promises some forward progress on these issues. I don't feel like a spoiler. Indeed, I feel like people who stick by people like Wyden and Hass in the face of their unwillingness to help create a society in which free healthcare and education are recognized practically as human rights that cannot be taken away - they are the spoilers.
1:54 p.m.
Jun 17, '09
Seems to me that if some of these legislators, particularly in the safer districts, are going to see legitimate challenges in 2010, it's far more likely to arise in a primary than from a third-party candidate in the general. There's already been some grumbling by staunch progressives about a couple freshman reps who it's felt aren't adequately representing the highly progressive nature of their districts.
Jun 17, '09
The progressive record and accomplishments of the Democratic caucuses of last two sessions are impressive, especially considering the narrow house majority last session.
Some of their good works: effectively banning predetatory payday lenders, a higher corporate tax that was temporary last time and permanent now, better education funding, 100 more state cops, environmental protection, an employment non discrimination bill that had languished for 30 years, tougher ethical standards for lobbying and campaign finance adding bottled water to the bottle bill last session (I'll be disappointed if HB 2184 last session isn't passed this time, but a lot of Ds have worked hard to get it as far as it is), and protecting workers from mandatory meetings and giving states workers carcheck organizing. If only national Democrats could follow this lead!
Some activists in both parties will never be satisfied. There will always be the conflict between jobs and the environment, especially among rural Democrats, but if we don't ahve that kind of division, it means we don't have a majority.
I think Bob Tiernan sounds like a lunatic for venting against Bob Jenson and Greg Smith to the point of calling for their defeat based solely on their corporate tax vote. Although some strong environmental Democrats might want to see challengers to Democratic legislators based on LNG and the Metolius, I hope the Democratic Party as a whole will reject that kind of talk.
Jun 17, '09
"Lefty"? Beyond a chuckle this deserves a belly laugh. The hideous vote on Metolius notwithstanding give us a break. There is no left. There barely is a progressive. Oh yes, it is a convenient marketing label. What can you call Democrats? Republicans. So where is there any slight indication of what was once a democratic party?
Gone. With the hot air and the lobbyists money. As dead as JFK.
Jun 17, '09
"Some activists in both parties will never be satisfied."
Love the congnitive dissonance. Could it be that "activists" are dissatisfied because they find the positions of the two parties to be effectively indistinguishable (except for those important hot button issues, of course).
3:07 p.m.
Jun 17, '09
Joe, Obama once said he supported single payer in an early appearance in an early legislative race. He did not support it in his US Senate race, nor in the presidential race -- where he actually released a rather poor non-universal health care plan. (You may remember Hillary Clinton and John Edwards hammering him for that.)
If you thought Obama was a single-payer candidate, you were imagining things.
Whether or not single-payer is a good idea (and I think it is) there aren't a half dozen Senators who support it - nevermind the 51 or 60 required to pass it. We need to pass some form of universal health care this year, and I don't particularly care what the payment scheme is.)
Jun 17, '09
Kari, you are right. I was imagining things.
3:38 p.m.
Jun 17, '09
Jeff Merkley is a Senator today because Dave Brownlow ran and received 5% of the conservative vote..clearly a spoiler candidate
Just because he got 5% of the vote doesn't mean he was a spoiler candidate. Do you know how those 92,000 some odd voters would have voted? I haven't seen any exit polling saying that had he not been on the ballot these votes would have gone to Gordon Smith. After all according to Gordon Smith, Oregonians wouldn't tolerate Brownlow's liberal politics. Then again, perhaps had we had IRV voting, would could have seen the second choice of those 92,000 votes.
Sal, I appreciate the IPO endorsing Democratic/Republican candidates, but those are not the same as finding people to run under the IPO banner. In that respect, the IPO fielded 3 candidates for the legislature, and several candidates for local offices, and while you did not endorse Mr. Frohnmayer, by the time you endorsed Jeff Merkley, Mr. Frohnmayer was no longer a candidate.Of course endorsements matter in elections. We wouldn't seek them if they didn't. I wasn't saying that endorsements don't matter, I was saying that third parties ran very few candidates of their own membership. In that respect, third parties in Oregon didn't do so well.
Jun 17, '09
From what I know about instant runoff voting, it seems like an effective way to allow smaller parties and better politicians to gain power. It obviously does away with the possibility of a "spoiler." Any thoughts?
6:35 p.m.
Jun 17, '09
It seems highly unlikely that anyone will "spoil" the Leg races next year, if the amazing record compiiled by incumbents and candidates with more money are any indication.
6:58 p.m.
Jun 17, '09
thank god the IPO was there to ensure key Democrats won election last year. clearly all the difference in the world was in the IPO. sheesh.
the problem with Oregon "third" parties is they keep wanting to start at 2nd base. to overcome the advantage of the Ds & Rs will require a long, concerted effort at the grassroots. local candidates winning minor elections and developing a party history will bring that kind of change. why in the world should anyone vote for an IPO candidate? what is the IPO? the Democratic Party i know. i know what they will (try to) do as a party. the IPO? i know what they say and that's about it.
3rd parties need to forget about statewide offices (unless they are running symbolic races, because that's such a good idea) and even large local offices (county commission) and aim at party building the old-fashioned way. earn respect, don't just demand it because "they" are so bad.
7:43 p.m.
Jun 17, '09
Just a few comments: Grant Schott lists as Democrats' "good works: . . . tougher ethical standards for lobbying and campaign finance." The Oregon Legislature has never enacted limits on campaign contributions and certainly did nothing about campaign finance this session. HB 3009 was both harmful (destroying Measure 47, the enforcement of which is currently in court) and did not even get a vote on the floor of the House or Senate.
Various folks seem to think that the R Party is dead in statewide elections. I don't think so. 2008 was an overwhelmingly D year, in terms issues, voter registration edge, and campaign money. Nevertheless, as noted above, a huge factor in Gordon Smith's 3% margin of loss was the 5% of the vote earned by the very conservative Constitution Party candidate. And Ben Westlund (who won by 6% over Allen Alley, after outspending him by $933,000 to $722,000) can also thank the Constitution Party for the 3.4% of the vote captured in the Treasurer's race by Michael Marsh. The Rs in those two statewide races were very competitive.
I also do not think that the R Party is dead in elections for the Legislature. Despite the overwhelming D advantages in 2008, the Rs actually gained one seat in the Senate (from 11 to 12), although they did lose 5 seats in the House (from 29 down to 24).
As for the 3 candidates of the Independent Party of Oregon (IPO) for the state legislature in 2008, their vote totals were 39%, 39%, and 29%. Among their 3 opponents were members of the legislative leadership of both parties (Peter Buckley and Dennis Richardson, R Whip in 2007-08 sessions). A poor showing, indeed. I see on the IPO website http://indparty.com a form for anyone who is interested in becoming an IPO candidate. On the top menu structure, click on Candidates, Be a Candidate.
Re IRV, the Seth Wolley letter in today's Willamette Week (http://wweek.com/columns/letters#35.32) says that the Ds also killed the IRV bill, SB 29.
Jun 17, '09
Salem-Keizer elected 2 new school board members who used "data" and "data-driven decision making" in their victory statements. Are they any political ideology, or just wanting to get away from the current board which sometimes acts like the supt. supervises the board rather than the board having the power to hire and fire the supt?
What if voters decide they want data-driven or issue-driven candidates rather than following some caucus formula?
Sal, what did you mean, "Thanks to Richard Devlin, 2010 is likely to be a banner year for lefty spoiler candidates"? Is that about the Metolious, and are you saying protecting Tom McCall's legacy is less important than avoiding a "gut and stuff" because we should all be some kind of purists"
As I see the Metolious vote, it was whether someone supports the McCall legacy or opposes it. Today at Marion Demoforum, Ben Westlund said he had nothing against destination resorts, just not at the Metolious. Rep. Steigler (who also comes from Deschutes County) had some great comments on the Metolius bill. Have I agreed with everything she has done this session? No, but her remarks yesterday were much appreciated.
It seems to me that "lefty" and many other political labels no longer mean anything. "Lefty" once meant socialist. "Conservative" was intelligent people like Wm. F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater, not the current crop of intellectually lazy polarizers.
In the last couple days I have come to believe not only that a nonpartisan legislature might be a good idea, but that it is time to come up with different comparisons than just R vs D caucuses, or labels.
Whether someone follows in the McCall legacy (which would also include greats like Bob Straub) would be one thing. Just plain common sense would be another.
How many of the Democrats who became the majority over the last couple elections have been impressive, and how many need to explain to their supporters why they deserve to be returned to office? THAT is an individual decision that no organization can control.
After all the efforts of the House caucus to set fundraising goals, decide which districts are "target" and which are forgotten, and in some cases even tell candidates what to say and how to campaign as if each district is identical to each other district, do we like the results? Or is that to radical a question?
Ben Westlund today was talking about being the chief fiduciary officer of the state, about financial literacy, and about getting rid of 3 problems which hurt Oregon and Oregon's national bond rating:
Volatile tax system initiative system which allows so much out of state money unique and awful kicker
There have been comments from Democrats that we have to go slow on the kicker, don't want to confuse voters (see Nolan quote in Sunday Susan Neilsen column) and other such remarks.
I heard more talk about reforming the system from Ben Westlund today than I've heard from legislators.
I live in House Dist. 20 and Sen. Dist. 10. There has been much speculation that one reason there hasn't been establishment support for our D legislative candidates (esp. recently when we had excellent candidates) was because the incumbents were seen as "moderate" and maybe a vote the Democrats might want, so maybe defeating them should not be a priority.
And we, the people of counties like Marion are supposed to put legislative campaigns at the top of our list for 2010?
We will have an open seat Gov. race next year. I may be involved in that. Westlund hinted at some sort of citizen movement to end what he describes as the 3 problems for Oregon. If he starts something, I can see being involved in that. I may become involved in a local legislative campaign next year depending on who is running.
But BO folks, it is time to examine if the current system of caucus campaign arm is working. At a Marion Dems. meeting this week, a 2008 candidate said he knew the economy was in trouble long before it hit the headlines. People who had been contributing money began to say they would contribute time but not money--they'd been laid off, hours reduced, afraid of layoffs, etc.
Let's be very clear. There have been times when Future Pac sent fundraising appeals for candidates to people who could not vote for those candidates, while ignoring the candidates those folks were campaigning for. Was that smart? Or is that a subversive question because FP and the caucus are infallible, even when leadership votes against what some Democrats thought were important bills? Our caucus right or wrong? How is that different than the Minnis crowd?
Just as no one in June 2007 could have forseen Obama winning the Iowa caucuses, defeating Hillary for the nomination, and being elected president, we have no idea what things will look like next year.
I helped elect the first Democrat in my district, over a decade before Future Pac was created. But how could that be if FP is the answer to everything? Maybe it is time to rethink?
On the subject of what constitutes a "spoiler", any voter has the right to leave a ballot line blank or vote for the candidate who actually answers his/her questions and is otherwise impressive. If a Democrat is running such a lame campaign that such a candidate is not from a major party, tough luck. If there is someone on the campaign writing issue statements but the system breaks down and instead of those statements being mailed out, a newspaper clipping is mailed out instead to a person who had requested to know more about the candidate than what was in the newspaper, that is the fault of the campaign, not of the voter. If a voter asks why a candidate refuses to support legislation sponsored by someone the voter admires and gets a sarcastic or condescending response in return, that voter is not required to vote for the Democrat anyway, esp. if that voter got so angry at the primary result as to register NAV.
For those and other reasons, I voted for a "spoiler" candidate in 1996. To my mind, Bruggere "bought" the 1996 May Sen. primary with money and DSCC connections (and the folks claiming the same thing for Novick in 2008 couldn't see how "apples and oranges" that was---Bruggere did not appear in town hall style format, for instance). He had no voting record--we were supposed to take on faith that he would vote the right way. Gordon Smith, love him or hate him, had a voting record and was more sensible in 1996 than later. Brent Thompson was a 3rd party candidate I was introduced to by a friend. Thompson answered all my issue questions--some with wit, all with concrete answers. What a concept!
All the money in the world would not have convinced me to vote for the Democratic nominee that year.
Thanks a lot, Sal, I agree with one of these and disagree with another:
"We also supported Ben Westlund and Vicki Berger ".
I hope you have studied Vicki's voting record this year and nothing you see disappoints you. She can be highly condescending towards constitutents, and her votes are not predicatable. But if you think she made a better 2009 legislator than a Navy vet who is a law student, you have the right to that opinion.
One more thing: about pass through organizations like Future Pac House Builders and Promote Oregon. Anyone with a computer and good Internet connection can look at those C & E reports. There are people angry about the amount of money sloshing around in those funds with who knows how few people deciding how to distribute the money. There are others incl. a retired state supreme court justice who are concerned about the legal standing of such pass throughs. That topic was already a discussion in the Public Comm. on the Legislature, and one of their draft bills on their website.
Some people don't even like to discuss that publicly, but others would like a free and open discussion. And if some incumbents get primary challenges, so be it. If they voted their own values (not those of a lobbyist) they should be able to say "Darned right I voted that way because..." and live with it. Famous people have said that unless you are willing to take a stand that might lose you the next election, you don't have political courage.
Jun 17, '09
Come to think of it, why not Frohnmayer for Gov?
Jun 17, '09
John Frohnmayer gives an excellent speech. Whether he had the organization to run a statewide campaign is an open question--when we saw him he had a small group listening to him in an auditorium. Either it should have been a smaller room or there should have been more crowd building efforts. One of the oldest stories there is has to do with the candidate having a smaller sudience show up than expected, and having the audience go out into a hallway and be photographed with the candidate to make it look like a crowd showed up.
11:31 p.m.
Jun 17, '09
"the Rs actually gained one seat in the Senate (from 11 to 12),"
well, that was Westlund's seat, which was Republican the whole time except for Westlund's conversion(s).
There is a pretty difficult structural gap that has developed regarding registration, and the independents (small i) have come to generally lean D in candidate elections. The latter can change quickly; the former, not as much. Plus the state party is a shambles.
11:46 p.m.
Jun 17, '09
Carla, how do we measure productivity for small parties? The Working Families Party which clearly is a lefty party on economic issues, secured automatic ballot access as a minor party for the next cycle by virtue of their A.G. candidate J. Ashlee Albies securing 11% of the vote statewide, and over 15% in a number of rural counties, against John Kroger. Not a serious threat -- but if T. A. is right about small parties needing to take a "long march" view, having the ballot access makes it possible for them to focus on other kinds of strategic considerations.
But, looking at the other side of what T. A. says, the way ballot access rules are set up, it creates an incentive to run in statewide races that may cut against his prescription.
W.F. party has a fusion approach. I have never really understood or liked fusion. Tried to get Barbara Dudley to explain to me why I should like it at an early anti-bank-bailout rally last fall, but still don't get it.
The funny thing is that its proponents like to cite the People's Party ("Populists") cross-nomination of William Jennings Bryan as an example in its favor. But as a historian I am conscious that the Peaple's Party got ripped apart by struggle over that cross-nomination, which gutted their economic platform & reduced it to adding silver to the gold standard to fight deflation caused by gold limits causing too little money chasing too many goods & hammering small farmers (this is why Ron Paul is a nut, btw).
It's not an exact parallel but the effect on the People's Party was kind of similar to what has happened to Greens in divisions over Nader vs. Cobb & Nader vs. McKinney.
On the other hand something about it bothered the Ds & Rs enough for them to make fusion illegal in most states.
The best argument Barbara made for me was that in NY votes on a WFP line made a difference for a progressive candidate, I forget whom. But NY's history also shows a pitfall of fusion -- for decades the Liberal and Conservative parties mostly functioned as mini-machine fiefdoms for extracting patronage favors out of the Ds & Rs.
Nader brings me back to the weird ballot access rules -- reminding me of the disgraceful actions of DPO partisans in interfering with a Nader nominating convention, forget if it was 2000 or 2004, but anyway deeply anti-democratic. DP or some of its members anyway acting as despoilers of other people having a choice they regarded as meaningful. I wasn't a Nader supporter that year but I was ashamed of the Democrats.
Jun 18, '09
Nike Men Dunk Low
Charlotte Bobcats jerseys
Jun 18, '09
air jordan shoes
jordan shoes
6:55 a.m.
Jun 18, '09
Chris - The main benefit of fusion voting is that it encourages collaboration between minor political parties and candidates of major parties around their shared interests while respecting the free association rights of all candidates and political parties.
Another benefit is that it gives minor political parties a positive vehicle for interacting with our elections. Instead of running spoiler candidates, or sitting out elections in which they support one of the two major party candidates, they can instead signal to voters their support for the candidate and his or her agenda.
It also conveys more information to voters about a candidate's values and agenda.
Think of what information is conveyed by the following:
Joe Smith: Democratic, Libertarian Bob Thompson: Democratic, Green
The important things to remember about the reform we were pushing in this election cycle are as follows:
1) Oregon has allowed political parties to cross-nominate candidates for the entire history of the state. Until 1958, all nominations were printed on the ballot.
2) Historically, both in Oregon and elsewhere, when political parties have pressed to have such cross-nominations printed, the states (including Oregon) have generally obliged them.
3) The reform we are pushing for was not "true" fusion in the sense that each party has its own ballot line, and one candidate may appear on multiple lines. Under our bill, candidates could choose to print a total of three nominations after their name on the ballot.
4) What we were seeking is really a clarification of Oregon law, which currently requires that up to 2 nominations be printed in some instances, which the previous Secretary of State refused to comply with in 2008.
BTW, the term "minor parties" is not pejorative. It's the legal name for Oregon political parties with a registration that is less than 5% of the voting public.
6:56 a.m.
Jun 18, '09
One other point regarding the "People's Party" - Oregon elected a Governor on the "People's Party, Democratic Party" ballot line in the late 1880's.
7:13 a.m.
Jun 18, '09
TA - I think it would be worthwhile for you to study the Independent Party's approach in 2008. You will see that we basically reached many of the same conclusions that you did. We only nominated "Independent" candidates n districts where either a Democrat or a Republican were running uncontested. We did not nominate any statewide candidates, but instead cross-nominated a few candidates who shared our goals and agenda.
As to your question of "knowing what the Democrats stand for, but not the Independent Party..."
The Independent Party has existed for 1 election cycle. Is it really fair to create a comparison to a national party that spends hundreds of millions of dollars marketing itself and its candidates?
Finally, no one is claiming that the Independent Party was determinative in winning any election. However, every candidate who received our cross-nomination came to us seeking our party's nomination. In at least two of those races, we had the option of running our own high profile candidates. Would that have made a difference? Ask the candidates or their campaign managers.
Jun 18, '09
No "serious" candidate should be labeled spoiler if they are indeed serious in their attempt to represent an alternative point of view. However, some 3rd party and independent candidates do have as one of their goals, the desire to bring down another candidate who would otherwise have a much clearer shot at the prize. I consider Ralph Nader, circa 2000, to be a classic spoiler. He was much more interested in harming the Democrats than he was in helping out his claimed constituency (he never even joined the Green Party).
That having been said, I consider the ability of 3rd party/independent candidates to influence politics to be limited at best. Occasionally one will come along that will strike fire by being the right person at the right time (Perot, for example). But, for the most party, they are vanity candidacies that have little impact on the over all political process.
Face it, as long as our is a winner-take-all system, two parties WILL be the dominant model for all political campaigns. If you want to change the influence of the two parties the only way to do it is to eliminate winner-take-all (with a mixture of proportional representation and instant runoff voting).
I don't have a problem with any of the complaints about the stranglehold Dems and Reps have on the political process. I just think most of those who fight against it are wasting their time backing 3rd party or independent candidates.
Jun 18, '09
Thanks for your comment, Chris.
What some folks don't seem to realize is that not all Oregonians live in counties with significant 3rd party candidates on the local/legislative level.
And yes, unless it is an outstanding candidate, I still think people running statewide should have held local or legislative office first.
Jun 18, '09
"I just think most of those who fight against it are wasting their time backing 3rd party or independent candidates."
Perhaps. But I'm sick to death of voting for the lesser of two evils (especially after Obama).
11:05 a.m.
Jun 18, '09
Speaking of Frohnmayers.....Dave's out of a job, now.
Jun 18, '09
If Democrats are concerned about "spoiler" candidates there's a very simple solution: get the Democratic Secretary of State to issue a letter saying that the Oregon Constitutional provision expressly allowing "preference voting" (the older term for ranked ballots, generally called instant runoff voting when used in single-winner races) means what it says and that anyone who wants to use it can do so.
Then pass a bill using IRV for legislative races and presto, no more spoilers. Everyone gets to vote for whomever they want without having to fear spoiling or wasting their vote on a sure loser.
1:32 p.m.
Jun 18, '09
A related question to the original post is what influence the new Democrats will have on the party and on primaries. I don't mean young voters, I mean the Republicans who switched parties and continue to do so. The change in relative rankings of voters between the two major parties is well documented. These new Democrats are for the most part moderates. I don't see these folks crossing over to vote Green, but I do expect they will have influence in contested Democratic primaries, as such actually exist.
2:40 p.m.
Jun 18, '09
Thanks Sal. What you say pretty much confirms what I thought but I don't think it really helps much with the kind of problem I tend to have with Ds. I guess it does clarify a little one source of support for the "top two" non-partisan primary, which I suspect I would find you actually explained at the time if I looked back but feel I am seeing a bit clearer now.
4:18 p.m.
Jun 18, '09
Chris, what we are advocating for in HB 2414 is much smaller than fusion. It's much smaller than an open primary. It's also much smaller than IRV.
What we are saying is that candidates who accept the nomination of more than one party should be able to have those nominations printed on the general election ballot.
Oregon has always allowed candidates to accept multiple nominations. What public interest is served by denying candidates the right to have them printed?
Jun 18, '09
Well, Democrats in the legislature have certainly set themselves up this year to be vulnerable to third-party candidates. In the realm of environmental issues, especially, the legislature has done such a terrible job (despite having a larger Democratic majority than in the green-banner year of 2007) that a lot of environmentalits are bound to feel let down by the Democratic Party. So far, the Democrats have made no major progress on global warming at all this session, and may end up taking us backward on climate policy by the end of the session.
So should Democratic legislators be worried about third-party challengers with a green bent? Yes. Maybe they should have thought of this before selling out to energy giants and other major corporations - behavior we normally expect from Republicans.
Jun 18, '09
Nick, I think what we are seeing among Democrats is a return to factions. The "our caucus right or wrong" mentality in either party is maybe a couple decades old, if that (there were party switchers and people standing up to Larry Campbell in the 1991 session). Now, as in 1989, I'm sure there are people who have more respect for the Speaker Pro Tem than for the Majority Leader.
George, "Republicans who switched parties and continue to do so" goes back to when Tom McCall was still alive. Not that those of us who were so independent minded we campaigned for McCall's re-election and then drifted to the Democrats were ever totally accepted, even when it was documented that some of us were doing more volunteer work than the "purists" who claimed revealed truth about "what Democrats have always believed". Being a member of the "establishment" doesn't guarantee winning primaries--that is a fact of life.
Jun 18, '09
I hope Carla keeps covering the Metolius outrage. It is so much more important than any thing else our state is facing.
Someday, every Oregonian will open their history books and read:
"If not for the efforts of one brave blogger, the Axtman Basin would have been visited by hoards of fat Californians defiling the state's pristine waters."
"But now, the basin is safe. Only Oregon developers with a capital 'D' after their name will touch the Axtman Basin."
11:19 p.m.
Jun 18, '09
Sal, I'd be perfectly fine with HB 2414 as you describe it. As you say, more information. Kind of like the endorsements lists in the voter pamphlet esp. for the non-partisan races, only shorter & right there as you vote.
BTW did they repeal the idiotic thing where if you voted in a primary you couldn't sign a ballot access petition for an NA or non-automatic minor party candidate?
11:19 p.m.
Jun 18, '09
Sal, I'd be perfectly fine with HB 2414 as you describe it. As you say, more information. Kind of like the endorsements lists in the voter pamphlet esp. for the non-partisan races, only shorter & right there as you vote.
BTW did they repeal the idiotic thing where if you voted in a primary you couldn't sign a ballot access petition for an NA or non-automatic minor party candidate?
Jun 19, '09
Special Sale Offering,More VarityAnd Real Brand New Shoes,Free & Fast Shipping,Enjoy Your Walk To Wear The Shoes!
Gucci Shoes Converse shoes Prada Shoes Nike Air Max Adidas Shoe Nike Air Force 1 Nike Air Jordan Nike Dunk SB Nike Shox Supra Shoe
1)Special Sale Offering,and they are 100% original with authentic package. 2)Free & Fast Shipping,Enjoy Your Walk To Wear The Shoes! 3)The shipping time is 7-9 work days. 4)More product pictures are available on our website.
Welcome to visit our website http://www.4myboots.com
Jun 19, '09
I purchased the ralph lauren polo t-shirt for my friend as a gift and he was SO excited he wore it the very next day. When I asked him about how many compliments he received he just grinned. Apparently everyone loved it!
While it's such a great shirt, just be such not to over wear it!
Jun 19, '09
That's great
Jun 19, '09
Hope not. Current administration very friendly to international business. Got a spam email lately, advertising Chinese narcotics? Administration has given us a green light to spam Americans! Not an issue for Obama! China servers learning how to do anything to US business and he cannot see. PLEASE! No change! You sold down the river. No "lefty" have chance. Lefty have better chance in People's Republic! Hahaha! We free-er!!!
Proof: my full business contact. When you get a spam email for Chinese drugs, whois the link, something like pixzakah, and you will get 163.com. Check 163.com and you will get Netease, Inc. We traded on NASDAQ, we violate your "no spam" laws, and THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO! I add Barrack to spam list. He tell you to buy something, instead. Good American!
William Ding Netease.com, Inc. 7FL, Netease Building, No 16, KeYun Rd
ZhongShan Av. GuangZhou IT Harbor
Guangzhou, Guangdong 510665
CN
voice: +86-20-85106370 fax: +86-20-85551592
Jun 22, '09
And a note of thanks to Kari for externalizing the hack mind, for us. You see there's a point in the candidacy when statements become "record", but before that it's just...well, you can't hold them accountable for it. Unless it's unPC speech, and then you can keep tabs for as long as you like. Got it?
It was still in the "just talking" phase when Obama proposed single payer.
That point is not fixed, and they don't let you know it. Further, statements after "it counts", might be a reference to the ones that don't. Bottom line: Obama's a good guy. Just trust him. Politics is over your head. Leave the operations to the hacks. You turn out and vote, but you then have to trust that they're implementing what you voted for. Can't trust the senses. Gotta keep your powder dry. He's forging consensus. Not worth the political capitol.
And if we want more, we can wait for puppy dogs and unicorns to fly out of your ass. By jove, I think it's sunk in, finally!
Jun 29, '09
That's good!