Should Oregon change how we conduct primary elections? And if so, open or unified primaries?

Kari Chisholm

Once again, Oregon voters may have the chance to upend the way we do primary elections in our state.

There are two ballot measures seeking qualification to the ballot that would change primaries -- one well-funded, one less so.

The "open primary" initiative (pdf) is similar to ones we've seen before. All candidates, regardless of party, would appear on the May primary ballot and the top two would advance to the general election -- again, regardless of party. Two Democrats, two Republicans, one of each, one major party and one minor party, whatever. Whoever's in the top two -- even if one candidate gets over 50% -- would advance to the November election.

The "unified primary" initiative (pdf) is a bit different. Under this plan, all candidates, regardless of party, would appear on the May primary ballot and the top two would advance to the general election -- again, regardless of party. So far, the same thing. But here's where it gets interesting: Under the unified primary, each voter could vote for zero, one, several, or even all of the candidates for a single office. All of those votes would get totaled up, and the top two would move ahead. Watch the video for a simple four-minute explanation.

But what about the role of political parties? After all, one major complaint has been that parties ought to be allowed to have a closed members-only process for nominating their champion. A secondary complaint is that by hiding partisan affiliation, voters are kept in the dark about candidates' ideologies. This time, both the open primary and the unified primary have attempted to address these concerns.

In both cases (and with nearly identical language), the measures would allow all candidates to choose to have his or her partisan affiliation (per voter registration) listed on the ballot. In addition, should a political party endorse one or more candidates in a race, those candidates could choose to have those endorsements listed as well. This provision is certainly intended to give political parties a role in the nominating process -- and would seem to create a large and new role for the internal organization of the parties. It also would also provide voters with critical information (a failing of previous versions of the concept).

So, one of my major concerns has been alleviated (hiding partisan information and disempowering parties), but I'm still not sure these proposals are a good idea.

Now, let's be clear. If I were making a purely financial call here, I'd be all for these measures. After all, open primaries are like a full employment for political operatives.

But take a look at what's happening in California in today's primary election -- run under "top two" rules that are basically the same as the proposed open primary for Oregon.

• In the 33rd congressional district (So Cal's beach towns), there are 17 candidates on the ballot -- a half-dozen or so spending between $400k and a million bucks each. Four are Democrats, one's a left-leaning independent, and one's a Republican. It's entirely likely that two Democrats will top the primary -- and the race in America's second-wealthiest district will continue to be a slugfest among Democrats.

• In the 31st (east of LA, in San Bernardino county), there are five leading candidates -- three Democrats and two Republicans. Despite being a strong Obama district, two Republicans managed to slide through the primary in 2012. That's entirely possible again this year, though somewhat less likely, as the three Democrats are pounding each other in the race to the finish.

• In the 17th (Silicon Valley), Congressman Mike Honda is facing a well-funded challenger in Ro Khanna. They've been slugging it out for months. It's a strongly Democratic district, but the top-two creates incentives for cross-partisan gameplaying. A pro-labor PAC out of DC is running ads simultaneously supporting Honda as well as a right-wing conservative in the race, trying to ensure a D vs. R outcome.

• Meanwhile, in the Governor's race, Jerry Brown appears headed for a punishing victory -- with 50% in the latest poll, against 18% and 13% for the two leading Republicans (and 14% undecided). Most observers expect him to finish with at least 55% of the vote. It hardly seems to make sense to bother with an expensive gubernatorial race.

Now, the unified primary supporters will surely point out that this sort of strategic gamesmanship and the worrying about spoiler effects in multi-candidate races goes away under their model. But they've still got the top-two concept with the prospect of expensive intra-party showdowns extending for six more months.

So, my question is this: Does the prospect of more competitive races, more intra-party fights in the fall, and more expensive races excite you? (Professionally, it kinda does, for me.) Or does it make you support the flawed partisan primary process we have now?

By Kari Chisholm June 03, 2014 Posted in Video.