You're right to raise a red flag about this group and the issues they support. But this is a bit intellectually dishonest, don't you think to say that:

These are the folks who have hijacked Oregon's beloved “peoples’ initiative and referendum” and turned it into private, parallel form of lawmaking that deliberately bypasses the checks and balances of representative government.

The people voted didn't they? Aren't the real points that can honestly be made here that first this is proof that the initiative and referendum process is problematic in that it requires a reponsible electorate to manage it? And second that the result, assuming you as I are opposed to most of the measures you cite because of the consequences you cite, shows that the Oregon electorate, has done a poor job fulfilling it's responsibilities? In fact, you acknowledge as much in your next two paragraphs:

Oregon’s constitution prohibits the Legislature from deficit spending. That means Oregon lawmakers must weigh what they want against what the people are willing to pay for. The initiative is not covered by a similar prohibition.

Oregon voters may impose large new expenditure burdens on taxpayers by initiative without any regard for the source of the money to pay for it.

Your posts are becoming disappointing because they are becoming less and less substantive, and just sounding more propagandistic.

And for those of you who support VBM, Russell is accurately arguing here that we need to concerned about the Tax Coalition because their members have been so successful at appealing to certain values which motivate voters, irrespective of the damage they do to our state.

Since most of you VBM supporters, due to some level of innumeracy deny that VBM has accomplished it's primary goal of substantially increasing turnout, despite the statistics once they are properly analyzed, let's leave just leave all that argument aside and stipulate that your primary argument for VBM is correct: VBM makes it easier for anyone to vote who wants to, and particularly those who for some reason don't make voting so central a value in their life that they regard the relatively simple act of going to a polling place in their neighborhood a couple of times every two years as not important enough to do. (And no one would deny absentee voting to someone who legitimately could not vote in person).

Now let's also recognize Measure 5 vote was before there was substantial non-polling-place (absentee voting) that Measure 37 vote was VBM. Measure 11 is a much morev interesting case: Although the vote occurred in 1994 as a polling place election, that election was between the first and second statewide mail-in special elections in 1993 and 1995. However, as the explanatory statement for the VBM Measure 60 in the voter's pamphlet stated, by that time voters could register permanent absentee. (I haven't looked up the state wide permanent absentee registration rate at that time, but League of Women Voters in that same pamphlet stated: in some counties 70% of registered voters Vote By Mail in every election as absentees.) Furthermore, the Measure 94 vote to repeal it in 2000 was VBM and it lost 3-to-1. The bottom line, is that the popular support as reflected in the margin of passage for these Tax Coalition related measures has not been diminished. I would argue that this is primarily because of a shift in demographics and the national zeitgeist, but the point here is the saluatory effect of VBM, if any, on the state viz a viz the initiative and referendum.

Given all of that factual information, if we fairly connect the dots between Russell's argument on the one hand and the arguments of VBM supporters on the other we should be very concerned if we are being intellectually honest. Russell de facto argues that the Tax Coalition has passed measures which appeal to voters on the basis of other than what we would argue are good governing values (the measures passed after all so they clearly appealed to voters), and the results have been bad for the state. VBM supporters promote a self-centric consumerist approach to voting which puts explicit value on personal convenience first, rather than appealing to voters who put personal convenience second and instead put a primary value on the civic religion of voting that involves a certain campaign pace and structure (with lower campaign costs) in which candidates can explore governing values with voters over the election campaign, and which culminates in a one day common shared obligation and experience of going to the polling place to vote.

If Russell had focused on the responsibility of voters as he should in the electoral "success" of the Tax Coalition members, we might also have had a chance to think about the root causes, and how is far from obvious that we are on a path --- including VBM --- to actually mitigate those root causes. But regrettably, I'm coming to discern that such honest and careful thinking probably is not really what Blue Oregon or much of the blogosphere is really about, nor why most of the posters actually post here.

Let no good post go unpunished, would I guess be AQ1's point.

AQ1: If you don't like VBM, save your thoughts for a post on that subject.

Russell, great post on an important and timely subject. One of the most disturbing trends in recent years is that voters are fairly unwilling to believe a ballot measure's fiscal impact statement if they're already inclined to supporting that measure. Ballot measure 7 (takings) -- and then Measure 37 later -- was a particularly egregous example of this, but it's a trend far more widespread than that.

It's hard to make an informed and responsible choice without such important information about a measure's fiscal impact.

Why worry about what the right wing and their big money fund raisers are doing? This is nothing new or noteworthy. Instead of worrying about the bad guys, I want to hear about left wing (sorry, progressive) big money fund raisers holding meetings with Ted K. and planning how to beat the righties in November. You don't win elections by worrying about the other guy, you win elections by boosting your own guy.

Listensecond -

I think the substance of my comments and the relevance stands on it's own, whether a whiner like you cares to address it or not. Russell is bemoaning, in that arrogant way which makes us on the progressive side very unattractive to the majority of the people in this state, the right-wing populist shift. Analyzing both Russell's failure to be intellectually honest, and noting how VBM is an example of how so-called progressives who support it facilitate that shift rather than countering it is right on point. Criticizing voters for not intellectualizing about the wider effects of their voting choices (One of the most disturbing trends in recent years is that voters are fairly unwilling to believe a ballot measure's fiscal impact) is as far away from the reality of effecting change as you can get.

Some responses to the above. First: Great column, Russell!

About this comment: The people voted didn't they?

Yes indeed they voted---more people voted in the general election than in the Measure 30 election, and I knew busy people who hadn't followed the news that 30 was a referendum with FW (formerly CSE) collecting signatures--unlike 28 which had been a legislative referral--and had the attitude "why are they making us vote on this complex measure?". And yet, there were legislators saying “the voters have spoken on Measure 30” as if legislative elections had no meaning.

Lots of voters spend less time each week thinking about politics than the regulars here at BO spend typing comments.

People who hate vote by mail (which, among other things got rid of "late hits" within the last 48 hours before the polls closed) seem to forget that Measure 60 which was Vote By Mail passed handily--in every county as I recall. If you don't like VBM, start talking to civic groups in your community about a measure to put it before voters again and see what sort of response that gets.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. It is important to have a positive campaign, but also to hold measure sponsors responsible for their proposals.

Rep. Thatcher (CSE/FW-Dist. 25) does as badly answering questions in person as McIntire reportedly does. I saw her (at a forum on developmentally disabled Oregonians) make all kinds of promises about funding. I asked her afterwards whether her promises meant she would look at ending some tax breaks and she said THAT IS A FALSE CHOICE!

So I asked what she would cut to pay for the promises she had made and she said, "We must have spending discipline". I asked a follow up question and got the same response. Budgets are line item documents, and “spending discipline” is WAY too vague—but then she never served in a session where the Ways and Means process was open to the public.

This is why I believe the people behind these anti-tax groups should be held responsible for specifics. "Where can I read your list of proposed cuts?" is a dandy way to ask it. With both 28 and 30 the cuts were deeper than the measure proponents had implied. Thatcher defeated Backlund in the primary (and Zupancic got the Cong. nomination but didn't carry Marion County against Jackie Winters) because Rep. Backlund and Sen. Winters had voted for the tax surcharge balanced budget which became Measure 30.

So here is the problem: We had Measure 28 because the Republicans couldn’t line up the votes to cut enough spending—although Doyle and the others did that “mystery money” nonsense. HB 2152 which became Measure 30 was passed after it was started by 3 moderate Republicans some on BO may not admire-- but they did a good job: Max Williams, Ben Westlund, Lane Shetterly.

Some estimates are that if only Oregonians had carried Measure 30 petitions it never would have gotten on the ballot. But it had outside help from Dick Armey (former member of Republican Congressional leadership) and his group.

For years the Republicans have claimed they were the “responsibility party”. Well, some of the most responsible (in terms of what is best for Oregonians) Republicans supported the bill that became Measure 30----and never forget there was no competing legislation! It wasn’t “Don’t vote for HB 2152, vote for our bill HB 4321”, it was just ideology vs the folks who wanted the budget balanced so the session could end. The refrain was “let’s stay around awhile longer and protect the taxpayers from this surcharge”—who did they think was paying the cost of each day the legislature operated?

In any other avenue of life, people are responsible for their own actions. Speeding or going through a red light or stop sign can get a ticket. Forgetting to turn off the stove could start a fire. Responsible people at a picnic leave the area as clean as they found it.

But the anti-taxers think they rule the world and they don’t have to deal with the messy details—that is someone else’s problem.

These people make all sorts of extravagant statements which they refuse to back up. Anyone recall the CSE folks claiming that if they got their way, unemployment would go down but if the legislative budget prevailed all sorts of jobs would leave?

The Measure 30 petitioners won, and Thatcher won the District 25 primary.

But in the fall of 2004, there was a local candidate forum where voters could talk to the candidates up close after the forum was done. I walked up to Thatcher and asked about the job promises, “So what do you say to those who were unemployed the day of the Measure 30 election and are still unemployed?”.

She ran away so fast! Someone said “when she is a legislator, she won’t be able to run away like that!”.

Are we going to let them run away from their words and actions?

I suggest those who are activists support Chuck Lee’s campaign against Thatcher. As a Catholic School administrator, he knows what it takes to run a school and can’t be called “just another dupe of the teachers union” given that his school is a private entity.

Or if you know someone who wants to strike a blow for common sense, have them confront anyone they hear supporting TABOR or other tax cutting and simply ask “where can I read your list of cuts?”.

We shouldn’t allow the anti-taxers to run away from their responsibilities. If they want to shut down the government (except for the Sec. Of State Elections Div.without which they would never survive) have them say so.

I repeat - don't whine about the right wing. Every chicken has two wings. Tell me what the left wing is doing to defeat the bad guys. My wife is donating very big dollars to Emily's List and Friends of Hillary (the war monger). My wife and I may not agree on politics, but at least I think I can see where she is going. Are we fighters, or are we whining little girls (or boys, to avoid sexist charges).

Pete Forsyth -

Just go to the SOS website for the reports by the prof. from UO (her name escapes me at the moment) who clearly argues that VBM has not substantially increased voter turnout in any meaningful way. Paul Gronke has advanced similar arguments on this blog, and in addition how VBM is going hand in hand with an erosion in the commitment by the public to the civic religion of participating in the electoral process.

And my argument is not at all how you summarize it. See my comment to LT next.

LT -

I'll rephrase what I said in my earlier comment: The particular values of the "Yes" voters Measure 60 spoke to are quite strongly arguable to be of a piece with the particular values of the "Yes" voters for Measure 5, Measure 11, and Measure 37, spoke to, and the vast majority of the "No" voters for Measure 94.

I am not offering a criticism here of the voters, since it is nonsensical and fruitless to argue against voters expressing particular values. I am criticizing dilentantish (and arguably propagandistic) comments by Russell, that are also distressingly common amongst NW progressives in particular. Namely, misinterpreting interest groups that successfully appeal to some particular values of voters, and falsely separating out a group of voters as the problem, rather than recognizing that we have failed to successfully appeal to what we rightly consider to be more positive governing values amongst a majority (it only needs to be a plurality in any particular race) fashioned from the group of voters we consider to be the problem and voters who are reflexively on "our side". In that regard, Russell's argument is a disservice to the people, and to any serious and substantive effort to actually bring about progressive change.

Let me put it even more simply: Voters get pissed off when you tell them you don't respect their decision because they are smart enough to recognize it is a slam on their values that they expressed by their vote. Voters respond when you appeal to other, more positive, values (in my view) to give them a reason they feel in their gut to vote differently. And the problem with too many progressives is that they whine that the majority just doesn't see it their way, despite ceaseless and seemingly irrefutable "rational" arguments why they should, rather than see it the voters way and try to understand how to speak to other governing values which those voters already do embrace.

ll rephrase what I said in my earlier comment: The particular values of the "Yes" voters Measure 60 spoke to are quite strongly arguable to be of a piece with the particular values of the "Yes" voters for Measure 5, Measure 11, and Measure 37, spoke to, and the vast majority of the "No" voters for Measure 94.

What are the "particular values of voters"? Have you talked to actual voters who voted the way you specify and did they tell you their reasoning? Or is this based on your own assumptions?

Measure 60 passed in all 36 counties (as did Measure 9 campaign finance reform as I recall). Measure 37 passed in most counties. Measure 94 of 2000 failed in all counties in a year when 8 measures passed but 17 measures failed.

So what?

Ask, are you claiming to know that the same people voted on the same side in all? This reminds me of a geography professor who made fun of students who extrapolated beyond what the data actually said. If a geographer finds the most predominant car in one neighborhood is a 13 year old Caddy and in another neighborhood may have been an SUV or a BMW, he'd say "don't make any further assumptions about what sort of people live in those neighborhoods--that is sociology. In geography class all we do is determine what is the most common car in which neighborhood and mark that on a map".

Ask, I do hope you are not claiming to know that the same people voted the same way on all those measures--that, for instance, John Jones and Susie Smith, having voted on the prevailing side on Measure 60 also voted on the prevailing side on all the other measures listed.

I believe, absent clear evidence to the contrary from someone other than statisticians, that each vote is a concrete vote indep. of any other vote. Call it my ideology if you want, but I think there are people who were permanent absentee voters (or for that matter county elections officers or friends of theirs) who voted for Measure 60 because they thought it was cumbersome to have to close the poll books before counting absentee votes when there was over 50% absentee voting, and they wanted to change the system. These same people may have argued 37, 5, 11, and the rest with their friends and not necessarily have voted on the prevailing side of all of them. Look at the counties Measure 5 did not carry. Measure 60 carried those counties.

Or maybe I should stay out of a debate among people who talk statistics because that doesn't have any real connection to how votes are cast in the real world. I've been to a number of gatherings where a group of friends debated measures (until the turn of the century when there were too many) the ballot measures and came to intelligent conclusions that did not always agree with everyone else in the group.

LT-

At this point I have no idea what you are trying to argue. My honest suggestion is that you might want to look up the word "value". I am starting to suspect it doesn't mean what you and a lot of folks here might think it means, based on whatever point you are trying to argue here. And it doesn't mean what our criminal-in-chief and the right-wing refers to when they misappropriate the term and talk about "values-voters".

Once you've done that, you could read my earlier comments, although as with so many issues on this blog it has become apparent that for most folks arguing politics seriously to better understand what is going on is not the point. I'll only add that the values people express when they vote on a particular issue doesn't have any direct relation to what political "side", as you seem to be defining it, that you or Russell want to divide them into. It has everything to do with the tone and themes of the governance that result from their votes that Russell talks about.

Despite the scorn you and others here who don't understand them have for statistics, they are our way to measure what happens in the real world. And by looking at the statistics, we can deduce there must be a significant plurality of voters in common on the "winning" side of each of the indicated measures expressing the governing values that are the center-of-gravity, if you will, of the people of our state. (Or at least those that have voted, compounded by demographic shifts).

Finally, if you really care to understand what is going on in this state as Russell has attempted to discuss, you can then spend some time thinking about what values that plurality is expressing by a "Yes" vote on Measure 60, Measure 5, Measure 11, Measure 37, and a "No" vote on Measure 94 relative to the theme of the individual good viz a viz the commonweal in American political theory (you might start with the Federalist Papers and DeTocqueville's Democracy in America). There is room for argument, but a useful arguments requires that folks speak to the either the previously advanced thesis or some concisely articulated counterthesis that can actually be debated.

Of course, what we really might suspect Russell is about in his piece is going negative on Saxton as part of his flacking for Westlund. Which is quite fine with me if he would have just said it instead of advancing theories about the electorate since that is what politics is about.

Ask Questions 1st said: Finally, if you really care to understand what is going on in this state as Russell has attempted to discuss, you can then spend some time thinking about what values that plurality is expressing by a "Yes" vote on Measure 60, Measure 5, Measure 11, Measure 37, and a "No" vote on Measure 94 relative to the theme of the individual good viz a viz the commonweal in American political theory (you might start with the Federalist Papers and DeTocqueville's Democracy in America). There is room for argument, but a useful arguments requires that folks speak to the either the previously advanced thesis or some concisely articulated counterthesis that can actually be debated.

You know what? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that we need to look at some sources much more recent than the Federalists and DeTocqueville. When both documents were written, the Western expansion was barely beginning. Oregon and Oregonians, even now, are a product of such expansion and tend to still be fiddlefooted types that move around (just how many fifth and sixth generation Oregonians are here, really--and for the record, I am a 5th gen Oregon Territory descendant).

One characteristic we need to keep in mind, especially when moving away from major urban centers (Portland, Salem, Eugene, Bend, Medford), is that a lot of those folks out there tend to fall within the range of pragmatic minimalists when it comes to gubment stuff. Additionally, many folks want local control (remember that it was the Portland metro area which passed Measure 5, not the rest of the state) over government rather than more centralized government. Don McIntire and his fellow travelers have figured out that if you can cast a measure as being anti-central gubment (even if it isn't) that you'll pick up more votes than otherwise.

Furthermore, it would bloody well help if someone could stick a tagline in here because I've forgotten some of those multiple measures that AskQ1st is throwing out there, because, like many of our voters, I now have a Real Life instead of constantly doing politics like I did when I was younger.

As far as statistics go, they're only as good as the protocol used to collect them, and how they're put together to be analyzed. Raw statistics don't mean squat, and social science statistics (the catagory which politics falls into) can be rather squishy depending upon how you define your variables and set up your data. After pumping out a Master's project and working with statistics pretty regularly as part of my job, I want to see a bit more about potential factors which can contaminate the data and make it invalid.

Sadler's attempt to frame Saxton by virtue of the company he keeps is speculative, at best, but he has done an outstanding job of demonstrating the blind disconnect between the legislative need for managing state funding priorities and the emotional populism that goes with passing ballot initiatives. Understanding that disconnect will be critical in the debate over TABOR.

Russell seems, as usual, very contemptuous of the Oregon voter and what he or she wants. If only everybody listened to Russell, then all of our problems would be solved! At least a few of the proposed ballot measures coming up were bills that passed the House in the last legislative session, but died in the Senate and had no chance of Gov. Do-nothing signing them. This is why the petition process exists. It is so the citizens can take matters into their own hands when the legislature isn't doing its job.

<hr/>