Mon 18 Aug 2008
The Wilde Early Ballot Measure Review, Volume 11 (Measure 65) - THE END!
Posted by Marshall Wilde under Election ReformFinally! Something to be excited about! Perhaps the best reason not to simply vote “no” on all the measures is former Secretary of State Phil Keisling’s Measure 65, the “open primary” initiative. It would revamp Oregon’s elections to reduce the role of political parties in the process. Put simply, for most partisan elections, Measure 65 would allow candidates to register as a member of a political party and allow political parties to endorse a candidate or candidates as they saw fit. The two candidates receiving the most votes in the primary would go on to the general election. Of the two, the candidate receiving the most votes in the general election would win the election. The measure has only a nominal financial cost.
Proponents of the measure cast it as means of ensuring that the winning candidate reflects the preferences of a majority of the voters. Minor party candidates could no longer serve as spoilers in the general election. Minor parties, although unlikely to provide one of the two general election candidates, would be able to endorse the general election candidate that most closely represents their views. Endorsers of the measure include former Governor John Kitzhaber, former Secretary of State Norma Paulus, State Senators Avel Gordly and Ben Westlund, and Associated Oregon Industries.
Opponents of the measure, primarily the two major political parties, claim that the measure would require candidates to do more fundraising, decreasing from the direct interaction of the candidate with voters. Hmm…put another way, this sounds like the candidates will spend less time pandering to local partisan groups like the local major party committees and more time addressing the political interests of the political center. Is that really a bad thing? They also point out that Louisiana has had this system from 1976 and has had problems in that oftentimes the two general election candidates are from the same party.
I’m a big Phil fan and I’m with him on this one. Oregon has a closed primary system. Only voters registered from the major parties have an effective voice in the primary election. Democratic candidates pander to the left, Republican candidates pander to the right, and we end up with polarized candidates who do not represent the views of the majority. We then get dysfunctional government, as our representatives have no stake in doing anything other than satisfying their political base. Where’s the money in Sara Gelser from the Democratic stronghold of Corvallis compromising with the Republicans? The Dems in Corvallis could nominate a standard poodle and still win the election. (Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big Sara fan, but it’s foolish to think that these considerations don’t matter.) Why would Bill Gerard from solidly Republican Klamath Falls ever want to consider what the Democratic voters of his district want? As long as he’s the most pro-life, pro-guns, and anti-taxes of any kind on the Republican primary ballot, he’s going to win the primary and thus the election. An open primary requires politicians to focus their efforts at the political middle, creating an interest in the will of the electorate as a whole, rather than only the political activists in the major parties. More moderate politicians in Salem means more progress on the issues of concern to centrist voters, rather than the endless stalemate created by the election of political extremists.
As always, the views expressed here are my personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:58 am
i realize you are only speaking unofficially, but this measure runs counter to everything the Bus stands for. in Kiesling’s version of the open primary, rightly tagged the “jungle” primary, elections will belong even more strongly to whoever has the cash and the muscle to win in May. 99% of the time, that will mean either a D and an R, or, in numerous spots around the state, two members of the same party. many of the districts in the Portland area will have two Dems running in November.
third parties will be wiped off the map in Oregon. they cannot compete with the two big parties. what makes you think this method of running elections will result in someone more representative than Gerard either defeating a Dem in the primary or winning the general?
real change in Oregon electoral politics won’t come by eviscerating democracy, as Kiesling’s measure will do. it will come through changes like voter-owned elections, instant run-off voting, same-day registration and other measures that expand and solidify actual democratic processes.
the jungle primary is one of the worst ideas to come along in years and everyone needs to understand just how bad an idea it is. including, it appears, Bus volunteers.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:27 am
Well, that is a matter open for dispute, isn’t it? No offense, but you are personally rather strongly associated with the Democratic Party establishment, which would suffer some decrease in influence with this measure. I don’t dispute that, given current practices of putting boundaries on districts, the two candidates may both be from the same party. I think that’s an affirmative evil, as the boundaries should be drawn so that districts are always competitive to promote truly representative democracy. So, I admit that an open primary is only half the solution. However, we may have to wait until the next initiative to correct that one.
As for the criticism that this will force candidates to appeal to a broader base than just party insiders, I’m not at all sympathetic to that claim. Candidates SHOULD be appealing to a broad base. Quite frankly, party insiders like you have a disproportiate impact on elections. Candidates should be appealing to the long neglected center in American politics, not party insiders. What gives you the right to have a disproportionate impact on the election?
Under the measure, candidates are free to identify themselves with any party, and parties are free to endorse candidates as they see fit. Your efforts on behalf of the party, which I do appreciate, are translated into influence by an endorsement in the public commons, not in committee meetings.
As for the increased cost of elections, that’s a fair criticism as well, but not persuasive in light of the increase in voter education that will follow from this measure. Currently, parties effectively choose a candidate and people use that as shorthand for a particular set of beliefs. The new system puts a premium on educating voters directly, which is inherently more expensive. However, it’s also a heck of a lot more democratic. Parties can still ask for funds from voters and use those funds to promote one candidate or another. They’ll still have a role in the process. But, it will be a much diminished role. Money can be garnered several ways in politics - from a few big donors, from a lot of little donors, or from a public financing system. The Bus has supported public financing, which I think would be a good adjunct to this measure.
The main criticisms of this measure always seem to come from party insiders afraid of losing their influence. Although I’m a lifelong Democrat, I find the Party’s opposition to this measure blatantly self-interested. Democrats should favor democratic means, not just the Party.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Forgot one thing - you haven’t addressed the Democratic Party’s role in contributing to the paralysis in Salem (and DC) by promoting partisanship at the expense of the public good. What would your alternative be for giving politicians an incentive to seek principled compromise?
August 18th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
the paralysis in Salem can be laid safely at the feet of Minnis, Scott and their extremist predecesors. they didn’t simply shut out Dems from the process: they refused to let moderate members of their own party have a say in the making of laws. prior to the takeover of Salem by the far right, Oregon had a long history of bipartisan (actually, in this state, it takes more than being “bi”, given how many perspectives on govt this state holds) support and cooperation. just go back to the Kitz-Katz period and you’ll see what Oregon was like before the neocons & religious fanatics took over.
and then last year, when the Dems took over, moderate Republicans got their seats back at the table. sadly, Wayne Scott continued to undermine the efforts of Merkley to run a democratic (small-d), inclusive House. as you should know, that’s why children’s health care got sent to the ballot as a constitutional amendment.
someone has to explain to me how pretending the parties disappear at the primaries will open the doors to third parties? what magic does this initiative contain? do you think all the parties, and not just the Ds & Rs, won’t be getting out word on who belongs to which? Dems will still vote for Dems, Rs for Rs, Constitution Party for CP, and navs for whoever grabs their fancy. the arguments for this thing seems to involve the kind of magic that makes economic theories “work”.
plus, i find it amazing that people think it’s wrong that Democrats shouldn’t pick who represents their damn party. i bust my butt for my party, and the idea that someone who isn’t a member of that party — who can’t even be bothered to register as a member — should get to decide who i, and other members of the party, want to represent our party. the primary election exists to let parties pick their representatives. no one gets elected to Congress or the Leg or anything else in a primary (unless you want to make every election run like a Portland city council race).
your final question impugns the integrity not only of dozens of honest, honorable elected Oregonians of both parties; but also that of the people who voted for them. i truly believe most of those in Salem are after principled compromises. it’s the Minnis’ and Scotts who undermine both principle and compromise. their sorry asses are gone.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
So, your response to my allegation of excessive partisanship is to blame the other political party? That may be factually correct, in some sense, but it does serve to prove my point, don’t you think?
The Dems would choose who represents them in an open primary. They could endorse whichever candidate they like, all of them, or any combination of them. This would just prevent the Ds and Rs from being so exclusive. The same is true for the minor parties. The Greens and Constitution guys would go from endorsing a candidate with no hope of winning to endorsing (or not) a candidate who is closest to their beliefs. It serves as a kind of instant runoff, if you like.
Laying the blame at the feet of a couple of bad politicians ignores the structural problems with our current system. An open primary would change the system that made it possible for Minnis and Scott to be able to do that. (Although I would also support reducing the power of the Speaker to exclusively control the calling of votes.) You speak fondly of the Kitz days as showing how bipartisanship can work. Kitz has endorsed the open primary, as have most prominent D pols of his era. It’s today’s D party that opposes the open primary, taking the uncompromising stance that it’s all the other side’s fault.
I actually agree with you on instant runoff voting. It would perhaps be a more comprehensive solution to the problem. But, it’s not today’s solution. We should pass the open primary this election and continue to explore ways of making the system less partisan in the future.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:52 am
One other point:
As someone who recruits political candidates for a the Independent Party, I think that the top two open primary will strengthen minor parties, not weaken them. It is true that we won’t see many minor parties with their own ballot line for statewide races — though in 2008, we have essentially two uncontested statewide races (AG and Labor commissioner) — but what we will see are a boatload of legislative districts that are currently uncontested that will be wide open for minor political parties to compete in.
I would much rather have our candidates compete on a level playing field with the major party candidates. The current system is skewed heavily in favor of the D’s and R’s.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:13 am
I’m an attorney with election law experience and I’m personally committed to direct democracy. I’ve worked on and drafted statewide ballot measures, Public Utility District formation petitions, recall and referral petitions and local initiative drafting for 30 years.
I was the sponsor of the petition drive to form the Independent Party of Oregon, but the IPO has taken no position on the so-called “open primary,” Ballot Measure 65 on the November ballot in Oregon, because of a split among the voting delegates, but I do not want to see the Constitution, Green, Working Families and Peace parties silenced. My opposition is not based on “sour grapes”– In fact, IPO is one of only 2 of the minor and emerging parties in Oregon which would survive the effects of BM 65, which will wipe out parties with fewer than 10,000 registered members who now maintain their legal status by running candidates who receive at least 1% of the vote in statewide general elections.
I have absolutely no financial ties to BM 65, pro or con, and I am not being paid for this post–I am opposed to BM 65 because it’s poorly drafted. It will reduce meaningful citizen involvement in collective action and direct democracy. It was put on the ballot by big money interests which will get the candidates they “want” under BM 65.
BM 65 Makes Special Interests Even More Powerful in Picking Candidates.
Now, why would Oregon’s largest land speculators, industry lobbyists, and a smelter owner pay a lot of money to get BM 65 on the ballot? (I mean a lot,/i>-–about $405,000.00 to pay for signatures and related expenses so far).
OR has no campaign contribution limits at all–none. Any of you reading this live in the 45 states that actually limit money in state races, may not realize how totally corrupting unlimited money from special interests can be.
OR votes by mail exclusively. The May primary ballots go out to voters in April. That means the money race for enough cash to make the top-two will start in the winter. The big funders will “anoint” their chosen top-two and then help “elect” the winner in the (even more) expensive November general election.
The backroom deals to get the major party “endorsements” which will appear on the primary ballot will be out of public view. This means selection and promotion of candidates that is even less transparent than presently.
BM 65 allows political punking and dirty tricks
At the same time, below-the-radar campaigns by ideologues with a core constituency of say 15-20% in the low turnout May election can secure one of the top-two spots (Hello, David Duke, who twice made the top-two runoff in the Louisiana version of this top-two–once in the Governor’s race and once for Senate).
In a crowded field, the top-two can be the “winners” with as little as 18% of the vote. And expect political dirty tricks to make sure that the May ballot has lots of “candidates” who will split the votes. Anyone can re-register as a “Democrat,” or “Republican” only 70 days before the filing deadline, so expect a surge of these newly-minted candidates to try to split the opposing party’s vote.
Stifles citizen voices.
Independent voters engage in personal democracy, they want their votes to count. But actual political strength and the power to change history come from the other great parts of the First Amendment–our freedoms of association and to collectively petition the government.
A vote is an individual act, concerted action is what brought about Abolition, women’s suffrage, trust busting, the social safety net, environmental proctection, the end to the last tragic, pointless war.
A robust democracy needs more voices, often brought to prominence through political campaigns. Killing minor parties and wiping out citizen sponsored candidates (in Oregon candidates can now get on the ballot thru petition or through assemblies of 1000 voters) is bad for Oregon.
In practice, the need for insurgent and competitive candidates cannot be known until after the tradidtional May primary. In Oregon, citizens (led by the Grange) had to draft a candidate for governor by petition in 1930 because the major party candidates were hand-picked by corporate interests and opposed rural power development and action to lift Oregon out of the depression. Julius Meier won by 54% of the total vote, more than the other candidates combined vite. Abraham Lincoln won the presidency on a “minor” party ticket. The hell-raisers from the Populist and Progressives brought reform into the political mainstream through their candidates and platforms.
Too many drafting flaws to describe in detail.
The Bill is poorly drafted. It fails to integrate dozens of current state election law statutes.
It deprives the existing parties of the right to “nominate” candidates at all, a federal First Amendment violation which caused the State of Virgina to alter its compulsory open primary system after losing at the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (the appeals level just below the US Supreme Cout).
It does not harmonize with federal election law. In particular, by not allowing party nominations, it thrreatens the rights of parties to support their federal candidates becasue FEC rules allow coordinated financial support only by state parties in support of their “nominees.” The top-two runoff candidates are not “party nominees.”
If you live in Oregon–Read BM 65 and understand it before you vote. If it needs “a fix” to make it work, then vote “NO.” Voting for a hastily designed measure in the hopes it will get “fixed” is a bad idea. Do we want elected legislators to vote for any old thing and then promise to “fix” it somehow, sometime? As citizen legislators who vote of laws before us, we should hold ourselves to a high standard.