This was in the Albany Democrat Herald on May 17th
BY PHIL KEISLING
On Tuesday, Oregonians will elect people to represent them in Salem.
Because many legislative races are not being contested by one or the other major political parties, in many districts, Tuesdays winner will be rubberstamped as the only candidate in the November general election.
In all, 33 out of 75 legislative districts, including more than half of all Senate seats and the race for attorney general will be uncontested in November, alienating and disenfranchising the majority of Oregon voters who did not have the opportunity to vote for the winner in a partisan primary election.
One choice is no choice, and its not what we want in a representative democracy. Fortunately, there is something that Oregonians can do to remedy this problem: Sign a petition that places the open primary on the November ballot. And for the first time in Oregon history, Oregonians can now go online and download a petition at www.oneballot.com/petition. It takes about 89 seconds.
The open primary is based on a simple but powerful idea: Every Oregon voter regardless of party registration (or lack thereof) should be allowed to cast a ballot for the candidate he or she believes is best qualified for a given position, period. All candidates seeking these offices be they Democrat, Republican, a minor party member or registered in no party at all would compete on an equal basis. The top two vote-getters would then advance to the November election again, regardless of party registration (or lack thereof).
The open primary doesnt abolish political parties or their ability to raise money and support candidates. Indeed, voters could see candidates own voter registration status a public record on the ballot, and perhaps, too, any official party endorsements that candidates are willing to accept.
Our current primary system is a century old, and in modern times encourages excessive partisanship, abysmal voter turnout and a growing inability to solve Oregons most pressing problems. The open primary wont just give moderate, deliberate voices a far better chance to be heard. It will also encourage the kind of innovative, creative problem solving that is so critical in our rapidly changing world.
In our latest survey, conducted by Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall in December 2007, Oregonians expressed support by a 66 percent to 20 percent margin. Every demographic group, in all corners of Oregon, strongly supports this change, including registered Republicans (62 percent), registered Democrats (68 percent) and registered others (72 percent). Strongest support comes from voters ages 18 to 34, by a 70 percent to 15 percent margin.
A broad coalition of Democrats, Republicans and independents supports the open primary. Backers include former Govs. John Kitzhaber and Victor Atiyeh; U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer; and state legislators including Republicans Frank Morse of Albany and Vicki Berger of Salem, and Democrats Ben Cannon of Portland and Alan Bates of Ashland.
Not everyone likes the Oregon open primary. We know it will be fiercely opposed by those who like the current system just the way it is; mainly party leaders who want to preserve their power, and organizations whose issues and concerns are best promoted by low-turnout, intensely partisan contests.
It is clear that our current election system is in dire need of change. The open primary is exactly the kind of reform we need to take the power to choose the people who represent all of us out of the hands of the political parties and entrenched special interests, and give it back to the voters.
Phil Keisling is a former Oregon secretary of state and is the chief petitioner for the Oregon open primary ballot initiative.
Rick,
Phil’s proposal will destroy third partys’ ability to get candidates on a general election ballot. If you really want to solve the problem of choice, implement Article 2, Section 16 of the Oregon Constitution so that we can do preference voting. That means you don’t just have two choices — you have as many as you desire.
Also, preference voting eliminates what people now see as partisanism. People will be competing for second place votes of candidates more closely aligned with constituents directly (who are likely to receive first place votes, but also, likely to be eliminated) in order to win the runoffs.
The Democrats don’t want to see IRV because of the Greens. The Republicans don’t want to see it either, because of the Libertarians.
If you’re truly non-partisan, you will recognize that the open primary system is being supported by partisan people, and there isn’t any grassroots organization to implement it. At the recent electoral reform forum which you for some reason refused to participate in, no organization came forward to support it and thus participate.
If you want to really solve some of the problems with poor representation, you can click on my website’s platform to see a number of ways to change the system in an equitable fashion, including other types of proportional representation systems. Right now we only have a regional proportional system. There’s no house devoted to plurality of opinion for proportionality. A party-line PR system would improve that situation, but most Americans have a disdain for parties thanks to the Republicans and Democrats. Instead of following the European advancements, we can use something like STV where proportionality is a side-effect of the reduced election threshold.
If you need any help on the math of election methods, just let me know, and I’ll be happy to meet with you to explain advanced election methods, instead of these tired reforms that don’t actually fix problems.
Seth, thanks for joining the conversation. I don’t remember being invited to the Electoral Reform Forum. If I was and couldn’t make it it was simply a scheduling conflict. As a candidate you can understand our schedules get booked quickly.
I visited your website and agree preference voting has it’s upside. The good news in all of this is I think Oregon Voters are willing to look at options. The Independent or non-affiliate voter rolls are growing and many of them are saying “hey, wait a minute, why can’t we participate more fully”?
Rick,
I agree with Seth about how the “Open Primary” will block third party candidates from getting to the general election. In some parts of Oregon it will also eliminate second party candidates, where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2 to 1 or vice-versa.
This idea isn’t merely an Open Primary, it is a fully Non-Partisan Open Primary, which effectively eliminates political parties altogether. Why go to such an exptreme?
There are many other ways to allow Independents or N-A voters to participate more.
In some states, voters can ask for whatever party ballot they want for the primary election, regardless of party affiliation, but then each party will still have a candidate in the general election. Or just have an Open Primary ballot with all the candidates, identifying their affiliation, and the winner for each party goes to the general election.
I rise to speak against the motion to establ… oh, wait, the convention isn’t until Friday.
But seriously, I do oppose IP 109, Keisling’s baby under discussion here. Washington just went this way and my friends there don’t like it. (Washington does have a different system fundamentally, though, so a comparison takes some careful study.) A different kind of open primary I might accept, but not this kind. As was pointed out, it blocks 3rd party candidates from the general election and makes possible 100% domination by one or the other main party where that party has a supermajority.
I will also agree with Seth about IRV, although I personally prefer Approval Voting. Either one would be a huge improvement over our status quo, opening up the process so that voters now constrained to pick between “evils” can freely vote their conscience. We would start finding out a whole lot more about where Oregon voters really stand, since they would be able to vote for multiple candidates. The resulting data mining would keep political nerds busy for years! (You might not hear from me for a while, LOL. But, I’d have a ton of reports for you when you did!) Hopefully we can bring these kinds of ideas into the limelight very soon. I’m glad to see them surface on this blog.
Oh, and Phil: this isn’t a democracy. It’s a republic — if we can keep it.
I like what I’m hearing in this conversation. I think Oregonians are ready to move beyond partisanship. We can still choose to belong to a party but when it comes to elections we need the opportunity to hear from everyone, not just in November. My own son, an Independent, couldn’t vote for me in the Primary. Yes, he could have changed his registration for the primary, but why should he have to. I was at a meeting and a libertarian said to me “why do we (libertarians) have to help pay for the primary election and yet we can’t fully participate?” I think she has a good point.
These are simply good conversations to have don’t you think?
The first part of the measure intrigues me: I feel I am able to get past the silly labels of party and partisian-ship and would like to have the ability to vote for the candidate that best represents my views.
However, the second part about just the top two vote getters moving on to the general election, well, that sounds warning bells in my head! NOT a good idea at all!
Dear Mr. Dancer:
If you support “open primaries” I will crawl through broken glass to do whatever I can to prevent you from being elected to any position in Oregon. Open primaries are a gross infringement of Constitutional rights of association to form political parties, and are a device for preventing significant political change that is desperately needed. Those who call for “consensus” and “post-partisan” approaches to politics are invariably attempting to accomplish something that is at best poor public policy, and is at worst pure evil.
James, We’re having a discussion here. We are expressing ideas so that we can all determine what we like or dislike. I like the idea of allowing voters, all voters, in the Primary Election, to have a chance to participate. The people involved in this conversation are simply offering ideas and learning from the discussion. I’d like to hear more of your thoughts without the threats. It sounds like you have some strong opinions and that’s great. We can all learn from this.
How does the Open Primary “Prevent Significant Political Change?” and in your opinion what significant change is needed and what would it look like?
One of the things that concerns me about the current proposal(Open Primary) is that if the elected official chose or had to leave office the governor would not have to choose someone of the same party to fill the position.
Hey Rick, It is great you are asking the VOTERS what they think about the issue. That is why you have my vote, because you simply know who to talk to, its us. Its not about fancy commercials, or polls, its about having a debate. I would like to see Kate Brown have a debate over policy on her website lol ya right!
As to the question at hand. I know where your heart it, and it is in the right place. We just have to look at consequences though. There are always two. There are intended consequences, and unintended ones. The intended ones this proposition speeks to greatly, but it (in its current form) does not address the unintended consequences. By making the primary open in this way, you create less choice in the general not more, because no third party candidate would ever make it, and in districts with large majorities to one side or the other, as they said above, you would have two candidates of the same party. Other states have seen this happen, and that is why Luisiana is the ONLY state in the Union that has this type of open local primary.
I agree that something has to be done, but making it posible for sabatoge voters to delagitimize so many voters of a party that want their choice heard is to hazerdous, and needs reform.
Thanks to Rick for an open discussion on the so-called “open primary.”
I’m an attorney with a lot of 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.
Wipes out minor parties and citizen-sponsored candidates.
Altho I was the sponsor of the petition drive to form the Independent Party of Oregon, the IPO has taken no position on the so-called “open primary,” BM 65.
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 do not want to see the Constitution, Green, Working Families and Peace parties silenced.
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?
OR has no campaign contribution limits at all–none. Most of you reading this live in the 45 states that actually limit money in state races, so you 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. The candidates can choose any party identifier they want (so long as the register or re-register with that party.) Parties will no be able to “nominate,” or may not even know these last-minute registrants, but they can “endorse” a person on the primary ballot. That means the money race for enough cash to make the top-two will start in the winter. The big funders will “anoint” the top-two and then “elect” the winner in the (even more) expensive November general election. The back room deals for party “endorsements” will take place outside of any public view.
Stifles all 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, but that private vote is not enough–concerted action is what brought about Abolition, women’s suffrage, trust busting, the social safety net, environmental protection, 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 May primary. In Oregon, Julius Meier became a citizen-sponsored candidate for Governor in 1930 when the major parties put forth candidates hand-picked by the trusts and power companies despite the economic chaos in depression-hit Oregon. Meier won with 54% of the vote. Abraham Lincoln was a “minor” party candidate. Populists and later Progressives ran candidates who changed the debates of the larger parties.
Too many drafting flaws to describe in detail.
The Bill is poorly drafted. It fails to integrate dozens of current election law statutes. This is fairly technical, but nevertheless fatal to predicable results.
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. This means that it will become unlawful for any party to coordinate or fundraise with its federal candidates (this is because the parties are deprived of the ability to “nominate” a candidate as defined in Federal Election Commission rules and applicable statutes).
Voting for a hastily designed measure in the hopes it will get “fixed” later 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.
Read BM 65 and understand it before you vote. If it needs “a fix” to make it work, then vote “NO.”
In response to the common refrain that minor parties and non-affiliated voters don’t get their primary processes paid for the solution is easy:
Pay for their primary processes just like we do with the other 60%, the two major parties. It wouldn’t cost that much more with modern technology. And for non-affiliated voters you hand them a ballot with non-affiliated candidates with a none-of-the-above vote option. Anybody who beats out none-of-the-above is nominated to the general election.
This doesn’t destroy parties (and third parties), equalizes access for independents on the ballot, and costs the same as Phil’s proposal.
There are simple solutions, and then there’s Phil’s dangerous top-two proposal.
Let’s consider direct solutions that don’t upend the system we already have that’s providing a place for third parties to be heard — instead let’s improve the dialog by opening up access to the primary process for non-affiliated voters directly. Centrists should also create their own party, instead of gerrymandering the primary system for their own benefit.
I’m listening. Seth, It was great meeting you today.
Rick, you’re a good listener, as I found out before the WWeek interview.
That doesn’t mean we always agree on how to make things fair.
I just saw the Tribune/Fox12 poll and it shows you slightly behind 25-33 with 38% undecided +-4.4%, (I’m guessing the 4% gap to 100 is people for me). I guess I just made your work 1/3 easier. Kate doesn’t have much of a platform to go on, and you’ve got a non-partisan stump-speech that I feel is more compelling. You just need to pull 2/3 of the undecided voters and it’s all yours, which in my mind is quite doable, particularly if you can maintain a positive spin on the problem of partisanship which Kate hasn’t been able to really distance herself from. I think her main goal will be to try to come off as “fair” to be able to leverage activated Democratic Obama voters.
And I do want to thank you for coming out on the record in support of Measure 46 (Campaign Finance Reform). Kate hinted that she would “differ” from her union backers and PAC contributors on Campaign Finance Reform, but as of now, you’re the only one (outside of myself) to have made a real statement. Nice move to grab undecided voters.
If you know of any events you’d like for me to be in (particularly if Kate will be there, too), just email or call me. Neither of your websites talk a lot about what you’re doing in the future, so I only find out about events if their organizers make a special third party appeal.
Seth