HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Places » U.S. » Oregon (Group) » After the Cantor lost due...

Wed Jun 11, 2014, 01:27 PM

 

After the Cantor lost due to open primaries, do we want these open primary props to pass here?

I've seen a lot of petitioners and discussion on other sites about these props.

http://www.blueoregon.com/2014/06/should-oregon-change-how-we-conduct-primary-elections/

Do we really want this? Might the Dems and progressives get screwed by another candidate getting a "nomination" with only a plurality of Oregon constituency support?

I still think a better solution to give power and voice to third parties that would be more apt to have those elected have a majority of support amongst voters would be instant runoff voting. I've heard our SOS say that this is not pushed because people don't understand it enough. But I think that these open primaries are just as misunderstood and more dangerous personally. It is our job to inform people of the effects of any kind of voting reform here.

7 replies, 1814 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply After the Cantor lost due to open primaries, do we want these open primary props to pass here? (Original post)
cascadiance Jun 2014 OP
Wellstone ruled Jun 2014 #1
quakerboy Jun 2014 #2
davidpdx Jul 2014 #3
cascadiance Jul 2014 #4
davidpdx Jul 2014 #5
cascadiance Jul 2014 #6
cascadiance Jul 2014 #7

Response to cascadiance (Original post)

Wed Jun 11, 2014, 02:02 PM

1. You want some History as to what

 

happens when third party idiots run in open primaries.look no further than Minnesota 6th district. Remember the twit Bachnman,that is how she pulled of her first win. DFL candidate,a real progressive and labor backed,Independent candidate wannabe liberal funded by the Ventura camp and a big fake. The guy was nothing more than a modern day TeaBillie wilh his own agenda to become Governor,then,we had the Twit,she just used the Sheep from two Mega Churches to push her over the top in vote totals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Original post)

Fri Jun 20, 2014, 09:02 PM

2. Nope. Not even a little tiny bit

open primaries dont result in third party candidates, so that is specious reasoning to bring them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Original post)

Fri Jul 11, 2014, 03:46 PM

3. I don't want either the open primary or instant runoff voting

I read Blue Oregon from time to time and did see that article. Yes, I think Dems and progressives will get screwed because the top two in some areas would be Republicans and in some areas would be Democrats. Two Republicans obviously gets us nowhere and two Dems would cause in essence a second primary to occur. I will be voting against the open primaries measure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #3)

Sat Jul 12, 2014, 12:36 AM

4. It wasn't put out on the news much but the Unified Primary initiative DID NOT make the ballot...

 

http://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Unified_Primary_Elections_Initiative_(2014)

Now of the two, at least that one made an attempt to do something to fix the problems with plurality vote spoiler effects. But it had it's share of potential problems with things like "bullet voting" side effects, etc.

The other open primary initiative that is on the ballot will in my book make worse than what we have now, by:

1) Having the same problems of those making the runoff both potentially not having majority support if enough candidates are in the primary, which is far more likely than the general election is now, since you have more candidates that would in the current system be voted out by the primary election also in the mix leading to more split votes and increased likelihood of spoiler effects.

2) The important voting would take place during the primary election when you have less turnout than the general election in November typically. Therefore a smaller portion of the electorate makes the important decisions initially, and the less consequential runoff with only two candidates running will also get reduced turnout by many who feel they have no candidate they support that they might support in our current election with far more choices.

3) The primary election, which is where political parties can come together and discuss amongst themselves in a fashion that encourages more community and grass roots involvement what agendas they want the party to support, and who they want to lead it. That gets lost with these open primary initiatives which hijack the primary election stage to be replaced with a traditional general election and built in required runoff. Even the Unified Primary was supposed to try and alleviate that by allowing parties to endorse certain candidates that it wants supported in this "open primary". But who does that endorsement? Not the voter, but the party leaders, etc. that moves away from what I think the voter really wants.

4) Since any candidate can run and "label" themselves a Democrat or someone in the Tea Party, it will be harder for the average voter to read through those labels, which are what corporate campaign money spenders really like as it lets THEM and not the parties (through a primary vote) define who are the "preferred candidates" for voters to pay attention to.

5) Read the comments on this page. They're far more intelligent and thoughtful than the opinion piece they respond to.

http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/editorial-oregon-voters-should-take-fresh-look-at-open-primaries/article_133652f2-0207-11e4-9f41-0019bb2963f4.html

5) Pay attention to the heavy money that got the one open primary initiative on the ballot. Do you think there's an "open agenda" going on that truly is just trying to help the growing number of independent voters in Oregon? NO! They are looking to use them as a vehicle to get this mess of a law passed!

Here's an official page listing the contributions for this initiative.... Note what entity appears multiple times with very large contributions here... "Silver Bullet, LLC".

https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/cneSearch.do?cneSearchButtonName=search&cneSearchFilerCommitteeId=16892

Now, who is this entity "Silver Bullet, LLC", which is so representative of the wide open coffers opened up by Citizen's United of contributions that aren't well disclosed...

http://www.undeadolympia.com/2011/01/13/silver-bullet-llc/

Note they've worked on the Bush/Cheney campaign, and on "right to work" (FOR LESS) legislation in the past! These people's goals are not for more voter representation, but to allow big money to control it more and put in plurality candidates of their choice in to office.

The problem we have is a growing independent segment of the electorate that is around a third of the electorate, that is up from around 20% just a few years ago. They are frustrated, and don't like to continue to feel like they have to vote for the "lesser of two evils" in many elections. Newer systems that could help that we could use in the general election instead of primary season would help keep out the plurality spoiler problems, provide voters with more voice to show their support for third party candidates that won't be spoilers at the same time, and to not disrupt the process of the primaries that allow parties to build momentum to do grass roots movement building and leadership selection amongst their members.

Instant Runoff Voting (ranked voting) or even perhaps other systems such as Range Voting, should be looked at over the next two years in more public forums and scrutiny so that voters will understand them a lot more before putting them in place to avoid big money twisting changes to work more for them than the general public. Normally Democrats are afraid of endorsing instant runoff voting (and I have heard from insiders largely because they feel the voter doesn't understand it and we should push something on them they don't understand). Now this open primary initiative is equally not well understood and I would submit far more dangerous to our democratic process than IRV is. I think now is the time for perhaps to get the party to say that we endorse an education process so that we as a voting electorate can understand these proposed alternatives, and feel more comfortable in voting for something that really empowers a majority of voters, which I think ultimately most people interested in real democracy want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #4)

Sat Jul 12, 2014, 04:09 AM

5. I had heard they were still counting votes, but not that it didn't make it

It looks like there won't be very many ballot measures this time around, which surprises me. Most of them I can look at the title and know how I'm going to vote. Last time I spend awhile thinking on the marijuana legalization measure before voting no. That is the one I will likely spend the most time looking at for this election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #5)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 11:52 AM

6. No, it didn't make it... Here's a post where they acknowledge they didn't make it.

 

http://www.unifiedprimary.org/unified_primary_the_end_of_the_beginning

I think they may be still counting the petitions for the other "open primary" measure, not the "unified primary" measure, as ballotpedia still lists the "open primary" measure as "potentially" on the ballot, and not on the ballot yet.

I will also be paying attention to the marijuana initiative too. I'm looking for other things that I think should happen along with that measure too if it passes. It sounds like they reigned it in a bit this time around to not be as ambitious as the last one, and perhaps try to make it more practical. I know that a number of local Democratic party officials didn't want to endorse it last time because there was a lot of critique that it was "poorly written", even if some wanted to see something like it pass.

Another interesting one to follow in light of Monsanto's lawsuit against the state of Vermont on the same sort of measure, is the GMO labeling measure. Oregon may need to get is legal team ready to defend that if Monsanto looks to try and have its way with Vermont.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Original post)

Fri Jul 18, 2014, 12:39 AM

7. It was just noted that open primaries in California made it WORSE for third party candidates...

 

... being part of the election. So WHAT IS THE POINT? Other than destroying our primary elections, reducing voter turnout, and letting elite money determine who gets the most attention in the primary elections...

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80810685/

So, is the electoral deck stacked even more for Democrats and Republicans under California's top-two primary system? Judging by the secretary of stateís Statement of Vote released Monday for the June 3 primaries, the answer is, yes.

It turns out the top-two primary means a thinner, less diverse ballot both in the primaries and in the November general election, which was anticipated by critics of the approach. This is the system under which only the top-two finishers in a primary, regardless of party affiliation, continue on to the general election.

As the Public Policy Institute of Californiaís Mark Baldassare points out, seven of the eight statewide races in November will feature showdowns between one Republican and one Democrat (the nonpartisan school superintendentís race will be between two Democrats). But there will be no additional Green Party candidates, nor the Peace and Freedom folks, American Independents or Libertarians on the ballot.

I, for one, will miss them.

...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread