Another stupid idea - turn state elections into the kind that Porltand has!

thanks
JK

It's not going to make the ballot if they're 14k short with 2 weeks left.

Under the present system, why should taxpayers subsidize the cost of selection of party candidates in primary elections? Why shouldn't the parties be picking up the tab?

This is just one more reason why I'm glad I didn't vote for Greg Macpherson.

Read the initiative. This system would not only be more fair, it would cost less--only one primary ballot need be printed. And how would it be like Portland's system? Get a grip! And this is not Macpherson's idea. He's just jumping on the bandwagon.

I used to think open primaries might be a good idea. Then I saw how Rush Limbaugh urged his conservative listeners to change their party affiliation and vote for Hillary in their state caucus/primary. It seems to me that open primaries are an invitation to game the system along similar lines.

RickN:
Actually it would cost more. A candidate would have to run the equivalent of two general election campaigns to get elected. That would be great for campaign consultant businesses and the deregulated media, though.

Just posted to LoadedOrygun:

Exactly -- IRV yes, Cajun Primary no (0.00 / 0)
Why would Oregon want to go to Louisiana for tips on how to run elections?

This is the worst possible idea, the kind of dumbth that requires a wonk like Phil Keisling to support. The cajun primary preserves the costs of a primary election while destroying the function of letting the partisans pick their standard-bearer, while also destroying the ability of minor parties to remain distinct, principled entities.

With instant runoff voting, we can let the parties nominate whomever they want within the party organization (preferably using IRV again, but if they want to do it at a convention, fine) and then everyone goes to the poll and votes once. No need to have two publicly funded elections to do the job of one.

This is a very stupid idea.

If it does make the ballot, expect it Multnomah to vote overwhelming for it!!

There is an insane amount of misinformation out there about this. Part of it is that the 2008 version has substantial improvements over the version floated in 2006. Part of it is that what is nationally called an "Open Primary" is an entirely different of system. Not even remotely similar.

So Stan, you're entirely wrong. Jim K, it's not a "nonpartisan" election like Portland has -- though you're right that there are significant similarities.

The two major appeals to me are these: (1) as Paul said, it's patently unfair for the state to fund elections that are conducted on the parties' terms. (2) it increases the incentive for candidates to reach out to their entire district, instead of just identifying a strategic organization that can deliver an election.

-Pete

(disclaimer: I've done a bunch of contracting for this campaign. Because I believe in it. I speak for myself.)

"(2) it increases the incentive for candidates to reach out to their entire district, instead of just identifying a strategic organization that can deliver an election."

This is absurd. The single-member district is the problem --- making people be "represented" by people whose views they vehemently oppose. Until we graduate to a proportional representation system (elect in multi-member districts so that the majority rules but smaller groups have a real shot at representation as well) we'll never get anything but people who appeal to the plurality and the rest can just go hang.

Bring an initiative to get rid of the single-member district and I'll be out there helping. But this pablum is no reform whatsoever.

This is an idea long overdue. It will encourage moderate candidates willing to speak to the interests of their entire district, not just monied special interests. We currently allow the parties to select the general election winner in too many districts where the primary is the only real contest.

And no, it shouldn't be susceptible to Rush Limbaugh-style gaming. Just the opposite. If voters support a candidate for nefarious reasons, they would run the risk of their real choice not making the final ballot.

And it's also not "voter funded"...not sure why that entered the debate here.

Pete

You oversimplify the incentive structure--the same sort of oversimplification about voter beliefs and candidate behavior that is constantly promoted by this campaign.

Candidates have an incentive to reach out to just enough voters to make sure that they make it to round two.

This is almost certainly *never* "the entire district". It is completely dependent on what other candidates are running and how committed their supporters are.

As I've pointed out multiple times in multiple fora, in practice, these systems promote candidates who appeal to a narrow but committed segment of the electorate--a tendency that is magnified by holding the first round in May, when turnout is low and many voters are not paying attention.

It's not just Louisiana--this sort of two round system is used in France (presidential) and in many Latin American countries, so we have lots of empirical examples.

No.

This is an idea pushed by former Oregon Secretary of State Phil Keisling. It needs to die a swift death.

Horrible idea in my opinion. Parties should be responsible for selecting the candidate they want to run. I do agree that the state shouldn't have the pick up the tab for the process in which the general election candidate is selected, only the general election itself.

Paul G, I don't see how my statement is an oversimplification. (An incentive is not a guarantee; if you read it that way, that's your oversimplification, not mine.)

Let's say population Y (Republicans) is a subset of population X (all registered voters), say 60% in a given district.

So, we can contrast the goal is winning a majority of population Y, versus winning a top-two plurality of population X.

Let's say 70% of Republican primary voters in that district are members of a certain church.

How would you approach writing a campaign strategy for those two scenarios?

Anyway -- I'm all for looking at more empirical data, if that's an invitation. Let me know.

Paul said:

a tendency that is magnified by holding the first round in May, when turnout is low and many voters are not paying attention.

Paul, yes, this is one of the core problems. In 2006, the age of the average primary voter was 60.

Under the current system, in most legislative districts, you effectively get one viable candidate emerging from the primary elections.

Under the open primary/top two system, you would be guaranteed two candidates who had won more votes than their opponents.

More people would participate in the primary, because non-affiliateds, third party members, and in some cases minority party members would have new opportunities to participate.

And elections that aren't "fake" would take place in November -- elections with two candidates who actually have a shot at winning.