Torn about the Open Primary measure in Oregon, I lean toward "Yes"

[Update: I've recanted, flip-flopped again, changed my mind. I'm now a No on Measure 90.

Read why here.]

I'm a flip-flopper when it comes to Measure 90, the initiative Oregonians are about to vote on that would create an open primary system. Meaning, everybody would be able to vote in the primary.

It would be open to all registered voters, including the 650,000 unaffiliated citizens who now are shut out of primaries. This included me for several years prior to 2008, when I decided to no longer be a registered Democrat.

Because I wanted to vote for Barack Obama in the Democratic Party presidential primary, I had to become a registered Democrat again.

With Measure 90, it wouldn't be necessary to do this for state offices (the presidential primary would continue to be guided by federal law). In primaries all Oregonians could pick and choose among candidates of both the major and minor parties, along with unaffiliated candidates. 

Both the Democratic and Republican parties in Oregon are opposed to Measure 90, which is one reason I lean toward supporting it. The current primary system gives too much power to the two major parties.

Since many parts of Oregon have clear Democratic or Republican party majorities, whoever wins the party nomination in the primary is virtually guaranteed to win in the general election.

So if there are 60% Republicans in a district, and a third of them vote in the primary, this means that 11% of registered voters could end up deciding the election (60% / 3 = 20%; a majority of 20% is 11%).

With an Open Primary, the top two candidates go on to the general election.

They could be from the same political party, but then likely one candidate would be more moderate than the other. So in the above example, in the general election a moderate "top two" Republican could be elected in a heavily "R" district, if most of the Democrats voted for that candidate, along with centrist Republicans.

From what I've heard this is more theory than fact in the states that have gone to open primaries (such as California and Washington), but it seems to me that giving moderates a chance in extremely liberal or conservative districts would be a good thing.

I've gone back and forth on Measure 90 just about every time I read a good argument pro or con. Today I came across the best "pro" piece I've seen so far, "Publicly Funded Elections Should Treat All Oregonians Equally" at GoLocalPDX.

Former Secretary of State Phil Keisling and voter rights advocate Caitlin Baggott write:

The measure on this fall’s ballot generating the most agitation among good people everywhere may – surprisingly – not be about legalizing marijuana or telling people what is in their food.

It’s about voting.

This year, Oregonians will vote up or down to grant more than 650,000 taxpaying voters the right to have a say in their state and federal representation. They are currently barred from participating in the election that matters most: the spring primary. A recent Oregonian study showed that nearly 90 percent of those races are effectively decided in the primary – leaving a small number of contested races for the fall ballot in a spare handful of districts around the state.

Why have these 650,000 voters been locked out? Because they choose not to sign up with the big political parties. 

Who hates this proposed change? The big political parties.

And also electioneers who hew to the success of one party or the other. Right to Life and Planned Parenthood are together on this one: They say vote no.

Hence the agitation.

Measure 90 fulfills one of the most basic ideals of our democracy: All voters should be treated equally regardless of their creed or ideology.

If that seems straightforward, that’s because it is. 

Here’s what the Top Two primary would do, from the perspective of voters: Every Oregon voter would get the same ballot. The universal ballot would include every candidate for all state and federal offices.

The information voters turn to most frequently to make their choice – party affiliation – would be provided in far more detail than we receive now. Each candidate would be listed with his or her personal party registration, and also any endorsements he or she chooses to accept.

A whimsical example, from inner SE Portland, where both of us happen to live:

-- Rosy Riveter (Democratic Party). Endorsements – Democratic Party, Working Families Party, Progressive Party

-- Johnny Appleseed (Pacific Green Party). Endorsements – Pacific Green Party

-- Cool H. Luke (No Party). Endorsement – Libertarian Party, Independent Party 

-- Donna Quixote (Republican Party) – Republican Party, 

The two top vote-getters in that election would go to the fall ballot. For the sake of argument, let’s guess that Rosy and Johnny are the favored candidates in this lefty district. 

As in 11 districts in Washington state this year, a minor party candidate would appear as one of two finalists -- and thus, have a very real chance to win the election. (No minor party candidate has won any Oregon partisan election in nearly a half century.) Washington has used a version of the Top Two primary for a few election cycles now. In a recent survey, 76 percent of Washington voters prefer the “pick-a-candidate” system over the “pick a party” system.

Sounds good to me. But my mind isn't completely made up on a "Yes" for Measure 90.

Last Friday the Salem City Club featured a debate between four of the five candidates for the 5th District Represenative in Congress. 

I took this photo from my close-in seat. Marvin Sannes of the Independent Party is standing at the podium. Seated left to right are Republican Tootie Smith, Democrat Kurt Schrader, the moderator, and Constitution Party candidate Raymond Baldwin.

After the debate I went up to Baldwin and told him, "You and Sannes have convinced me to vote no on the Top Two primary measure, because you guys were so entertaining and different. It would have been boring to have just Schrader and Smith debating today."

It does bother me that minor parties usually won't have a voice in the general election if Measure 90 passes. Despite the example given above by Keisling and Baggott, mostly the top two candidates will be Democrat or Republican.

However, under our current system minor party candidates tend to be largely ignored by the media and sponsors of debates. So I'm not sure if the benefit of giving them a voice in the general election is more important than giving the 650,000 unaffiliated Oregon voters a voice in the primary election.

That said, Sannes and Baldwin were definitely worth listening to. They made sense most of the time, but each dove into areas that made me go "Huh?" inside my head. 

Sannes brought this sign along with his campaign poster. He talked quite a bit about a government conspiracy to bring down the Twin Towers on 9/11 for some undisclosed reason. At least, I think it was our government behind it -- Sannes didn't make much sense on this topic. 

Neither did Baldwin when he referred to mandatory "chips" being implanted in people because of the Affordable Care Act, another thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory. 

But in the Q & A period, when I got to ask a question about how each of the candidates felt about Measure 91, which would legalize recreational marijuana in Oregon, Sannes and Baldwin each gave much more coherent responses than Smith and Schrader.

The minor party candidates both favored Measure 91, giving good reasons to support a retreat from the government's wasteful and ineffective War on Drugs. Smith, the Republican, said she would vote no, then launched into an irrelevant anecdote about medical marijuana dispensary people in Clackamas County doing something with cooked cannabis in their driveway that annoyed neighbors.

(I whispered to my seat mate, "Smith should have given out the address so people could go up there and inhale the smoke if they want to.")

Schrader was given an out on answering this question by the debate moderator, who told him "Kurt, we just have a minute left. You can either answer the marijuana question or talk about something else." Not surprisingly, Schrader took the professional politican approach and ducked the question. 

Rather, he expressed his support for Measure 90. 

So I'm torn. I'd like to see minor candidates like Sannes and Baldwin on debate podiums in the general election, but as I said, I don't think this is reason enough to continue shutting out unaffiliated Oregonians in the primaries. 

For now, I'm a "Yes" vote on Measure 90. I might change my mind, though.

Comments

[Jim Scheppke]

I hope everyone reads Governor Barbara Roberts' argument against Measure 90 in the Voters' Pamphlet. It's pretty convincing that even though Measure 90 might sound good in theory, it has led to some bad outcomes in practice, in both Washington and California. In the 4th Congressional District in Washington this fall, voters will have the choice between two conservative Republicans with identical platforms. And in District 31 in California, a majority Democrat district, two Republicans will face off because four Democrats split the vote in the primary.

Voters should always have a choice in the general election. With Measure 90 we may not get one.

It should also give pause that a Texas billionaire is the biggest contributor to Yes on 90: .

I'm voting no.

[Walker]

The "open primary" is the most deceptive, underhanded measure ever run by a bunch of out of state billionaires. It "opens" the primary in a way calculated to maximize the effect of money, by only allowing multiple candidates during the primary when few vote, so the duopoly parties will have all the advantages, at a lower cost.

But instead of doing away with the primaries, they then set up a zero sum top two fight to the death which means that the candidates will then be in the most expensive form of election of all, the zero sum winner take all fight, which means every voter I can discourage of yours is just as good as a vote for me, since the voters have no alternative.

If you oppose state funded primaries, the let's use the solution already in Oregon's Constitution, called preference voting then, known as instant runoff voting now. It lets all the candidates run in the general, and let's all the voters vote their true preference without having to worry about spoilers.

[Laurel]

If you look at voting numbers for nonpartisan races like city council, you will find that nonaffiliated voters vote at much lower percentages than party-affiliated voters. This would seem to indicate that many of those unaffiliated voters are just not all that interested in voting unless an election is very much in the news, like a Presidential election. So with Measure 90, you will end up with the same small slice of voters deciding who you can vote for in the fall. Except that now your voters choices will be narrower.

[Ben Unger]

Brian -
I hope you switch your lean and decide to vote No. Compelling piece you've written here - I have two more pieces to add to the discussion by looking at what's happening around the country.

First, look at Kansas and South Dakota - two very vibrant and important races for the US Senate that could never happen under a Top Two system. Those races seem to be changing the political landscape in those states before our eyes. Here's an article about the SD race from the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/us/politics/senate-contest-in-south-dakota-is-free-for-all.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Top Two would mean Oregon could never have races like this. We couldn't have populist outsiders challenging the establishment. We couldn't have free-for-alls.

This leads me to my second point - Top Two is an attempt to maintain the status quo in support of business and special interests. They like Top Two because there will be fewer outsiders and surprises. It's rare that the Associated Oregon Industries start backing election reform - it's pretty safe to assume that they don't do it because they're trying to help democracy.

There are lots of reasons why Measure 90 is bad for Oregon - the best reason might be that it makes change even harder than it is now.

[Brian Hines]

Ben, good points. I too read the piece in the NY Times about South Dakota this morning. It may help sway me to vote against Measure 90.

I also am bothered by reading the Voter's Pamphlet last night and seeing a number of references, by attorneys and others, that the way Measure 90 is written, the current 50 percent plus 1 primary winner system could still continue in non-partisan races, like city council elections.

Meaning, if a candidate got a majority of the votes in the primary, there would only be this one candidate on the ballot in the general election. This would defeat the intent of the "Top Two" system.

On the whole, I'm feeling less good about Measure 90 than I did when I wrote the post last night. Like I said in the post, I'm torn. It bothers me that non-affiliated voters get screwed by the current system.

It also bothers me that the current system encourages extremism, especially on the Republican side -- which has gone farther to the right in recent years that Democrats have gone to the left. Tea Party candidates easily win the GOP primary, then in the general election Republican moderates have to vote for the Tea Party'er, or vote -- gasp! -- for a Democrat.

A Top Two system seemingly would lead to more moderate Republicans being elected. But this may not be happening in actuality, in Washington and California. The depressing thing is that we have a screwed up election system now, and no matter whether Measure 90 passes or fails, we still will have a screwed-up system after November.

[Ben Unger]

Brian - Agree with you on your points about our current system - but I am truly optimistic about Kansas and South Dakota - there seems to be a revolt of the reasonable happening there - and it's interesting to watch the "third party" candidates drive that discussion.

When I talk to the Third Parties that are opposed to Measure 90, they remind me that without the Green Party and the Progressive Party (and even the Libertarian Party) we would never have had the candidates with the courage to talk about the tough issues - it was independents and minor party folks that first talked about gay marriage, for example. What will happen to those voices with only two mainstream candidates on the November ballot?

We need reform - just need reform that also promotes diversity of thought.

[Mike Hughes]

Brian- When I first heard about Measure 90, it appeared that it would be a definite improvement over what we now have where the two major parties control there process and spend seemingly unlimited amounts of money ripping each others' candidates to shreds. However, after doing a little research, and reading about the experiences of other states e.g. Washington and California with the Top Two system, I've come to the conclusion that there are other methods which would be more equitable. In particular, the Ranked Choice methods including the Instant Runoff for single seat openings seem to make a lot more sense. (Ron Eachus has a column in Tuesday's Statesman touting the Instant Runoff version). The major drawback would seem to be the complexity of the method which would require some careful monitoring but it allows all voters to have an equal say.

We certainly need some sort of reform to our system but I'm not convinced Measure 90 is the answer.

[Walker]

Good arguments against M90 here

http://www.blairbobier.com/blog.html

[Walker]

http://post.mnsun.com/2014/10/column-crystal-primary-highlights-the-need-for-a-smarter-voting-system/

October 14, 2014 at 10:43 am
filler
COLUMN: Crystal primary highlights the need for a smarter voting system

Ranked choice allows a municipality to skip the low-turnout August primary, instead leaving the vetting and culling of candidates to the November electorate: a bigger, more diverse – demographically and ideologically – cross-section of the population.

As it stands, all three races are now narrowed to just two candidates and those candidates will be competing head-to-head until November, which is a recipe for negative campaigning and more fuel on the fire of voter cynicism and disengagement. These factors won’t help the continued dwindling of political participation.

Ranked Choice Voting offers a smarter, more efficient, and more representative way to choose our leaders. I know from experience: I had the privilege of serving as interim elections director in Minneapolis in 2009 when that city first implemented ranked choice. The rollout was a success, with an overwhelming majority of voters finding it both simple and satisfying to use.

That success was amplified last November, when Minneapolis voters again used (and loved) it – this time in a competitive, multicandidate mayoral race as well as several multicandidate city council races. Once again, the process worked: voters had a wider and more diverse range of candidates to choose from and the winners reflected a broader consensus.

What was missing was a separate low-turnout August primary for starters. And maybe more importantly, voters were spared the nasty negative campaigning that’s unfortunately become standard in traditional, two-person contests. Since candidates were also competing for second-choice votes, they largely campaigned on issues and ideas, forgoing ad hominem attacks that degrade political discourse.

Ranked choice allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference: first choice, second choice, third choice. In a single-seat election, if a candidate receives a majority of first-choice voters, he or she wins. If not, the least popular candidate is eliminated and his or her ballots are divided among the remaining candidates according to those voters’ second choices. If there’s still no majority winner, this process repeats until one candidate gains a majority of continuing ballots (or until all seats are filled in a multi-seat election).

By folding two elections into one, ranked choice accomplishes what traditional two-round elections (such as an August primary and a November general) do – but in a single cost-effective election with broader voter participation.

Ranked choice proved it’s “doability” in 2009, and since then – with the arrival of ranked choice-capable voting and tabulation technolog, it’s only gotten simpler. Voters in Minneapolis and St. Paul have left behind the exclusionary and artificially limited summer primary, instead opting for a longer, more complete and issue-rich political dialogue that produces consensus outcomes.

After the successful 2009 election, I called that process one of the most significant civic exercises in Minnesota history. I believe that more strongly than ever – and I remain hopeful that more Minnesota cities will embrace ranked choice as a way to significantly improve our political process.

Patrick O’Connor is a retired Hennepin County Auditor/Treasurer and served as Acting Elections Director for Minneapolis in 2009. He lives in Golden Valley.