We have a citizen initiative on the ballot for this year's general election that would change the way elections are run here in the future. Passage of this measure would essentially do away with the traditional approach of each party (large or small) offering up a candidate in the November elections and instead move the emphasis back to the primaries, which are held here in May. I'm pretty sure the only state with this kind of electoral process at the moment is Louisiana. I intend to vote no on this measure for a few reasons. First of all, I think it will completely shut minor parties like the Libertarians or the Greens out of the general election process since there's virtually no way a minor party could finish in the Top Two in a primary election. Secondly, I think it will drive down turnout at the polls in November. If you're a Republican but your only choices are two Democrats, why bother? And vice versa. I'm also opposed to allowing independents to have a say in choosing a party's nominee. If you want to have a voice, then register as a member of that party. Lastly, and this primarily just an Oregon issue, I think this is a back-door way to increase taxes. Right now we have a 50/50 rule on tax increases. That is, in order to pass, the tax increase has to have at least 50% of the vote AND there has to be a 50% voter turnout. November elections are exempt from the 50% voter turnout rule. Shifting people's attention back to the May primaries will probably gain the 50% turnout in that election, thus offering the politicians a second opportunity to push a tax increase. Am I completely off base here? Is there anyone that thinks this form of elections is a good idea? There's some more information on this measure here if anyone is interested.
As a registered independant voter, I disagree with you on all of your points. A republican who opts not to vote because only democrats are left in a political race is doing so voluntarily while you are openly advocating laws that will eliminate a registered indepependant voter from voting at all in a primary. I think a top two approach might work well and it might end up with two people on the same side of an issue in a general election, but I believe the chance is more remote than you believe.
I also support open primaries. Here in Ohio I voted in the Democrat primaries even though I usually only vote in the Republican ones. I did so because I felt I should have a vote in the Clinton - Obama fight as McCain had it wrapped up. Also, I'm a registered Independent and I vote for many Democrats anyway on election day so to put a label of Dem or Pub on me is inherently unfair. And fuck the Libertarian and Green parties. A bunch of whack jobs anyway. The only way that a viable third party will get any votes is if they put up a viable candidate and not some loon with crazy ideas.
I fail to see where eliminating the independent vote would accomplish anything, in fact it would be the better approach allowing the spectrum throughout without penalty. It could be used as a back door as well, I'm sure someone would try it anyway.
This is essentially the way the presidential election was up until the party ticket system was developed. The man with the most electors became president and the man with the second most became vice president, so you could have a republican president and a democrat vice pres or vise versa.
The initiative doesn't eliminate an independent voter from participating during the primaries. Oregon already has a closed primary system. There are still non-partisan offices to be voted on as well as local tax levies and other issues. And I still believe that if you want to be a part of the party process, you should belong to the party. If not, well then that's the price you pay for not declaring. It might. I certainly can't rule that out, but given how red and blue my state is I still think one would end up with less of a choice in November, rather than more. Agreed. But they should have that opportunity in November when everyone votes, including the independents.
I think it sounds like a great idea. Anything to minimize the power and control of the Republican and Democratic party.
I see it as just the opposite. What it does is empower the current party structure, who with more registered voters are sure to garner more votes. Primaries are a state funded and supported artificial construct intended to allow party members in states without caucuses to select their candidate. The election that counts is the one in November and I think everyone deserves an opportunity to run in that one. Regardless of the idiot quotient involved.
See that's the thing. I think you are assuming that it will empower the two major parties. I don't. People will have more freedom to choose who they want to see on the ballot whether it be Republican, Democrat, or otherwise.
They have that freedom now in the general election. Right now I'll be getting a ballot with eight to ten people on it running for Congress. If this passes, I'd only be getting a ballot with two names. Probably of the same party.
The bottom line this will remove some of the power and control from the two majors have. This type of change effectively removes the control over the primary process for the two parties. It can't be any worse than the mess we have now.
This is the only place where I really disagree with you. If the taxpayers are footing the bill for the election, then any registered voter should be able to take part. If the Democratic and Republican parties want their primaries to be exclusive clubs, they can pay for the primaries themselves. On the whole, I agree that the "top two" plan is a bad idea, largely because it would give an arbitrary strategic advantage to the party with fewer candidates running in the primary. For example, say you live in a state with roughly equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats. There are only two Democrats running in the primary, while there are six Republicans. In this scenario, there's a pretty good chance both candidates in the general election would be Democrats, and there would be no Republicans at all on the ballot. Now, in a state that leans 80 percent Democrat, that might well reflect the will of the voters. But a "top two" system would make it entirely likely for this to happen in a state with a 50/50 split, as well.
I'm still not getting it Kirk. And that's probably me, not you. In the primaries here, if you're a Libertarian you get a Libertarian ballot, if you're a Democrat you get a Democratic ballot and so on. I'm just not seeing what "power and control" is being exerted by the two major parties. Maybe things are different in California. I'll admit that I'm not anywhere near knowledgeable in how things work there.
The state foots the bill because there are still non-partisan offices and local measures to be voted on. Those appear on all ballots regardless of party affiliation. Or non-affiliation as it were. The parties in Washington took exactly the approach you endorse when an open primary law (later overturned) was passed. They skipped the elections, which still had to be held for other reasons, and went to a caucus system.
This seems badly thought out, and will quickly fall back into a system much like exists now. Look at it this way: You have two main parties, Y, and Z, each with roughly equal support, and each having five people running. Two winners emerge who have a small fraction of the total vote and could be from any of the two parties. Come the next election, party X thinks "Aha, we can do something clever here!" and only runs two people while Y still has five candidates running. All of a sudden the two people with the most votes are both from Party X Next election party Y thinks "Well, we'd better concentrate our votes this time" and only runs one candidate, he gets 50% of the vote, and one of the two party X candidates is left to run against him. At the next election both parties have realized it is best for them to just have one candidate whose message can be focused upon. All of a sudden this complicated system has fallen back into a situation where it is dominated by two parties, and the minor candidates don't even get to participate in the final election. The idea has good intentions, but it's a terrible way of executing it. Preferential voting is the way to go if you want to go down this road.
Things are always different in CA than other parts of the country I think. We seem to be a bit more whacked out then the rest of the country. In CA, independents can choose to vote for whichever party they choose. The reason I believe it would minimize the current level of power the two main parties have is because they wouldn't be as free to choose their candidates as they are now. It would bring in a whole new set of variables for them to contend with.
Well, as a thought exercise, I went looking for primary elections wherein the top two vote-getters in the primaries were not the Democratic and Republican nominees. I checked the 2006 Oregon, 2002 Michigan and 1998 Iowa gubernatorial primaries, and retroactively applying this standard to those elections would have resulted in the same matchup. Here's one election where it would have been very different, however: In the 1990 Massachusetts Democratic primary for governor, John Silber beat Frank Bellotti, 545,447 to 446,265. In the Republican primary, Bill Weld beat Steve Pierce, 261,150 to 173,146. If you apply a "top two" system to this election, you'd have Silber and Bellotti as the only candidates in the November election -- whereas in the actual election, Weld ended up winning by about 3 percentage points. Then again, this exercise is kind of futile, since the mere act of changing the system would also change candidate and voter behavior.
So do you get a ballot with all candidates for all parties listed on it? Or do you declare at the polls and receive a ballot with only those parties listed on it? And regardless of the primary results, can all parties still offer up a candidate in the general election? Just curious. Isn't the whole purpose of a "party" whether it be Democrat, Republican, Green or whatever be for a group of people with like interests and goals to choose a candidate that best represents those interests and then to promote them for the general election? Interesting exercise tafkats and one I hadn't thought of. My personal opinion is that a "Top Two" process might work well in a state where things are relatively even between the parties but suck in a huge way in states where things aren't quite so balanced (like Massachusetts).
It sounds like a good idea in theory -- the proposal appears to be trying to increase voter choice (which is good) and if carried out properly under ideal conditions, then I have no objections to its goal. The problem though is, do the conditions needed for its successful implementation really exist? That I'm not so sure of. It's entirely possible that if this were passed, then it could very easily become a means to lessen voter choice, not increase it. Let's say one party (Democrats for the sake of argument) ends up getting both slots on the ballot, and this happens for years and years. While one could argue "Well, they got those slots" etc, the problem with this is that come actual Election Day, voters will be faced with no choice but to vote for only one party. This can cause voter fatigue (''it's the same thing at the ballot box every year!") and in turn, lead to decreased participation (particularly among those that only vote on Election Day, and not during the primaries). Whatever limitations may exist in the two-party system (and there are many), one thing it does ensure is that there will always be more than one party. It inherently guarantees at least one more choice, whereas this measure could do away with that plurality. So, while a good idea in principle; in a time where voting fraud and vote manipulation is still fairly present, we should probably be more careful in how we deal with mechanisms that shake up certain safeguards.
1) Mallory: I don't see how this allows independents a say in a party's candidate. It allows parties to choose as many or as few candidates as they want, then allows everyone, independents included, to decide which candidates get into the election. 2) This could well end up with one or even (on rare occasions) both candidates in the presidential election not being on the ballot in other states, thus seriously diminishing Oregon's weight in the Electoral College. 3) The only result in the parties would be that some other system would be put in place, before the "primary" election, to choose their candidate. Since it would have to be done long before the other states have finished up their primaries and the national candidates are chosen, that is what would produce the possibilities mentioned in 2. This year, for example, they could easily have had Clinton and Romney, for example, as their two candidates in the November election. No matter which way Oregon voted, the result in the Electoral College would be to throw away Oregon's vote. 4) The end result, therefore, is simply to make a more complicated election, in three steps rather than two, which will cost more, be less effective, and could in some cases totally exclude Oregon from having a say in the choice of the US President. Conclusion: A very, very, very bad idea overall, IMO.
It's a stupid idea. I am not a Republican or a Democrat. Why should I have any say in who their nominees are?
Because you're helping to pay for the nomination process. If the Republicans and Democrats want to exclude you and make it a members-only affair, they can have caucuses or whatnot ... and foot the bill themselves.
Not in every case. In Nebraska the Democrats fund their own caucuses in February and the state includes the Republican and (non-binding) Democrat primaries with general ballot initiatives in May.
It IS a members-only affair. It's their party. But I do hate the idea of it being tax-funded. maybe registered Republicans and Democrats ought to pay for their own primaries and leave the rest of us alone.
Yeah, we have elections here every May anyway, so printing up some different ballots to include the primaries every couple of years is not huge expense. And since Oregon is exclusively vote by mail there's no additional expense beyond that.
Actually you got a couple things wrong here. First WA had a top two system since 1932. Secondly, SCOTUS overturned the overturning. And lastly, you can't boycott the Top Two Primary if you want to be on the general ballot. http://www.wordforge.net/showthread.php?t=59263
I knew about SCOTUS overturning the previous Federal court ruling but that was after an election cycle. And the system still faces a court challenge. This year the parties held caucuses. Other than that, I stand corrected.
Still faces a court challenge after SCOTUS ruled it was okay? And they probably will next year too. And the year after that. Parties can even hold their own primaries if they want to pay for them. Freedom of a Association and all that. However, just b/c a major party picks you doesn't mean you will make it on the final ballot. You've got to win in the runoff.
After the lower Federal court overturned the original law, the state passed a second, differently word initiative that essentially accomplished the same thing. Different law, different challenge. The SCOTUS ruling applied to the original version which was replaced by the new one.
