By Bob Goldberg
Published July 7th 2006 in The Daily Astorian
I’ve heard it all before. Phil Keisling’s letter (“Open Primary,” The
Daily Astorian, June 16) praising the virtues of the “Top Two”
initiative sounded similar to the rhetoric thrown around in Washington
the last few years as various electoral initiatives were proposed after
the Washington Supreme Court threw out the “open primary” system used
there for decades (I’m a recent Seattle transplant).
While the “Top Two” initiative will probably be thrown out even if it passes, due to the many different issues contained in it, I would recommend not getting to that point, for many reasons. Though I’m not a big fan of the “closed” primary system used in Oregon presently, the “Top Two” or “Louisiana” system proposed is even worse. At least with the current system, it is possible to vote for a minor party candidate in the general election without having to write in your choice. Under the proposed “Top Two” initiative, minor party and independent candidates would be eliminated much earlier in the election season, giving an even bigger boost to the two major parties.
Seems to me that political party candidates should be chosen by their own parties, at the parties’ expense. While this was the case in the past, and complaints arose that only a handful of people “in smoke-filled rooms” got to choose the parties’ candidates, I don’t think that would be the case in these more connected days. I’ve attended many caucuses that chose candidates for various positions (including president), and I thought the experience was great (just about everyone in the district came out for these).
For those that think caucuses are too much work, the parties could sponsor “private” primaries that used similar methods to the current primary system (i.e. mailed ballots, verified counting, etc.). The end result would be candidates that had the backing of the various political parties, and of course independents and those wishing to enter the race affiliated with a particular political party, but not endorsed by it.
Now comes the good part. Oregon taxpayers could save the money used to put on primary elections (the political parties and individuals assume this cost), and vote in a general election using ranked choice and instant runoff voting to select a majority candidate in one election!
This gets by the biggest problem with the “Top Two” initiative proposal - that the top two candidates chosen for the general election runoff could have only marginal support from the electorate. Despite the claims to the contrary in Mr. Keisling’s letter, the emerging candidates under “Top Two” could easily have less than 10% support of the general electorate, even given higher turnout at the primary election (assuming a wider slate of candidates to vote on).
Given that the “Top Two” proposal would make things even worse than they are currently, and that minor parties and independents would be further marginalized than they already are, I hope that your readers will not sign the initiative proposal, and if it comes on the ballot, not vote for it.
To find out more about ranked choice and instant runoff voting, and other voting issues, readers should check out the FairVote Web site at www.fairvote.org
There are some great possibilities to enhance our voting systems and make voting more fair, but the “Top Two” initiative is not one of them. For those with lots of spare time, get a copy of Steven Hill’s latest book, 10 Steps to Repair American Democracy. It’s all in there.
While the “Top Two” initiative will probably be thrown out even if it passes, due to the many different issues contained in it, I would recommend not getting to that point, for many reasons. Though I’m not a big fan of the “closed” primary system used in Oregon presently, the “Top Two” or “Louisiana” system proposed is even worse. At least with the current system, it is possible to vote for a minor party candidate in the general election without having to write in your choice. Under the proposed “Top Two” initiative, minor party and independent candidates would be eliminated much earlier in the election season, giving an even bigger boost to the two major parties.
Seems to me that political party candidates should be chosen by their own parties, at the parties’ expense. While this was the case in the past, and complaints arose that only a handful of people “in smoke-filled rooms” got to choose the parties’ candidates, I don’t think that would be the case in these more connected days. I’ve attended many caucuses that chose candidates for various positions (including president), and I thought the experience was great (just about everyone in the district came out for these).
For those that think caucuses are too much work, the parties could sponsor “private” primaries that used similar methods to the current primary system (i.e. mailed ballots, verified counting, etc.). The end result would be candidates that had the backing of the various political parties, and of course independents and those wishing to enter the race affiliated with a particular political party, but not endorsed by it.
Now comes the good part. Oregon taxpayers could save the money used to put on primary elections (the political parties and individuals assume this cost), and vote in a general election using ranked choice and instant runoff voting to select a majority candidate in one election!
This gets by the biggest problem with the “Top Two” initiative proposal - that the top two candidates chosen for the general election runoff could have only marginal support from the electorate. Despite the claims to the contrary in Mr. Keisling’s letter, the emerging candidates under “Top Two” could easily have less than 10% support of the general electorate, even given higher turnout at the primary election (assuming a wider slate of candidates to vote on).
Given that the “Top Two” proposal would make things even worse than they are currently, and that minor parties and independents would be further marginalized than they already are, I hope that your readers will not sign the initiative proposal, and if it comes on the ballot, not vote for it.
To find out more about ranked choice and instant runoff voting, and other voting issues, readers should check out the FairVote Web site at www.fairvote.org
There are some great possibilities to enhance our voting systems and make voting more fair, but the “Top Two” initiative is not one of them. For those with lots of spare time, get a copy of Steven Hill’s latest book, 10 Steps to Repair American Democracy. It’s all in there.
