By Blair Bobier
Published December 20th 2005 in Eugene Register Guard
The Top Two primary proposed by Norma Paulus and Phil Keisling is
widely misunderstood and would greatly restrict freedom of choice in Oregon.
Oregonians should understand the far-reaching consequences of this dubious initiative before agreeing to place it on the ballot, as The Register-Guard suggested in a Dec. 4 editorial.
The former secretaries of state propose that Oregon ditch its current primary format in favor of a system used by only one other state: Louisiana, hardly a model of clean elections and good government.
Under the Paulus-Keisling scheme, all candidates from all parties, and any independent contenders, would compete in one big free-for-all primary election. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, would advance to the November general election.
This means that in some districts voters' ''choices'' would be limited to two Republicans, while in other districts the ''choice'' would be between two Democrats. The odds of seeing an independent, Green or Libertarian candidate in November would be about 1,000 to 1, based on the history of states that have used Top Two.
Freedom of choice is the heart and soul of the democratic process. If we can choose from hundreds of television channels and 31 flavors of ice cream, why should we be limited to two options for one of our most important civic decisions?
If Top Two were in effect, Oregonians would have two choices on Election Day - while the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan can now choose among hundreds of parties and candidates.
Although the theory behind the Top Two proposal is that candidates who survive the primary would have broad support, in reality the opposite is true. Oregon's May primaries are notorious for their low turnout. Very few people would be deciding which candidates appear on the November ballot.
Worse, with so many candidates competing in one race, a candidate could advance to the general election with the support of less than 10 percent of eligible voters. That's hardly the broad support that Paulus and Keisling are seeking.
Let's do better: Why not insist that candidates earn the support of a majority of voters? This could be done by using instant runoff voting. Instant runoff voting produces majority winners, encourages the participation of independent voters (one fifth of Oregon's electorate) and eliminates the spoiler and wasted-vote syndromes.
Instead of voting for just one candidate, voters rank candidates in order of preference - first, second, third and so on. If a candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, that candidate wins. If no candidate wins a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and a runoff is conducted immediately, taking into account the second choice votes on the ballots cast for the eliminated candidate.
Instant runoff voting would give a voice to independent voters and third parties. Top Two would silence them. Instant runoff voting requires that candidates earn a majority of votes to win; Top Two allows candidates to skate by with minimal backing.
Instant runoff voting is used throughout the world. It's used to elect the winner of the Heisman Trophy and the president of the American Political Science Association. When instant runoff voting was used in San Francisco in 2004, The New York Times reported that it resulted in an astonishing level of cooperation and civility among candidates. They recognized that this election method required them to reach a broad cross section of citizens.
There are many ways to improve Oregon's elections. But whatever we do, let's make sure we understand the ramifications of the proposed reforms. Top Two, which was rejected last year by California voters and declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in Washington, is so misunderstood that it is often mistaken for an open primary - an entirely different system.
Our system of self-government works well only when voters make informed choices. With so little known about Top Two and its potential to radically restrict democracy, it is irresponsible to suggest that this proposal deserves a place on the ballot.
Blair Bobier is the founder of the Corvallis-based Civics Education League and an adjunct professor of political science at Western Oregon University. As the media director for the Green Party's 2004 presidential campaign, Bobier was instrumental in initiating the statewide recount of presidential votes in Ohio.
Oregonians should understand the far-reaching consequences of this dubious initiative before agreeing to place it on the ballot, as The Register-Guard suggested in a Dec. 4 editorial.
The former secretaries of state propose that Oregon ditch its current primary format in favor of a system used by only one other state: Louisiana, hardly a model of clean elections and good government.
Under the Paulus-Keisling scheme, all candidates from all parties, and any independent contenders, would compete in one big free-for-all primary election. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, would advance to the November general election.
This means that in some districts voters' ''choices'' would be limited to two Republicans, while in other districts the ''choice'' would be between two Democrats. The odds of seeing an independent, Green or Libertarian candidate in November would be about 1,000 to 1, based on the history of states that have used Top Two.
Freedom of choice is the heart and soul of the democratic process. If we can choose from hundreds of television channels and 31 flavors of ice cream, why should we be limited to two options for one of our most important civic decisions?
If Top Two were in effect, Oregonians would have two choices on Election Day - while the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan can now choose among hundreds of parties and candidates.
Although the theory behind the Top Two proposal is that candidates who survive the primary would have broad support, in reality the opposite is true. Oregon's May primaries are notorious for their low turnout. Very few people would be deciding which candidates appear on the November ballot.
Worse, with so many candidates competing in one race, a candidate could advance to the general election with the support of less than 10 percent of eligible voters. That's hardly the broad support that Paulus and Keisling are seeking.
Let's do better: Why not insist that candidates earn the support of a majority of voters? This could be done by using instant runoff voting. Instant runoff voting produces majority winners, encourages the participation of independent voters (one fifth of Oregon's electorate) and eliminates the spoiler and wasted-vote syndromes.
Instead of voting for just one candidate, voters rank candidates in order of preference - first, second, third and so on. If a candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, that candidate wins. If no candidate wins a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and a runoff is conducted immediately, taking into account the second choice votes on the ballots cast for the eliminated candidate.
Instant runoff voting would give a voice to independent voters and third parties. Top Two would silence them. Instant runoff voting requires that candidates earn a majority of votes to win; Top Two allows candidates to skate by with minimal backing.
Instant runoff voting is used throughout the world. It's used to elect the winner of the Heisman Trophy and the president of the American Political Science Association. When instant runoff voting was used in San Francisco in 2004, The New York Times reported that it resulted in an astonishing level of cooperation and civility among candidates. They recognized that this election method required them to reach a broad cross section of citizens.
There are many ways to improve Oregon's elections. But whatever we do, let's make sure we understand the ramifications of the proposed reforms. Top Two, which was rejected last year by California voters and declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in Washington, is so misunderstood that it is often mistaken for an open primary - an entirely different system.
Our system of self-government works well only when voters make informed choices. With so little known about Top Two and its potential to radically restrict democracy, it is irresponsible to suggest that this proposal deserves a place on the ballot.
Blair Bobier is the founder of the Corvallis-based Civics Education League and an adjunct professor of political science at Western Oregon University. As the media director for the Green Party's 2004 presidential campaign, Bobier was instrumental in initiating the statewide recount of presidential votes in Ohio.
Election Day '09 was a roller-coaster for election reformers. Instant runoff voting had a great night in Minnesota, where St. Paul voters chose to implement IRV for its city elections, and Minneapolis voters used IRV for the first time—with local media touting it as a big success. As the Star-Tribune noted in endorsing IRV for St. Paul, Tuesday’s elections give the Twin Cities a chance to show the whole state of Minnesota the benefits of adopting IRV. There were disappointments in Lowell and Pierce County too, but high-profile multi-candidate races in New Jersey and New York keep policymakers focused on ways to reform elections; the Baltimore Sun and Miami Herald were among many newspapers publishing commentary from FairVote board member and former presidential candidate John Anderson on how IRV can mitigate the problems of plurality elections.