After the Cantor lost due to open primaries, do we want these open primary props to pass here?

[cascadiance]

4. It wasn't put out on the news much but the Unified Primary initiative DID NOT make the ballot...

http://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Unified_Primary_Elections_Initiative_(2014)

Now of the two, at least that one made an attempt to do something to fix the problems with plurality vote spoiler effects. But it had it's share of potential problems with things like "bullet voting" side effects, etc.

The other open primary initiative that is on the ballot will in my book make worse than what we have now, by:

1) Having the same problems of those making the runoff both potentially not having majority support if enough candidates are in the primary, which is far more likely than the general election is now, since you have more candidates that would in the current system be voted out by the primary election also in the mix leading to more split votes and increased likelihood of spoiler effects.

2) The important voting would take place during the primary election when you have less turnout than the general election in November typically. Therefore a smaller portion of the electorate makes the important decisions initially, and the less consequential runoff with only two candidates running will also get reduced turnout by many who feel they have no candidate they support that they might support in our current election with far more choices.

3) The primary election, which is where political parties can come together and discuss amongst themselves in a fashion that encourages more community and grass roots involvement what agendas they want the party to support, and who they want to lead it. That gets lost with these open primary initiatives which hijack the primary election stage to be replaced with a traditional general election and built in required runoff. Even the Unified Primary was supposed to try and alleviate that by allowing parties to endorse certain candidates that it wants supported in this "open primary". But who does that endorsement? Not the voter, but the party leaders, etc. that moves away from what I think the voter really wants.

4) Since any candidate can run and "label" themselves a Democrat or someone in the Tea Party, it will be harder for the average voter to read through those labels, which are what corporate campaign money spenders really like as it lets THEM and not the parties (through a primary vote) define who are the "preferred candidates" for voters to pay attention to.

5) Read the comments on this page. They're far more intelligent and thoughtful than the opinion piece they respond to.

http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/editorial-oregon-voters-should-take-fresh-look-at-open-primaries/article_133652f2-0207-11e4-9f41-0019bb2963f4.html

5) Pay attention to the heavy money that got the one open primary initiative on the ballot. Do you think there's an "open agenda" going on that truly is just trying to help the growing number of independent voters in Oregon? NO! They are looking to use them as a vehicle to get this mess of a law passed!

Here's an official page listing the contributions for this initiative.... Note what entity appears multiple times with very large contributions here... "Silver Bullet, LLC".

https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/cneSearch.do?cneSearchButtonName=search&cneSearchFilerCommitteeId=16892

Now, who is this entity "Silver Bullet, LLC", which is so representative of the wide open coffers opened up by Citizen's United of contributions that aren't well disclosed...

http://www.undeadolympia.com/2011/01/13/silver-bullet-llc/

Note they've worked on the Bush/Cheney campaign, and on "right to work" (FOR LESS) legislation in the past! These people's goals are not for more voter representation, but to allow big money to control it more and put in plurality candidates of their choice in to office.

The problem we have is a growing independent segment of the electorate that is around a third of the electorate, that is up from around 20% just a few years ago. They are frustrated, and don't like to continue to feel like they have to vote for the "lesser of two evils" in many elections. Newer systems that could help that we could use in the general election instead of primary season would help keep out the plurality spoiler problems, provide voters with more voice to show their support for third party candidates that won't be spoilers at the same time, and to not disrupt the process of the primaries that allow parties to build momentum to do grass roots movement building and leadership selection amongst their members.

Instant Runoff Voting (ranked voting) or even perhaps other systems such as Range Voting, should be looked at over the next two years in more public forums and scrutiny so that voters will understand them a lot more before putting them in place to avoid big money twisting changes to work more for them than the general public. Normally Democrats are afraid of endorsing instant runoff voting (and I have heard from insiders largely because they feel the voter doesn't understand it and we should push something on them they don't understand). Now this open primary initiative is equally not well understood and I would submit far more dangerous to our democratic process than IRV is. I think now is the time for perhaps to get the party to say that we endorse an education process so that we as a voting electorate can understand these proposed alternatives, and feel more comfortable in voting for something that really empowers a majority of voters, which I think ultimately most people interested in real democracy want.