What a weird concept. I wonder who came up with that and why. It seems like it would cripple any idea of a "loyal opposition".
I really like the idea of the "Top Two", and almost afraid of suggesting the following since it would partially negate the spirit of the "Top Two". But what would prevent the parties from [i]privately[/i] conducting their own "pre-primary" or other nomination selection process?
I am philosophically opposed to any support/involvement from the government for the party's nomination process. I do not like my tax dollars assisting the demopublicans or republicrats nominating their candidates. I do not like publicly declaring being a member of a party, since doing so violates the [i]spirit[/i] of the secret ballot. I would support timing coordination, so that candidates could quickly and easily be added to or dropped from the ballot after the party nomination process. But this should be between the Secretary of State and the candidate, not the party.
It looks like the "Top Two" was briefly discussed on 3/19/2008. Maybe it was for less than 10 minutes then like today. It really isn't a discussion if it is on air less than 20 or 25 minutes. Back then, RodgerCarpenter[u] http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/opb/user/profile/967202.page[/u] posted:[quote] ? The top-two primary ignores this basic concept that the primary is held to nominate the member of the party to represent it for the general election. It is my opinion the parties have a right to have only members of there[sic] party vote for their candidates in the primary. But the only fair way to do that is to require voters to register by party.[/quote]There are many fair ways to do "that". People have rights such as free speech, and while this may extend to parties, does the constitution or Bill of Rights mention political parties?
Well, I would contend parties have the right to nominate who ever they want in, with any almost process they choose. But do they have the right to ask the state to conduct a primary on their behalf? Sometime they use caucuses. In some states, the parties have primaries on different days! I would even argue a group such as children have a right to nominate a candidate; whether the candidate qualifies for the ballot is a different subject entirely.
One more thing that irks me with the present Oregon system is when in a general election the winner gets less than 50% of the vote because of "third" party candidates. When that happens, there should be a runoff of the top two (that is where the name comes from?), but with a "Top Two" primary, the winner in the general election will almost always get more than 50% of the vote. If there was a runoff after the general, or if there were party "pre-primaries", we could be arguing semantics, what is "primary, general, runoff..". What then could be debated is what involvement the government should have in the parties nomination process. If the party wants the Secretary of State to conduct a primary for them, they should at least reimburse the costs, and no one should take office with less than 50% of the vote.
Comments are now closed.