2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Hi Jim. You may not know it, but minor party primaries and conventions are not funded by tax dollars. I think it would be fair if all parties had their primaries funded in equal proportion to their registration numbers. Then by virtue of registering non-affiliated, funding would open up for independent candidates to seek nomination as well -- a "non-affiliated" ballot for them to nominate people -- none of the above being an option on it.

The public already does set all the primary rules, however parties may make rules differently if they choose to. But since it would be funded in proportion, it would be fair.

Under top two, democrats will run two candidates knowing that at least one goes ahead and most likely both in districts where there's no republican presence. The Green Party would be excluded. Currently minor parties are not excluded from the general election.

You're also ignoring the fact that "5 of those races are where one of the finalists is not a D or an R" doesn't imply that there's 5 more opportunities. In fact, the Republicans ran in only 37 seats out of 60 seats. That's 23 opportunities for the Green Party, in the Oregon House, to be in the top two without this proposal. If this proposal happens, those 23 opportunities may fall to 4 or 5 as most of them will have two democrats win. Only if two democrats don't run in those 23 seats do I expect to get to the top two. Mark my words that once the parties learn the system, it will be just as bad as the 1 in 1400 races that have happened historically where there was somebody outside the major parties.

We're running candidates in some of those races. Note that the 4th Congressional District has no Republican opponent. The Greens are on the general election ballot (a current city councilor of Corvallis) in that seat. If top two took effect, there would be no "green-dem" race in the 4th district.

The minor parties are against this proposal for a reason. We actually know how the election law works. Do you think we're just against it out of spite or that we're in favor of parties? Yes, we're a party, but we're also a bunch of people who have built an organization up from nothing to get some chance to participate in a debate that has been ignoring our values. With top two, the government will be forever able to ignore our values and listen only to an unprincipled "center".

Just follow the money -- all 20 statements are funded by big business and centrist politicians who agree on everything the Dems and Repubs agree on -- notably corporate influence.

Phil is just using this measure to plant the seeds for a run against Bradbury. Everybody with some awareness can see that he wouldn't get selected by the Democratic Party primary, so he has to try to appeal to right-wingers.

Give me a break -- bipartisanism is just a cover word for "give me enough money and I'll agree with anybody". They should create their own "centrist" party with their own "principles" and become a major party and displace the other two -- can't be that hard, now can it? As Phil said, if a party's not big enough it should question its reason for existence.

Well, Phil won't be able to get away with harming parties just because he wants to sell out both parties and reduce democracy with Louisiana-style Elections.

He lied about its being an open primary, he lied about it helping third parties, he lied about all the effects. Phil's most likely just lying to manipulate the system to seed his run against Bradbury, where he thinks he can win by playing to the center.

If he wanted real reform -- Phil would be championing campaign finance reform and public financing and Ranked Choice Voting (IRV) to truly eliminate the spoiler effect.

(P.S. Vote for me for Secretary of State... seth4sos.org)

posted 4 years, 8 months ago
view in context