The Oregon initiative to limit the general election ballot to only the two candidates who received the biggest votes in the May primary will almost certainly qualify for the November ballot. The initiative submitted 119,653 signatures. The law requires 82,769 signatures.
Oregon backers of the “top-two” initiative insist on calling their proposal the “open primary” initiative, even though reference books and court decisions that define these terms say that an “open primary” is one in which each party has its own primary, but any voter is free to choose any party’s primary ballot.
One more nail in the coffin of the EVIL party hacks — the MONSTERS who produce undeclared wars, inflations, depressions, domestic oppressions, etc.
I’ve been saying that the “top two” will be tougher to get passed in Oregon, since that state has stronger political parties than Washington. However, this is a volatile year, and there looks to be a very large turnout. Many voters are mad at the parties, and they may express that anger by approving the “top two” monstrosity.
During the failed 2004 Prop. 62 campaign, as I recall, a California judge ordered the proponents to stop calling it the “open primary.”
There’s something sexy about the term “open primary,” as I know of at least 4 or 5 systems which are erroneously called “open primaries.”
Here’s an article on Oregon’s so-called “open primary.”
Phil Quisling– er, Keisling– has made several disingenuous statements here. He actually has the stones to claim that the “open primary” is better for minor parties! In that setup, minor party and independent candidates almost never reach the runoff; in a partisan system, of course, each party may have a nominee in the general election, and there’s no limit on the number of independents who can run in the general election.
When the two final candidates are from the same party: not only is that party split, but the other parties’ faithful voters are effectively disenfranchised.
Why should the voters be limited to two choices in the final, deciding election?
Congressman Peter DeFazio says the reason Keisling wants to eliminate party primaries is that Keisling knows he can’t win a Democratic primary.
NO need for any Stone Age party hack primaries, caucuses and conventions.
Ballot access via EQUAL nominating petitions.
P.R. legislative —
Total Votes / Total Seats = EQUAL votes needed for each seat winner.
A.V. executive/judicial.
Difficult only for Stone Age party hacks.
I will never vote for this. Not in a million years. The fact that Oregon Democratic leaders seem to love the idea should itself give any sensible person pause.
Meanwhile, I keep hearing rumors that local progressives want to run a lefty AG candidate next time out as a fusion candidate. Personally I have never believed in the merits of fusion, so if somebody wants to explain them to me with a straight face, feel free. I don’t believe in games. Run for the office like you intend to run all the way, or don’t waste my time.