Measure 65, which would have established the “top-two” system in Oregon, was defeated on November 4.
Comments
"Top-Two" Loses in Oregon — 7 Comments
I’m shocked – and elated. Every major newspaper endorsed Top Two and I thought it had a lot of support.
I was worried. It was sad to see every major newspaper jump on the bandwagon so early on. I guess the “open primary†language sounded so good.
This measure fared the worst of all of the 10 measures on the Oregon ballot. Current count is 66.2% “no” vote. It was endorsed by every daily paper in the state, except one (Salem Statesman-Journal). If you count the money spent getting the signatures, supporters outspent opponents by 3 to 1. If you do not count the signature money, supporters outpent opponents by 5-3. Only the supporters had TV ads. The opponents were not on TV or radio or newspapers but instead only did one statewide mailing (that I am aware of).
What defeated this measure was the opaque ballot title, which the Attorney General was compelled to rewrite (upon order of the Oregon Supreme Court) in 2007.
Despite the change in the ballot title, the proponents of this monstrosity continued to call it the “open primary.” I never believed that it had 74% support, as its proponents claimed.
It now appears that the next battle on this front will be in California, possibly as early as next year. In November 2004, California voters wisely defeated the “top two,” as Prop. 62 lost in 51 of the state’s 58 counties.
I’ve seen several pieces by California writers on the so-called “open primary.” They note that voters approved the blanket primary in 1996, and that the US Supreme Court struck it down in 2000. But they conveniently neglect to mention the failure of Prop. 62 in 2004.
Dan Meek is far too modest. He is one of the legal wizards that persuaded the State Supreme Court of Oregon to modify the ballot description of Measure 65.
Hurray!
Just say “NO!” to the “Top-Two” system of communist elections!
The next step should be to de-regulate the activities of the political parties. There is no reason for Oregon to require major parties to use primaries, let alone finance them. Worse yet is conducting non-partisan elections coincident with the primary. In the May elections, 77% of registered Democrats in Multnomah county voted; 50% of registered Republicans; but only 30% of other registered voters.
This is the equivalent of making agnostics and atheists vote in the middle of a Baptist tent revival – with the city paying for the tent.
The major political parties could continue to conduct their own private primaries – just like the minor parties could choose to do now. Perhaps the State could conduct these primaries on a cost basis.
Then the qualification date for candidates could be moved to a reasonable date, like October, with qualification made reasonable, rational, and minimal for all candidates.
If political parties wished to endorse a candidate they could do so, and this would facilitate fusion voting. There is no reason to permit parties to nominate candidates. It is obscene that parties can condition consideration for nomination on an agreement by a candidate not to seek office if they are not selected as the nominee, it is even worst for the state to make such a requirement or to enforce it in law.
Then simplify the standard for qualifying a party to make endorsements. Perhaps 0.1% of all registered voters, and annual meetings/conventions open to all party registrants. New parties could be formed simply by drawing 0.1% of voters to an initial meeting (and agreeing to change their registration).
I’m shocked – and elated. Every major newspaper endorsed Top Two and I thought it had a lot of support.
I was worried. It was sad to see every major newspaper jump on the bandwagon so early on. I guess the “open primary†language sounded so good.
This measure fared the worst of all of the 10 measures on the Oregon ballot. Current count is 66.2% “no” vote. It was endorsed by every daily paper in the state, except one (Salem Statesman-Journal). If you count the money spent getting the signatures, supporters outspent opponents by 3 to 1. If you do not count the signature money, supporters outpent opponents by 5-3. Only the supporters had TV ads. The opponents were not on TV or radio or newspapers but instead only did one statewide mailing (that I am aware of).
What defeated this measure was the opaque ballot title, which the Attorney General was compelled to rewrite (upon order of the Oregon Supreme Court) in 2007.
Despite the change in the ballot title, the proponents of this monstrosity continued to call it the “open primary.” I never believed that it had 74% support, as its proponents claimed.
It now appears that the next battle on this front will be in California, possibly as early as next year. In November 2004, California voters wisely defeated the “top two,” as Prop. 62 lost in 51 of the state’s 58 counties.
I’ve seen several pieces by California writers on the so-called “open primary.” They note that voters approved the blanket primary in 1996, and that the US Supreme Court struck it down in 2000. But they conveniently neglect to mention the failure of Prop. 62 in 2004.
Dan Meek is far too modest. He is one of the legal wizards that persuaded the State Supreme Court of Oregon to modify the ballot description of Measure 65.
Hurray!
Just say “NO!” to the “Top-Two” system of communist elections!
The next step should be to de-regulate the activities of the political parties. There is no reason for Oregon to require major parties to use primaries, let alone finance them. Worse yet is conducting non-partisan elections coincident with the primary. In the May elections, 77% of registered Democrats in Multnomah county voted; 50% of registered Republicans; but only 30% of other registered voters.
This is the equivalent of making agnostics and atheists vote in the middle of a Baptist tent revival – with the city paying for the tent.
The major political parties could continue to conduct their own private primaries – just like the minor parties could choose to do now. Perhaps the State could conduct these primaries on a cost basis.
Then the qualification date for candidates could be moved to a reasonable date, like October, with qualification made reasonable, rational, and minimal for all candidates.
If political parties wished to endorse a candidate they could do so, and this would facilitate fusion voting. There is no reason to permit parties to nominate candidates. It is obscene that parties can condition consideration for nomination on an agreement by a candidate not to seek office if they are not selected as the nominee, it is even worst for the state to make such a requirement or to enforce it in law.
Then simplify the standard for qualifying a party to make endorsements. Perhaps 0.1% of all registered voters, and annual meetings/conventions open to all party registrants. New parties could be formed simply by drawing 0.1% of voters to an initial meeting (and agreeing to change their registration).