The Oregon Secretary of State says the initiative petition for a top-two system is valid, and the measure will appear on the November 2014 ballot. This article says that proponents have already raised $547,300, although they have spent most of it on paid circulators.
Proponents’ slogan seems to be that the initiative treats all voters equally, a claim that is not true. If the top-two measure is passed, based on how it works in California and Washington, registered Democrats will almost always be able to vote for a member of their party in November. In most elections, Republicans will also. But members of minor parties won’t be able to vote for members of their party in November. Thus the idea doesn’t treat all voters equally. Almost 7% of Oregon’s voters are members of minor parties.
The minor parties had the same chance to work together and reach the 33.33% plus one vote threshold potential in California’s top two last June 3rd as the major parties.
In fact, a unity coalition of third parties, independents and major parties was elected quickly within the 60-day time frame we were allotted by the elections rules:
http://www.usparliament.org/press-release.php
Unfortunately those who spent all their time and fuel fighting against top two for four years had nothing to contribute to unity – the unity needed in order to be a top two, when the fuel was needed the most which was during the election.
Four years ago it was worse because the primaries were closed and there was no incentive by the Ds and Rs for attracting votes from independents and third parties.
I know, because the California Parliament Super-state Parliament recruited unity-oriented candidates in both election cycles of 2010 and 2014.
While I am a promoter of pure proportional representation and not plurality elections, my observations are that the ground for unity is much more fertile today under top two than before with closed primaries (or what ever the term).
The time and money being spent on fighting top two could be spent on building the team. Under team psychology, we should practice and make our own team better, not looking at the past and fretting about things we can’t control. If we want good elections, then unify for good elections.
But the key is to unify.
We need leaders who are held accountable who are elected as a team. Pure proportional representation gives us those leaders, holds them accountable and also elects the kind of team we need; one that earns the good publicity that unity brings us.
Four years ago, California primaries for congress and partisan state office were not closed. They permitted independents to choose a party primary ballot.
Remember 2010 CA at-larfe state elections?
It was Chelene Nightingale [American Independent] vs Markham Robinson [American Independent] for Governor in the American Independent Party primary. But voters didn’t exactly swell the voting roles in the primary.
That was an interesting year, the two camps mentioned above in the American Independent Party primary filed lawsuits against each other.
At least Markham Robinson OK’d the coalition with Pamela Brown [Libertarian] for Lt. Governor in the days before he lost in the primary.
Then it was Chelene Nightingale (for Governor) and Pamela Brown (for Lt. Governor) who advanced into the runoff.
They had both been elected to the California Super-state Parliament’s team.
Constitution/American Independent Party’s Merton Short (RIP) for Secretary of State tied with the Peace & Freedom Party candidate for Secretary of State.
The tie for Secretary of State was caused, because the first nominee for Secretary of State Christine Tobin [Libertarian] immediately asked to be removed when we elected her to our team.
We also elected three Peace & Freedom Party candidates to our state slate, Gail Lightfoot for US Senate and Diane Templin [American Independent] for Attorney General who has since withdrawn from any future participation.
Many of the records have been lost now but we’re still electing a new California “Shadow Cabinet” in the coming days to demonstrate teamwork and unity under pure proportional representation.
Oh boy, this will be fun! A lot more fun than Brown vs Kashkari. Plenty of room for everyone!
Won’t you join us? The top ranked names get to pick first starting August 10th, 2014:
http://www.usparliament.org/v-h-ss11-2014.php
The top 2 epidemic gets worse in the gerrymander districts.
—
NO primaries.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
This is a bad idea which would freeze out independent and alternative party candidates. Just another “Top Two” scheme.
Bob, check out the eballots cast for the PacificNW Super-state Parliament (ss12) which includes the state of Oregon and you’ll see that the Respublic of Earth candidates are in the top two slots with two votes each:
http://www.usparliament.org/v-h-ss12-2014-eballots.php
The top two are the “initial contacts” for the majority coalition in the USA Parliament’s scheme.
If you have time, please rank some names of people who would like to coordinate under pure proportional representation.
We only do this every four years to be timed with state elections and the conversation must be focused on advanced elections and not single-winner elections and single-winner districts.
The people with top two are trying to make voting improvements. While the top two proposals aren’t much different than top one, it is a slight improvement because of the randomness of plurality elections still allows a winner even with far less that 33.33% of the total votes cast (plus one vote).
The problem I see is all the attention on a bad voting system that’s a hair better than a worse voting system while very good voting systems are getting no attention at all.