On October 15, The Oregonian, Portland’s daily newspaper, endorsed measure 90, the top-two system. The newspaper endorsed the same proposal in 2008, the year it was defeated in Oregon by a vote of 2-1.
The editorial’s main point is that U.S. House races in Oregon are now perpetually safe for incumbents. But if Measure 90 were in effect, there is no reason to think U.S. House races in Oregon would be any more exciting. Washington state has been using top-two starting in 2008, and no incumbent member of the U.S. House from Washington has been defeated, or even come close to being defeated, since top-two has been in effect.
The top 2 primary stuff is one more distraction from the ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander systems.
Simple gerrymander –
—A—-Z
1–51–49–100
2–51–49–100
3–0–100–100
—102–198–300
The 102 of 300 = 34 percent elect 2 hacks and thus CONTROL.
In larger regimes, the minority rule goes down to about 25 percent.
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Politics and voting is free for all voters and the mechanics of top two voting is destructive for the team.
A movement is needed with resources for unity, fuel and teamwork with the whole. Us voters can continually self-correct, self-improve and when the team wins, we all win.
What is your measurement of “close” in your assertion “no incumbent member of the U.S. House from Washington has been defeated, or even come close to being defeated, since top-two has been in effect.”
What is the closest, albeit perhaps not “close” in your sense of the word?
The real issue, Jim, is not the measurement of “closeness” but what Top Two will eventually do to the so-called Two Party System, which does in many if not most states, allows a reasonable manner for a 3rd party or Independent candidate to obtain ballot position and appear on the November General Election ballot.
I’ll have to confess to all – at the sake of being ostracized for admitting so – when Louisiana went to their version of a Top Two electoral system back around the early 1970’s, I felt it would be good for a strongly organized 3rd party in Louisiana. At this time, the old American Party of the populous Governor George Wallace fame had the potential to become a strong 3rd party in this state. As you may recall, populist George Wallace carried Louisiana in ’68 under the American label.
The theory which I looked at (though I see it wrongly today), was in Louisiana there would be many or several Democrats to run for each office being contested, thereby dividing up the vote they would win in the initial Primary. Hopefully, there would be opportunity for a strong populist/conservative American candidate to place at least 2nd in the initial primary and then face the top Democratic vote getter in the 2nd round of their Open Primary. In my mind, if an extreme liberal Democrat happened to squeak out as the top Democratic vote getter, surely a populist/conservative American candidate could pull off the victory in round two of the Open Primary in conservative Louisiana.
But history did not prove this out. While initially, most participants in this Open Primary were Democrats, the American Party in Louisiana (as it did nationwide) imploded, and instead Republicans began to take advantage of the Open Primary, and they were fortunate in getting one of their nominees to place at least 2nd in the first round and meet the top Democratic vote getter in round two of the Open Primary.
If my memory is correct, it was about the 3rd or 4th time of holding of the Open Primary for the gubernatorial election in Louisiana, the Republican did win, and Republicans have won most of the gubernatorial elections since.
So in states like Louisiana, Top Two would benefit the GOP, but nationally, more states which adopt Top Two will benefit the Democrats. The Democrats know this and are willing to concede the South and certain western states to the GOP. But they know that if Top Two were ever adopted by a majority of the states, and to a Presidential Election, they would win the majority of them for many decades to come.
This is why all 3rd partisans and Independents must unite and come together in some way to defeat Top Two in whatever state it exists.
(NOTE: For clarification of my support of the old American Party of George Wallace fame. I supported that party as a populist of the George Wallace fame. When the party later became the tool of the John Birchers and of others who wanted to expunge the party of George Wallace populism, I ceased my support of the American Party. As we all know, Wallace went back to the Democratic Party – a move I did not concur with – so I then became a Independent – and today I remain a Independent. Also, it can be noted the original American Party of George Wallace fame is dead)
But more importantly, Top Two is a nice way of saying “One Party State” and someday, “One Party Nation.”
Let’s Stop Top Two!!!
Alabama Independent writes: The real issue, Jim, is not the measurement of “closeness”
Richard Winger made an unsubstantiated claim about Washington which he has failed so far to provide evidence of.
The FEC has the Federal Elections series of gerrymander area election results for Congress and Prez.
Are their results different than those on the Washington SOS web site?