On October 30, the gubernatorial nominee of the Oregon Independent Party, Patrick Starnes, asked voters to vote for the incumbent Democratic Governor, Kate Brown, and not to vote for himself. See this story.
UPDATE: the Independent Party afterwards issued a press release, saying the party does not endorse anyone else for Governor.
If he’s going to be a bloody sheepdog for the Democratic Party, why run an independent campaign in the first place? I hate it when third-parties do this. Either be someone truly interested in getting votes from outside the corrupt duopoly, or don’t pretend that you care about it. I hope independents vote for him out of spite to deny the votes to Brown.
He is the second “Independent ” to leave a race for Governor , after voting started, then back a Democrat. So much for being honest.
Under Top 2, voters could vote sincerely for Starnes, and if he failed to reach the Final, he might have endorsed Brown.
Is the HACK trying to get a Donkey Gov appointment ???
—
NONPARTISAN AppV — ALL exec/judic offices – pending Condorcet.
Jim, voters already did vote for Starnes. He won the Independent Party primary in May 2018.
@RW,
There are no segregated partisan primaries under Top 2. As it was, Starnes nearly lost the Independent Party primary to the Republican nominee running as a write-in. Under Top 2, Starnes could have appealed to all voters and not only those who accidentally signed up for a pseudo-party.
Oregon should move its primary to September,
NO primaries.
PR and AppV
Jim Riley:
Here’s an idea I came up with. First, have party primaries, with each party nominating a candidate. Second, have an all party primary, where voters would vote for 2 candidates to qualify for the november election. Third, the 2 candidates would face off and the winner gets the seat.
Now, my idea would be to encourage coalition building among voters. That second round would let voters vote for 2 candidates.
Jim, your use of the term “segregated” is offensive and does not add anything to your message.
Every organization that exists in the world, and which lets its members vote on internal organization matters, would be subject to “segregated”, a word with very negative connotations. Every political scientist, social psychologist, and sociologist, for hundreds of years, has determined that society is much better off when people form voluntary organizations. The more people participate in voluntary organizations, the better the social health of that society. You don’t say if you disapprove of voluntary associations, but when you use that term, you are implying it.
Brown v Bd of Ed 1954
race segregated skoools = separate and NOT equal skoools.
Public nominations — ALL or SOME in separate / segregated factions.
Even with separate / segregated nominating petitions.
Result- segregated / segregation >> New Age politically incorrect words.
REALITY – all sorts of political / economic / social / racial segregation
— esp between RED Donkey and BLUE Elephant areas.
What percentage of 60 plus percent RED / BLUE precincts for Prez in 2016 ???
Very limited 40-60 pct precinct zones ??? — all connected with minority rule gerrymander math.
IE – esp – white Elephants moving to new outer suburbs to have ZERO contact with black Donkeys in old ghetto areas.
IE – one result — endangered species – white Donkeys in legislative bodies.
—
PR and AppV
@RW,
The word is accurate. What word would you suggest I use?
If I think George would make a good legislator I could encourage him to run. I can make a contribution. I can display a yard sign or bumper sticker. I can block walk and extoll his virtues to others. The same is true with regard to John and his running for county government.
But I might be denied the opportunity to support either George or John in the most intimate way by voting for them in the first (primary) stage of an election. I could even charged with a felony, if I attempted to vote for both.
That does not sound like voluntary association to me.
That is the essence of “voluntary associations” the candidates choose to associate only with other people that are a part of their party for their party nomination process. Just because you can’t force your way into more than one party nominating contest does not make that “involuntary” by any definition.
@BL,
If it is illegal to engage in political assocation in the most intimate way possible – by voting, it is not a voluntary association.
Do you think it should be illegal to suggest to someone that they should run for office, if you are registered with a different party? What about campaign contributions, including in-kind contributions.
“The defendant, a registered Whig, was observed licking stamps at the American Party HQ.”
PUBLIC Electors in PUBLIC nominations of PUBLIC candidates for PUBLIC offices —
according to PUBLIC laws–
whatever the nomination process is —
ALL Electors [top 2 primary regimes]
or SOME Electors [still most regimes]
— latter — open or closed or mixed primaries by LAW.
Again – 1st Amdt has ZERO to do with election *mechanics*
— See the book – Sources of Our Liberties ed by Richard L. Perry (ABA, 1959)
— legal history of USA Const. Amdts. 1-8.
In Montana, the Libertarian nominee for the Senate dropped out and endorsed the Republican, in Arizona the Green nominee for the Senate dropped out to support the Democrat. Both are disgusting. If you’re going to run as a third-party candidate, have bloody convictions. Little is as disgusting as third-party candidates falling into the two-party trap. They betrayed the voters, the party, and should be condemned by the state parties.
Instead of “segregated”, why not use the common vocabulary, which is “closed”?
Have you ever read de Tocqueville?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DRumPnd1rlmg&ved=2ahUKEwjbzOrj07beAhVIzIMKHaaiAU0QtwIwAHoECAcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0aYKn4i_dU7mSzSuz-ASOF
I may have read excerpts of Democracy in America.
I do not believe they had state-run primaries in the 1830s. What you refer to as “open” primaries are segregated as well. Do you think that is offensive that federal statutes call for segregated funds (e.g. a campaign treasurer should keep the campaign funds separate from his personal accounts)
wicked