open primary in Oregon

[potone]

Dear Oregon Duers,

Someone came to my door yesterday with a petition to establish an open primary in Oregon, so that everyone would have the same ballot and could vote for any candidate, regardless of party affiliation. I did not sign it because I wanted to get more information first. The argument in favor of it is that there are a lot of voters registered as independents who get shut out of the primary process. I keep thinking of Lieberman and what happened in Connecticut, but I don't really know how their system works. What do you think? Is this a good idea?

[Greyhound]

1. I think open primaries are a bad idea.

Take Senator Smith for example, he's a reich-wing sell-out and is in really deep shit, because of his shameless toadying for the cabal, and will likely lose next year.

Now lets consider an open primary, since he is the incumbent and as such has his nomination locked up, all of Smith's supporters are now free to vote for the Democratic candidate that will be the easiest for him to beat.

I'd like to see many changes to our election system, but open primaries are a terrible idea without making many other changes first.

[potone]

2. Thanks for your reply.

You make a very good point. I think you are right; this is a bad idea.

[peteforsyth]

6. I think open primaries are a bad idea. -> inaccurate

Greyhound, I recognize this is an old thread, but your comment reflects a misunderstanding of the Oregon Open Primary initiative (which is fundamentally different from Open Primary systems in many other states.)

In the proposed Oregon system, all candidates would appear on the same ballot. So in the present Senate race, Smith would not be safe as you say; any Republicans seeking to game the system would do so at the risk of excluding the incumbent from the primary altogether.

(I have worked as a consultant for the Oregon Open Primary for the last year or so.)

Hope this helps clarify -- more details at Oneballot.com

-Pete

[sandnsea]

3. no no and no

I do not want a bunch of wishy-washy independents who are too chicken-shit to take a stand for their beliefs deciding who the Democratic Party should run. If you're informed, then you know what party you identify with and register accordingly. It's not difficult.

[pdxprog]

7. I'm sorry, but I feel that's a mischaracterization.

Independents are very often independent *in order to* freely take a stand for a particular set of beliefs. These beliefs very often do not match up 100% to the platforms of a particular party, whether you're talking about progressives who find certain but not all things (or people) to like within the Democratic party, or old-school conservatives who these days might find the exact same thing. Attacking such people does nothing to further the careers of good individual candidates.

I haven't signed the petition despite dozens of canvassers asking -- I too am suspicious about its source -- but I can sympathize with certain aspects of the argument in favor of it. I believe there are legitimate reasons to desire open primaries that do not involve gaming the system.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. When I lived in Oregon, I always wanted to know who was behind a petition

before I signed it.

If the name of the petitioner included any of the known right-wing crackpots, I knew there had to be something wrong with it.

There was once a Bill Sizemore petition that seemed okay on the surface. I think it was about electing state supreme court judges by geographical region. I couldn't immediately see what the catch was (I knew there had to be one), and an attorney friend pointed out that it would give the rural areas of the state with the smallest population the greatest say in appointing judges, since the boundaries were strictly geographical.

We don't have initiative here in Minnesota. Before I actually experienced Oregon's system, I thought that initiative was a good thing, but I would support its introduction in Minnesota ONLY if 1) NO paid petition gatherers were permitted, only volunteers who really believed in whatever it was, and 2) If the initiative required expenditure of public funds, the petition would have to specify where the money would come from.

[0rganism]

5. open primaries are a lame idea

Political parties should be able to pick their own candidates. "Independent" voters are still free to register with a party for the primary of their choice, and de-affiliate later if they so desire. This is really a solution without a problem.

[sandnsea]

8. People used to say open primaries are more democratic

and we'd get a more representative nominee if we let independents vote too. I always felt the Democratic nominee should be elected by Democrats. If a candidate can convince people to register Dem, then that is a powerful statement of their ability to proect a vision and message and that's the way it should be.

[Quantess]

9. I think it's a bad idea.

Republicans will use it for dirty-trickery.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

10. It's a good idea and you know it is

don't you? I know you know why it is a good thing ,it's just a line,nothing more.

Is it the candidate or the candidate's party? Is it who you believe will get it done right or is it a party thing?

Is it about what is good for the party ,or is it about what is good for the people ,the district ,the state and the country?

And why should your vote be directed because of your party choice?

[Spike89]

11. Absolutely horrible idea

It is a party nominating process. If you want to participate in a party, choose a party and participate. In the general election, you're free to vote for anyone. If you dislike parties, why would you want to vote in their internal affairs? The whole open concept only makes cross party shenanigans easier and more likely. The example of a republican choosing the weakest democrat when the repub is "uncontested" was not debunked at all--doesn't anyone remember that Oregon tried an open primary system only a few cycles ago?

[quakerboy]

12. Not a fan of open primaries

The primaries are where the party picks their "champions" to compete in the General.

As long as we have the 2 party system, I think closed primaries are better. If you want to vote as a democrat(or a republic), you can always switch affiliation to that party.

[WheelWalker]

13. Negative. We have an open election where you can vote for whomever you want, regardless

of party affiliation. It's called the general election. Primaries are for parties. If you've got a party, you can have one. If you don't want a party, you have to wait until the general election. My opinion.