Oregon Business Association

OBA Member Commentary - Oregon Open Primaries

January 4th, 2008

The Oregon Open Primary - Its Time is Now
By Phil Keisling

A century ago, Oregon voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to abolish the proverbial “smoke-filled room” of party bosses, and require Democratic and Republican nominees to be selected directly by voters.

Today, it’s time for a similarly bold step: abolish Oregon’s existing political party primary.

In its place, the Oregon Open Primary would give every Oregon voter, regardless of personal party affiliation (or lack thereof), an identical ballot in the May primary election. All candidates would be listed. Voters could then vote for their favorite candidate, in each race, regardless of their (or the candidates’) party affiliation, or lack thereof.

The top two voter-getters – again, regardless of party affiliation – would advance to the November election.

Oregon Business Association took a leadership position on this fundamental reform, endorsing the Open Primary in 2005 and working hard to pass it in both the 2005 and 2007 legislative sessions. While a 2006 initiative effort fell just short, in January 2008 a new ballot measure will begin circulating, which will need approximately 82,000 valid signatures by July, 2007.

(To learn more, sign the petition or help in other ways go to www.oneballot.com).

A December, 2007 survey found Oregon voters favoring this reform by a 66-20% margin. Regardless of voters’ age, gender, geography – or party registration – every major demographic group overwhelmingly favors this change. More than a dozen editorial boards have endorsed this effort, as did the bi-partisan panel on Legislative Reform appointed by the 2005 Legislature.

The Oregon Open Primary would change the underlying dynamics of politics in a number of significant ways. It would:

Increase voter turn out and choice. Every Oregon voter could participate fully and equally in selecting the two major finalists for all political offices. Currently, Democrats and Republicans are forced to choose from only among their own ranks; “independents” (now almost 25% of the electorate) are frozen out completely.

Encourage more and better candidates to run. Candidates would feel far less pressure to cater to the agendas of relatively narrow (but disproportionately powerful) groups that now dominate each party’s primary electorate. This will encourage a wider range of hopefuls, whose views better reflect the broader sentiments of more voters.

Allow true “Voter Registration Freedom”. Oregonians could register in whatever party organization — or not — that most closely reflected their own viewpoints.

Encourage candor and solutions-oriented campaigns and governing. Candidates, from the start of their campaigns, could speak directly to all voters and the issues that concern them — rather than run “zig-zag” races that first cater to fierce partisans in May, only to shift gears in November.

Contrast these dynamics with those produced by the current “closed primary” system.

To navigate through primaries – or avoid a potentially fatal primary challenge — candidates are pressured to pander to narrow, sometimes extreme agendas, or keep silent about important issues for fear of alienating key interest groups that hold disproportionate power during primary season.

Making matters worse, the vast majority of state legislative races are non-competitive between the two major parties. Primary election winners are virtually guaranteed election in November.

In Oregon’s 2006 primary, just 37% of registered voters bothered to cast ballots. The median age of those doing so was almost 60!

The lack of candor during campaigns is matched by a related difficulty of state leaders, once elected, to transcend bitter, partisan wrangling to forge meaningful solutions to major state issues.

While the 2007 legislative session had some notable successes – e.g, more money for K-12 education, civil unions, initial funding for a Rainy Day Fund– major challenges still languish. Tax reform and transportation funded were largely ignored. Most new K-12 funding went for employee pay and benefit hikes, not for smaller class sizes or a longer school year. Several major issues that should have been addressed in Salem — e.g, land use and health care funding — were punted to expensive, and contentious ballot measures.

In the end, the most dangerous threat to democracy isn’t the fierceness of our debates or the clamor of those with heartfelt arguments. Rather, it’s the indifference, even apathy, of growing numbers of citizens who no longer engage in (or even pay attention) to politics.

That’s why the ultimate promise of the Oregon Open Primary is not so much to abolish “partisanship” in politics, but to redefine it. Rather than a narrow partisanship – focused primarily on party membership and labels, and second and third tier issues – the Oregon Open primary aims to promote a healthier, more vigorous debate on the issues that matter most.

Ideas freely advanced and argued – without fear or favor of how they might be received by a vocal minority with inordinate power. That’s exactly the kind of dynamic Oregon needs as we face unprecedented challenges in an uncertain world – and why the Oregon Open Primary is so important.

Phil Keisling is a VP with CorSource Technology Group, an Oregon-based information technology consulting company.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.