25% (14,854) of WashCo voters identified as nonpartisan this primary election. That's huge! Sadly, less than 12% of them voted. No doubt, they felt their vote didn't count in a presidential primary. It's time for open primary elections in Oregon!!
Note, as Glen pointed out in his earlier entry, Democrats blew Republicans out of the water this election. Dems registered voters was 104,387, or 41% of the county, while Reps made up for only 86,222 voters, or 34%, of the county. Dems ballots cast were 56.8% (of registered Dems), while Reps were only 31.6% (of registered Reps).
(Stats from Washington County Election Results May 2008.)
Thanks again, Glen. I guess
Thanks again, Glen. I guess I see both sides. I don't think 25% of our county shouldn't be able to vote in the primary; however, I also know there were "conservative" personalities urging Republicans to switch to Dem and vote for one candidate or the other in order to hand pick Senator McCain's opposition in November. Obviously, they didn't think/care about local politics or they would've realized it would backfire when Republicans lost non-partisan races (mayor, city council, etc.).
Maybe we need a real 3rd party?
They wouldn't be NAV if they felt they had a decent choice
Carmen and Bob, thanks for your posts. A few comments:
1) Yes indeedy, Democrats accross Oregon and particularly in the Metro & Washco areas kicked butt. I had more than twice as many votes for PCP than two years ago, and looking at random Dem PCPs across the county, the numbers of votes were huge - and generally bigger than R's got. (Click the Iceberg in upper left to see election results)
2) There are a lot of NAV voters because in part many voters from both parties have been frustrated/disillusioned/PO'd by the seemingly ineffective performance of our representatives in the US House & Senate (due in no small part to obstruction tactics of several slimey R's), and are not yet clued in to the success of the Democrat-led Oregon Leg last year when they finally had some power. And remember, the session was just a month, so the buzz was not real loud to the average voter. Many republican voters jumped ship either to become Dems or NAV. I expect the revolution to strengthen our party will take some time, between education and the attrition of older R voters. I suspect our canvassing and GOTV efforts (mine in particular) could have been more intense and widespread to educate the voters. Perhaps if the NL program gets a second wind, it will make that crucial difference.
3) I am not favoring Open Primaries. I think this leaves the door open to much mischief from folks who want to influence the outcome of the oppositions races.
Again, strong canvassing and educating the voters early to strengthen the party will be an effective way to ensure each party gets the nominees they want (and perhaps deserve, one way or another.)
4) I would prefer to see media & finance reforms vs opening the gates for Open Primaries. The broadcasters should pay their debt to the owners of the EM spectrum by allowing candidates to say their bit without undo restrictions. Ask Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel about this. That and taking the big corporate bucks out of politics and perhaps we'll finally start to see some improvement in the election process.
5 thru five zillion) Not any simple, single answers, again it will be small revolutions and long evolutions that restore the American Dream and all that good stuff.
Glen
Glen, thanks for your
Glen, thanks for your insight. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the meaning of "open primary". I believe everyone should be able to vote, regardless of their political affiliation. Please educate me.
Open Primary explained
Carmen, as I understand it, in an open primary voters registered in any or no party may vote for any candidate regardless of that candidate's affiliation. This means for example in a small community trying to elect a mayor, sherrif or judge, members of Party A can vote for any candidate of party B and if their numbers are great enough, possibly overthrow the will of the real party B members. So instead of popular B nominee Joe Greatmayor, the B nominee becomes weaker Quincy Naughtliquly. The obvious point of doing this to ensure your opposition has a weak nominee, increasing the chances of the A nominee to defeat the B nominee. It is common courtesy for the new Mayor A to appoint his supporters to profitable committees.
In Oregon, we have closed primaries, where a Democrat voter gets a ballot containing only the names of Dems (in partisan races) and republicans only get to vote for candidates in their party.
In the General Election of course anyone can vote for anyone, but this is where an independent 'spoiler' can draw votes from an otherwise strong candidate with similar policy, and throw the election toward the person who might have otherwise lost.
See the 2000 Election Gore v Bush, with just enough Nader thrown in to sour the punch. Of course it helps when the R's cheat in Florida etc and your pappy fills the Supreme Court with cronies. But I digress....
See also Open Primary, Instant Runoff Voting, and Fusion Voting articles in wiki.
Glen
Open Primary Elections
I'm not convinced that Open Primary Elections are a good idea. See below.
The non-declareds couldn't vote for the presidential candidate but there were a lot more items on the ballot than just the two D/R presidential candidates. When I was canvassing my neighborhood to see if anybody wanted to register Democrat, I told the non-declareds that they needed to register for the D/R party if they wanted to vote for that candidate. This was my first canvassing experience and I didn't think to tell people to be sure to vote *anyway* so that they would have a voice in deciding all the other ballot measures. We need to better educate people on the process.
I lived in Atlanta, Georgia, for 10 years, where they have open primaries. It is common knowledge that many Republicans vote for the worst Democrat in the Primary. That's probably true as well for some Democrats but the Club I belonged to never suggested that type of negative voting activity.
I still have a lot to learn about the new voting options but, so far, I think the "Instant Runoff" process is a good way for voters to indicate whom they like best but then list their "reality vote" as their second choice. I'm still working on "Fusion."
Bob May