1. The Nelson polling firm is reliably Republican so I would not put much credence in Drazan leading Kotek at this point based upon this poll.
2. Probably none of them have very much name recognition, but my guess is that Johnson has every bit as much as Drazan who has been in the legislature a very brief time and did not get a lot of publicity while she was there. Betsy has been on the scene much longer and gotten a lot of attention over the years. Regardless, until this election is over, none of them have particularly high name recognition.
3. Only the Oregonian considers Johnson a centrist. She is a solid traditional pro-choice Republican who ran as a Democrat. If by centrist you mean not a Trumper, then I would agree, but a lot of Republicans in Oregon are still in the traditional camp. They are the ones funding Betsy. She shot herself in the foot over the gun issue and is likely at her high water mark in the polling. She pissed off all the folks who want to do something about guns with her remarks and her attempt to go with a lukewarm compromise made no one happy and earned the mistrust of the conservatives.
4. Three parties does not necessarily lead to compromise. It usually leads to gridlock. Coalitions lead to compromise and in a non-parliamentary system like we have in the U.S. the coalitions are formed before the elections in the parties themselves. A strong 3 party system often leads to instability not progress. Neither the U.S., nor any state, has a parliamentary system which is necessary to have a long term multiparty government. In the American form of government, multiple party government will not last, it will always morph back to two parties. We have been doing this for over 200 years and that part of our party structure is pretty locked in. If you really want to give the center more impact then you need to support the Alaska/Washington State model of the first 4 go to the general election or the ranked choice voting of Maine.
To some degree I agree with your first three points. No poll, regardless of the pollster's leanings, is very reliable at this point. Still, I think this poll shows a couple of things that likely will hold up during the campaign: Rs have a better chance than in a 2 candidate race and the winner probably will only need about 40% of the vote. I 100% agree that none of the candidates have particularly high name recognition. Drazan and Kotek's advantage over Johnson is that they have an identified base of voters and have moderately high name recognition among them. And certainly who is a centrist depends on who defines it. In the current climate I would call anyone who is neither a Trump-supporter nor a progressive as centrist. Johnson falls in that bandwidth. I do agree that despite the fact she's was elected as a D, within the context of Oregon she probably has more R traits than D traits. Not sure that's true nationally. She's probably left of Joe Manchin and is way left of any national R. As to your fourth point, we don't have any real evidence in the U.S. because we haven't tried a three-party system. Not sure we could have any more gridlock than the current system, though. We need something that forces the parties to compromise and a third party could do that.
We did have multiple parties in the pre-civil war period, but as I said they consolidated over time. We have had independents win or compete strongly and elect minority, often unpopular governors in multiple states, in the past few decades, but again they do not last. In my view they cannot unless we change our form of government to a parliamentary system.
Also, I remain skeptical that electing leaders with a minority of the vote is a good thing. That means that the majority did not want them. I think it is more likely to lead to chaos and instability than a popular, less divisive leadership. Exceptions are always possible.
If we want to go back to pre-Civil War, Abraham Lincoln likely would not have been elected (or even nominated) in a 2-candidate race. I could argue that he's the best example of the benefits of 3-candidate races. As to the present, we already are electing leaders that a majority do not support. Some don't get 50% of the vote; others get 50% but only because some people voted for candidates they strongly dislike as a lesser-of-two-evils choice. I'm not confident that we'll have a president truly supported by more than 50% anytime soon.
Mark, Several points:
1. The Nelson polling firm is reliably Republican so I would not put much credence in Drazan leading Kotek at this point based upon this poll.
2. Probably none of them have very much name recognition, but my guess is that Johnson has every bit as much as Drazan who has been in the legislature a very brief time and did not get a lot of publicity while she was there. Betsy has been on the scene much longer and gotten a lot of attention over the years. Regardless, until this election is over, none of them have particularly high name recognition.
3. Only the Oregonian considers Johnson a centrist. She is a solid traditional pro-choice Republican who ran as a Democrat. If by centrist you mean not a Trumper, then I would agree, but a lot of Republicans in Oregon are still in the traditional camp. They are the ones funding Betsy. She shot herself in the foot over the gun issue and is likely at her high water mark in the polling. She pissed off all the folks who want to do something about guns with her remarks and her attempt to go with a lukewarm compromise made no one happy and earned the mistrust of the conservatives.
4. Three parties does not necessarily lead to compromise. It usually leads to gridlock. Coalitions lead to compromise and in a non-parliamentary system like we have in the U.S. the coalitions are formed before the elections in the parties themselves. A strong 3 party system often leads to instability not progress. Neither the U.S., nor any state, has a parliamentary system which is necessary to have a long term multiparty government. In the American form of government, multiple party government will not last, it will always morph back to two parties. We have been doing this for over 200 years and that part of our party structure is pretty locked in. If you really want to give the center more impact then you need to support the Alaska/Washington State model of the first 4 go to the general election or the ranked choice voting of Maine.
John:
To some degree I agree with your first three points. No poll, regardless of the pollster's leanings, is very reliable at this point. Still, I think this poll shows a couple of things that likely will hold up during the campaign: Rs have a better chance than in a 2 candidate race and the winner probably will only need about 40% of the vote. I 100% agree that none of the candidates have particularly high name recognition. Drazan and Kotek's advantage over Johnson is that they have an identified base of voters and have moderately high name recognition among them. And certainly who is a centrist depends on who defines it. In the current climate I would call anyone who is neither a Trump-supporter nor a progressive as centrist. Johnson falls in that bandwidth. I do agree that despite the fact she's was elected as a D, within the context of Oregon she probably has more R traits than D traits. Not sure that's true nationally. She's probably left of Joe Manchin and is way left of any national R. As to your fourth point, we don't have any real evidence in the U.S. because we haven't tried a three-party system. Not sure we could have any more gridlock than the current system, though. We need something that forces the parties to compromise and a third party could do that.
Thanks for your response.
We did have multiple parties in the pre-civil war period, but as I said they consolidated over time. We have had independents win or compete strongly and elect minority, often unpopular governors in multiple states, in the past few decades, but again they do not last. In my view they cannot unless we change our form of government to a parliamentary system.
Also, I remain skeptical that electing leaders with a minority of the vote is a good thing. That means that the majority did not want them. I think it is more likely to lead to chaos and instability than a popular, less divisive leadership. Exceptions are always possible.
If we want to go back to pre-Civil War, Abraham Lincoln likely would not have been elected (or even nominated) in a 2-candidate race. I could argue that he's the best example of the benefits of 3-candidate races. As to the present, we already are electing leaders that a majority do not support. Some don't get 50% of the vote; others get 50% but only because some people voted for candidates they strongly dislike as a lesser-of-two-evils choice. I'm not confident that we'll have a president truly supported by more than 50% anytime soon.