I strongly support creating a more efficient system for conducting an open primary than we presently have, which could be simply accomplished by allowing non-affiliated voters to request a ballot online (just as they could change their party if they chose to do so) rather than mail in their request to their county clerk in charge of elections or make that request in person. Our present approach puts too much burden on those who must mail in their requests in a timely manner and on the counties that must process these requests. Allowing non-affiliated voters an online opportunity to participate in a major party's primary when that party chooses to hold one respects the nature of party politics and those who choose to participate. What the writers here propose undermines the integrity of each party by taking away their right to operate as they choose. We have minor parties, as well, that can run their own candidates or choose to support a candidate also running with the endorsement of a major party. This proposal violates the integrity of these parties, as well. Perhaps this upcoming election will convince our legislators to pass a bill to make our present system for allowing open primaries to be efficient enough to work as they should. Again, I support open primaries, but not of the kind proposed in this piece.
We at Oregon Open Primaries agree that the state needs to steam line processes and increase the ability to do on-line activities. One additional area I would suggest is the area of signature gathering. In a time when you can refinance your home almost entirely on-line and file your taxes both state and federal entirely on-line, why don't we use electronic tools for signature gathering that both collect and verify the signature at the same time. This would be a significant improvement on the current system that uses millions of dollars for paid signature gathers to get a citizen initiative or independent candidate on the ballot.
Your statement that allowing all registered voters and candidates to participate in publicly funded elections violates the integrity of political parties is not true. First, as the article stated our amendment guarantees to rights of voters and candidates it does not prescribe the specific statutory changes. That will fall to the legislature. Second, once the measure passes all the parties, as private organizations, will be able to operate as they choose to establish their own privately funded candidate nominating process prior to the state primary. They will also have complete control of their membership rolls. Current statue allows anyone to register with an established party. Once the system is changed, party insiders will likely have the ability establish their membership requirements and to exclude those who they think have incorrect political views.
Parties are an important part of our political discourse and importantly represent millions of voters, but parties should be participants in elections they should not own elections.
I strongly support creating a more efficient system for conducting an open primary than we presently have, which could be simply accomplished by allowing non-affiliated voters to request a ballot online (just as they could change their party if they chose to do so) rather than mail in their request to their county clerk in charge of elections or make that request in person. Our present approach puts too much burden on those who must mail in their requests in a timely manner and on the counties that must process these requests. Allowing non-affiliated voters an online opportunity to participate in a major party's primary when that party chooses to hold one respects the nature of party politics and those who choose to participate. What the writers here propose undermines the integrity of each party by taking away their right to operate as they choose. We have minor parties, as well, that can run their own candidates or choose to support a candidate also running with the endorsement of a major party. This proposal violates the integrity of these parties, as well. Perhaps this upcoming election will convince our legislators to pass a bill to make our present system for allowing open primaries to be efficient enough to work as they should. Again, I support open primaries, but not of the kind proposed in this piece.
Gregg,
We at Oregon Open Primaries agree that the state needs to steam line processes and increase the ability to do on-line activities. One additional area I would suggest is the area of signature gathering. In a time when you can refinance your home almost entirely on-line and file your taxes both state and federal entirely on-line, why don't we use electronic tools for signature gathering that both collect and verify the signature at the same time. This would be a significant improvement on the current system that uses millions of dollars for paid signature gathers to get a citizen initiative or independent candidate on the ballot.
Your statement that allowing all registered voters and candidates to participate in publicly funded elections violates the integrity of political parties is not true. First, as the article stated our amendment guarantees to rights of voters and candidates it does not prescribe the specific statutory changes. That will fall to the legislature. Second, once the measure passes all the parties, as private organizations, will be able to operate as they choose to establish their own privately funded candidate nominating process prior to the state primary. They will also have complete control of their membership rolls. Current statue allows anyone to register with an established party. Once the system is changed, party insiders will likely have the ability establish their membership requirements and to exclude those who they think have incorrect political views.
Parties are an important part of our political discourse and importantly represent millions of voters, but parties should be participants in elections they should not own elections.
Ed Doyle - Oregon Open Primaries