The Weekly Way (7/9/21)
Ideas on homelessness, the death penalty, and electoral reform.
An Oregon Way Community Member in Need
One of our contributors, Sarah White, was involved in a serious car accident on June 30th. While her injuries are serious enough to require a lengthy convalescence, nothing could keep Sarah away from her work at Sheltering Silverton.
If you would like to honor Sarah and lift her spirits while she recovers, please consider making a donation to this community-based “Center for Radical Kinship and Care for Houseless Neighbors” in Silverton.
Thank you to Hilary Dumitrescu and others throughout the community supporting Sarah and her family during this time.
Editor’s Note:
Imagine a world in which your only lunch option was Subway. Sure, you’d enjoy footlong subs for a while, but eventually the carbs and the monotony would catch up with you.
Would Subway change up its menu to offer some healthier, newer items? No. Why would it? Absent competition from another sub shop like Quiznos, or any other kind of restaurant for that matter, they’d have no reason to invest in changes to their model.
No offense to Subway but that’s not an ideal outcome for anyone besides Subway’s shareholders. That’s precisely the reason why relatively low barriers to entry in the restaurant world are so beneficial to us—the consumers.
Seemingly overnight, a new taco place can pop up, a falafel food truck can roll up, or a delivery app can make brunch from your favorite diner a 24-hour option. Consumers benefit not only from new choices but also from pre-existing options having to improve their menu by adding new items and/or lowering their prices.
Oregon’s elections are a lot like a Subway-only world. In the 2020 election cycle, 80% of State Senate and House races were not competitive (60 out of 75 elections), according to data from FollowTheMoney.org. Of those 60 uncompetitive races, 16 were uncontested — in other words, the electoral equivalents of a Subway-only mall.
Other states have managed to give their “consumers”—voters—more options and Oregon should do the same. To do so, Oregon should lower the barriers to entry to running for and holding office.
One key barrier: traveling to and residing, at least part time, in Salem. Zoom comes with a lot of drawbacks, but it also revealed that we’re far more capable of working remotely than we imagined. Very few Oregonians have the financial and personal resources to have two residences or to cover a rental in another town for several months of the year. Yet, that’s what we ask of those running for the State House or House. That’s why we should enable legislators in our fairly large state to Zoom into legislative sessions well after the Covid pandemic ceases to shape our daily lives.
Another, related barrier: low legislative pay. Oregon legislators make $31,200 per year; legislators in states with similar "hybrid" legislative models (as opposed to full time or part time) make about $50,000 in Alabama, 42,000 in Arkansas, $40,000 in Colorado, and $36,000 in Missouri. Once again, very few Oregonians are able to run a full-time campaign (persumably while not working) to earn what really amounts to a full-time job (often requiring well more than 40 hours a week) for so little.
One final barrier: closed primaries. Imagine a world in which only the most picky members of your office were allowed to select your two options for lunch. Presumably, those groups would have their favorite destinations, so you’d often be left with no real choice at all.
That’s the sort of dynamic created by Oregon’s closed primaries, where Democrats and Republicans select the general election candidates for the rest of the electorate. For potential candidates, this means you have to become a favorite of the Democrats or Republicans—if that’s not possible, then there’s no chance you’ll ever be selected.
Oregonians deserve more choice than picking between the favorites selected by two groups that each constitute a minority of voters. Let’s get beyond subs and spice up our democracy by lowering the barriers to entry.
Here’s to a better Oregon,
Kevin
To think on: what behavior warrants a recall?
To read:
Taylor Stewart continues his examination of lynchings in Oregon. He presses Oregonians to see the connection between lynchings of yesteryear and the use of the death penalty in modern times.
read the full piece here.
**************
Eric Fruits sets forth some suggestions to better spend the hundreds of millions of dollars meant to address homelessness in Portland and elsewhere.
read the full piece here.
**************
Andy Kerr points out that Oregon has far too many counties. Mainly administrative units of government, too many counties makes for inefficient service delivery.
read the full piece here.
**************
Mark Hester summarizes the recent legislative session, but makes clear that seemingly growing misconduct among legislators cannot be tolerated.
read the full piece here.
*************
Kevin Frazier asks what your 12 priorities are for the next governor.
read the full piece here (then leave a comment)!
To do:
Invite three friends to subscribe to The Oregon Way
Nominate a contributor — send Kevin their name and why you think they’d be a good fit for the blog (kfraz@berkeley.edu)
Submit a letter to the editor. How are we doing? What are we missing? How do you define The Oregon Way?
SHAPE THE FUTURE OF THE OREGON WAY >>> Take this survey!