Fusion voting versus the top-two open primary

There are two election reforms that Oregonians are going to hear a great deal about in the coming year.

The first, fusion voting, gives political parties the ability to cross-nominate political candidates.

So, for example, if the Libertarians and Republicans both want to nominate Gary George for State Senate, Senator George would appear twice on the ballot -- once as a Libertarian, and once as a Republican. The total votes for each party line would be added, giving a total number of votes for George.

Major parties like the Democrats and Republicans and minor parties like the Libertarians and Greens all favor this approach. Major parties, because it reduces the risk of running into a spoiler candidate. Minor parties, because it gives them a spot on the ballot in the general election, and a way to gauge their strength by cross-nominating.

A second reform, favored by former Secretaries of State, Phil Keisling and Norma Paulus, is known as a top-two open primary.

Under their proposal, candidates of all parties would compete in an open primary, and the top-two candidates would move on to compete in the general election.

Most formal political party organizations oppose this system. Minor parties, because they fear that their candidates and ideas will not reach the broader public during a general election. Major parties, because it diminishes the importance of the partisan primary.

Another objection from political parties, one that the courts have given weight to, is that it denies them the right to choose their own nominating process.

Proponents like Keisling, Paulus, and myself, would say that it would lead to more moderates getting elected. Candidates who have bipartisan appeal like Vic Backlund, Lane Shetterly, and others would be more likely to emerge from the primary than is currently the case. In Oregon, more incumbents are defeated in partisan primaries than in general elections.

I would argue, though most minor parties disagree with me, that it will strengthen the competitiveness of minor parties who field strong candidates with a broad-based appeal.

Either approach would be preferable to the status quo. I have testified on behalf of the Independent Party on fusion voting. I would do the same for the open primary, if asked.

I believe that strong legislative caucuses and strong political parties tend to make it easier to aggregate power into fewer hands, and I have grown deeply pessimistic about the degree of control that entrenched special interests have over our political process and our system of elections.

I believe that a great many voters share my view.

A poll published by the Oregonian in December, 2007, indicated that only 30 percent of Oregonians hold a favorable impression of the state legislature. That’s the lowest level of satisfaction ever given for such a survey.

A July Gallup Poll commissioned by USA Today indicated that 57 percent of Americans do not feel well represented by either major political party and believe a third party is needed.

It's easy to see why.

In Oregon, fewer than 10 out of 75 legislative races during any given election cycle are actually competitive races between the two major parties.

Given the relative lack of participation by voters during the primary season, many general election outcomes are determined by the fewer than 15 percent of voters who choose the winning candidate in a partisan primary.

When you overlay that with Oregon’s 60 percent voter registration, it becomes clear that in a majority of districts, 10 percent of the voting-age population is choosing the winning legislative candidate in nearly 90 percent of the races.

The result is a deepening polarization of politics in Oregon, a legislature that often lacks the will to move forward in a bi-partisan fashion, and a state left wanting for real solutions.

It's time for a change.