Document text
October 05. 2014 12:01AM Our View: Top-two primary would empower more voters If you're having a hard time making sense of the loud voices on both sides of Ballot Measure 90, the "top-two primary" initiative, you're not alone. Measure 90, which would overhaul Oregon's primary election rules, has drawn an interesting hodge-podge of supporters, from liberal good-government types to well-heeled corporate interests. The fact that it has united the Democratic and Republican parties in strenuous opposition is perhaps the strongest argument in Measure 90's favor. Here's why: Under the current system, the two major parties control the primary elections for partisan offices. Minor-party candidates are relegated to holding nominating conventions and putting their candidates up against the Democrat and the Republican in the general election. Nonaffiliated voters can't vote at all in partisan primaries. In November, they often are presented with a choice between a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican — or worse, only one major-party candidate because the other party is heavily outnumbered in the district. Measure 90 would open up primary ballots to all candidates and all voters. Only the top two vote-getters would advance to the general election, regardless of party. The major parties say that likely would mean voters could wind up choosing from two Democrats in heavily Democratic districts or two Republicans in a GOP-dominated area. True. But here's the good part: Those two Democrats or two Republicans would be more likely to give voters a real choice than under the current system. A business-oriented, moderate Republican could face off with a tea party-affiliated, social issues conservative. A pro-union, anti-gun, left-wing Democrat could vie with a moderate party member. The current system too often forces Republican candidates to run far to the right to win the primary, while Democrats must prove their liberal credentials to win over the party base. General election voters, who are increasingly independent, must then choose between two extremes, when they might prefer a candidate closer to the middle. What's a little puzzling is that some minor parties also oppose Measure 90, fearing their candidates would never again appear on a general election ballot. But they've been appearing there, and being soundly defeated, for decades. A wide-open primary could give minor-party candidates a better shot at being one of the top two, especially in a race among relative unknowns — and a race in which independents can vote. Opponents warn darkly that big business is backing the measure in hopes of being able to wield greater influence over government. But we're not sure how the system would lead to more outside influence, since it would be less obvious who the likely winner will be, thus less obvious who to back financially. We do know that, like everyone else, the business community has been increasingly frustrated by the inability of legislators to reach agreement on important issues such as tax reform. Those issues might get more attention if lawmakers were less polarized. The strongest argument for Measure 90 is that it would acknowledge the changing electorate, where neither major party reflects a majority of voters any longer. Roughly 30 percent of Oregon voters — more than 600,000 — are effectively locked out of primary elections. Measure 90 would change that, and we recommend a yes vote.  http://www.mailtribune.com/article/20141005/OPINION/141009860 © 2015 Copyright © 1995-2011 Crain Communications Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Statement -->