PSU Magazine Spring 2005

ln states with districts gerryman– dered into perpetual blue or red status, the situation is exacerbated. But what if instead of voting in an ultra-conservative Republican candi– date over an ultra-liberal Democratic candidate in the general election, vot– ers instead could choose between a moderate Republican and a conserva– tive Republican because they were the top two vote gcuers in the primary? Like Portland's mayoral contenders, candidates could speak their minds, not ideology. They might even find it easier to compromise to get things done. Would we return to the halcyon era when Oregonians of various stripe thought moderate Republicans Mark 0. Hatfield and Tom McCall were doing a good job? Perhaps. That would be the Schwarzenegger scenario. alifornia Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger-with his conserva– tive fiscal views and almost liberal social views-won in what was essen– tially a nonpartisan race following for– mer Gov. Gray Davis' recall. He would likely have found the going much tougher in a traditional primary setup. But it might also be wise to con– sider a cautionary tale from Louisiana , which has an open primary. ln a par– ticularly memorable case, two candi– dates split the moderate vote, which left the general election to a square-off between two fringe contestants-a for– mer member of the Ku Klux Klan and his opponent, who had twice been indicted and was eventually convicted for bribery and fraud. ln the general election, bumper stickers exhorted: Vote the crook, not the Klan. Q n the minus side, small parties fear the party would be over, so to speak. With scant chance of capturing enough votes to make it to the general election, Libertarian, Independent, Green Party and other candidates not in the majors would likely find it far tougher to land a spot on the general election ballot. Today, on the other hand , they're assured of a place by meeting far less stringent criteria. Then again, Clucas wonders whether a nonpartisan primary would really change things that much. He notes that conflict is inherent in leg– islative politics. Oregon, after all , is split between the rural and urban per– spectives. A nonpartisan primary won't change this. "Conflict is a product of our society, not the system," says Clucas. "The sys– tem reflects the society." Party identifi– cation, he says, at least gives voters cues as to where candidates will stand on the issues. Keisling sees things differently. He believes politics in Oregon are broken and the resulting partisanship has stifled political debate. "The current system limits signifi– cantly what you can talk about, much less do anything about," says Keisling. Because each party has strong official stands, individual politicians must toe the line or risk being ostracized. A majority of Oregonians appear to agree. Two years ago, Keisling polled the state and found 59 percent of voters preferred the concept of an open pri– mary, 21 percent were against it, and the rest were undecided. There was no difference, Keisling said, among rural, urban, Democrat, or Republican voters. I f you're more than 100 years old, the debate may have a familiar ring– except that in the early 1900s, the issue was whether 'twas beuer to select a party's nominee in a smoke-filled backroom or take a vote of the party faithful Correct answer? Smoke-filled back– room, if you were a party boss. But when proposals creating pri– mary elections passed in Wisconsin and Oregon-and with a Popu list movemem sweeping the nation-the idea caught on and primary elections became the norm. "l believe," says Keisling, "this is a similar moment in time. The vast majority of Oregonians don't define themselves by party affiliation. Candi– dates would like to speak to this , but can't. They have to run the zigzag gauntlet, and l think we're poorer for it. We need to constantly fine-tune and make the process better. The rules by which we live our Democracy are up to us. " □ Primaries north and south of Oregon Washington state voters are old hands at open primaries. In pri– mary elections from 1936 to 2000 they could vote for "any candi– date for each office, regardless of political affiliation." The top vote getter by party was placed on the general election ballot. Washing– tonians would probably be using the same system today, if Califor– nians hadn't opened a can of worms. In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 198, which instituted a blanket primary sys– tem similar to Washington's. Quickly, the Golden State's Demo– cratic and Republican parties joined forces to fight Prop 198 in court, and in 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court tossed it out. California was back to square one, but so was Washington state. If it wasn't legal in California, lawmakers figured, the next court challenge would be in the Ever– green State. In November, Wash– ington voters approved a "top-two" primary system, but Gov. Gary Locke refined the initiative language. Now Washingtonians have a primary that allows voters to declare whether they are Republi– can or Democrat when they arrive at the polling booth. Still, once behind the curtain, they can vote only for candidates in their declared party. Ironically, California voters– who had approved the measure in 1996-rejected a similar measure in 2004. SPRI G 2005 PSU MAGAZINE 13