Tyranny of the two-party system in Oregon

Following up on my previous post about a new Oregon law designed to squelch Independent candidates for elective office, today's Oregonian has an excellent OP/ED piece titled: Oregon independents: on the outside looking in

Democrat and Republican partisans have become burly bouncers stationed at the entrance to Oregon's political system, turning away one independent after another with a condescending smile, "Sorry, private party."

...

The law prevents anyone who votes in a primary election from also helping to nominate an independent candidate, regardless of whether the voter signs a petition before or after the primary. Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown, D-Portland, claimed the law is just about "preserving one voter, one vote in the nominating process."

It is more than that. It is another "No Trespassing" sign the parties have put up at the border of Oregon's political system. If the Legislature wanted solely to uphold the one-person, one-vote maxim, it would have passed a law that upheld a voter's first nominating act, whether it was a signature in support of an independent candidate or a vote in a primary election.

The logic behind this law goes even further than just that. Essentially what the law does is to equate signing a petition with casting a vote. But that begs the question of ballot initiatives. To be consistent with their own rationale, the Dems and GOPers who passed this law would have disqualified a later vote on a ballot measure if the voter had signed a petition in favor of it. But they didn't do that and the reasons are obvious.

The impetus for this new law can be found in Ralph Nader's independent bid for president in 2004. Legislative Democrats remember all too well his influence on the 2000 race and Republicans remember the even larger influence that Ross Perot and his Reform Party had on the 1992 presidential election. Both Nader and Perot received an eager embrace from Oregonians frustrated with the Big Two and threatened to rain on the Big Two's coronation parades. In the case of Perot, he did rain on Bush 41's coronation, allowing Clinton to sweep in with a substantial minority of the popular vote. Nader, although soundly denounced by Dems for even being in the race, arguably didn't have as great an impact in 2000 because Gore still won the popular vote even with Nader in the race. However, such fine points are completely irrelevant to this new law.

Back to the present day... there is a Kitzhaber twist that surprised me.

Carla reported a couple weeks ago over at Preemptive Karma that the very popular former Oregon Governer, John Kitzhaber (D), had decided not to challenge current Democratic Governer Kulingoski in this year's Gubernatorial election. What I'd never heard until I read this morning's Oregonian OP/ED piece is that Kitzhaber apparently was considering challenging Kulingoski not as a Dem but rather as an Independent.

Look at the results: Former Gov. John Kitzhaber flirted with an independent run for governor this year, but abandoned the idea after looking at the strict new rules. State Sen. Ben Westlund, a moderate Republican from Bend, is likely to make an independent run for governor, but now he has to struggle to get on the ballot.

Oregon voters may have the last word on this new law, however. Supporters of an initiative to create a "top two" open primary system are gathering signatures to put the idea on the ballot and let Oregonians decide the matter.

(I)t's time to challenge the closed primary system where ever-smaller minorities of voters set the limited choices for the general election. Let the parties defend a system that this fall will give voters an uninspiring choice between Derrick Kitts and David Wu for a seat in Congress, while dissuading people like Kitzhaber and Westlund from seeking major office.

Hear, hear!!