Oregon Ballot Measure 90

     The letter listed below appeared in the Eugene Register-Guard, Thursday, October 23, 2014. I have been on the fence with Measure 90, which would eliminate partisan races during the May primary election, so that everyone's ballot would have ALL of the candidates. The top two candidates, regardless of whether they're Republican/Democrat/etc. would advance to the November general election.
     On the local level, I have been in favor of non-partisan races. That was my biggest complaint, when I ran for Douglas County Commissioner, back when the commissioner races were partisan. I felt that I had broad based support from different parties. But my name only appeared on the Republican voters' ballots in May. More than half of the voters in Douglas County never had the chance to vote for me, or against me, because my name didn't appear on their ballots, and I was knocked out of the May primary by the big-spending Republican candidates.
     On the other hand, Measure 90 could have lopsided results on the state level. There are currently more Democratic voters than Republican voters in Oregon. For example, let's say there are 60 percent Democrats and 40 percent Republican. If, for example, there are two strong Democratic candidates and two strong Republican candidates in the May primary election, the voter turn-out could end up like this: Each Democrat would split their party's vote, each receiving 30 percent of the votes...and each Republican would split their party's vote, each receiving 20 percent of the votes. Therefore, two Democrats would be the only names appearing on the election ballot in November!
      In summary, I like non-partisan races, because they allow ALL voters to vote for whomever they want during the May primary, regardless of party affiliation. However, I am concerned about the negative consequences of non-partisan races, when a strong majority of the populace is affiliated with the same party.
     However, the letter below is a tempting reason to support Oregon Ballot Measure 90. It offers an example of how a Republican candidate could actually win a statewide election, in a predominant Democratic state!
-------------
     "Top Two voting lets majority decide"
     In her Oct. 18 column about Measure 90, (former Oregon Governor) Barbara Roberts made a great presentation for opponents of the measure (Measure 90 boosts big money's voice, limits voters' choice").
     The current system, which she endorsed, allowed her to become governor when the majority of voters in 1990 didn't want her to be.
     Roberts won the election with 45.7 percent of the vote; Republican David Frohnmayer received 40 percent and independent Al Mobley received 13 percent.
     But the vast majority of those who voted for Mobley, who was far more conservative than Frohnmayer, would never have voted for Roberts. So in a top two election, Roberts would have received at most 47 percent and likely would have lost to Frohnmayer.
     That election glitch doesn't favor either major political party. There have been many examples of third party "spoilers" affecting all kinds of candidates.
     Under the current system, we often have to choose between voting conscientiously and voting strategically. Under Measure 90 we can do both: Vote your conscience in the primary election, choosing your ideal candidate, then, if your ideal candidate doesn't make it into the top two, vote pragmatically in the general election - the lesser of two evils.
     Candidates such as Roberts benefitted from the current system, with its quirks and privileged groups. And some people naively prefer having a token presence of minor party candidates in the general election.
     But Measure 90 would provide a fair, straightforward election in which winners could truly be decided by the majority of voters.
     J.R. Wagner
     Blachly
-------------------------