News

As Oregon looks at open primaries, will party loyalty become a thing of the past?

When you look in the mirror, who’s looking back? A Republican? A Democrat?

If you answer neither, you may be on the leading edge of a new political philosophy poised to sweep the nation—and it’s starting on the West Coast.

In most states today, when you step into the voting booth for the primary, you choose from either a list of Republicans or a list of Democrats—no cross-voting allowed. The Democrat and Republican winners go on to be their party’s candidate in the general election.

What if instead you could vote for anyone you wanted, no matter which party they belonged to or whether or not they belonged to a party at all? The top two vote getters—be they both Democrats, Republicans, or some combination with maybe a well-liked independent thrown in—would then duke it out in November.

Oregon Sen. Charlie Ringo, D-Beaverton, introduced three bills this session aimed at achieving that nonpartisan idea. His bills run a gamut from making only the state legislative seats nonpartisan, a system currently used in Nebraska, to making all offices nonpartisan—including Oregon’s U.S. congressional delegates.

All of Ringo’s proposals call for nonpartisan primaries, similar to those used for judgeships and the Portland City Council.

And former Secretary of State Phil Keisling, who championed vote-by-mail, promises that if Ringo’s legislative proposals don’t pass, a ballot initiative calling for open primaries is in your future.

How will you decide?

One of the main advantages in supporters’ eyes is that open primaries might lead to a reduction in partisan bickering. How? Consider that in a staunchly Democratic district, the Democratic candidate who wins the primary is virtually a shoo-in at the general election. Multnomah County can be counted on to go blue. The same is true for Republican strongholds: Red votes red.

So how do you win the primary? Conventional wisdom says candidates in primaries must appeal to party extremists, because those voters can be counted on to show up on primary polling day. Middle-of-the-road voters, goes the thinking, often wait until the general election—even though in a loyally red or blue district, the general election is merely a rubber stamp for the winner of the primary.

Keisling thinks as many as 70 to 80 percent of state legislative seats in Oregon are essentially selected in the primary because the districts are so strongly red or blue.

And, he points out, in the current system you can win a primary with a small percentage of votes.

Keisling cites the example of a former congressman who won the 1993 primary in a heavily Republican district with what Keisling recalls to be the support of about 10 percent of all eligible voters. How did it happen? Only 40 percent of all registered voters participated in the primary, and the Republican vote was split in a five-way contest.

Richard Clucas, PSU political science professor, agrees that in most primaries a smaller, more committed group of people tends to vote. Which means that candidates must appeal to the fringe to have a hope of winning in the primary. And if elected, candidates must serve the radicals who put them in office—which is usually not conducive to working with members of the other party.

In states with districts gerrymandered into perpetual blue or red status, the situation is exacerbated.

But what if instead of voting in an ultra-conservative Republican candidate over an ultra-liberal Democratic candidate in the general election, voters instead could choose between a moderate Republican and a conservative Republican because they were the top two vote getters 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 O. Hatfield and Tom McCall were doing a good job? Perhaps.

That would be the Schwarzenegger scenario. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger—with his conservative fiscal views and almost liberal social views—won in what was essentially a nonpartisan race following former 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 consider a cautionary tale from Louisiana, which has an open primary. In a particularly memorable case, two candidates split the moderate vote, which left the general election to a square-off between two fringe contestants—a former member of the Ku Klux Klan and his opponent, who had twice been indicted and was eventually convicted for bribery and fraud. In the general election, bumper stickers exhorted: Vote the crook, not the Klan.

On 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 legislative politics. Oregon, after all, is split between the rural and urban perspectives. A nonpartisan primary won’t change this.

“Conflict is a product of our society, not the system,” says Clucas. “The system reflects the society.” Party identification, 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 significantly 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 primary, 21 percent were against it, and the rest were undecided. There was no difference, Keisling said, among rural, urban, Democrat, or Republican voters.

If 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 better to select a party’s nominee in a smoke-filled backroom or take a vote of the party faithful.

Correct answer? Smoke-filled backroom, if you were a party boss.

But when proposals creating primary elections passed in Wisconsin and Oregon—and with a Populist movement sweeping the nation—the idea caught on and primary elections became the norm.

“I believe,” says Keisling, “this is a similar moment in time. The vast majority of Oregonians don’t define themselves by party affiliation. Candidates would like to speak to this, but can’t. They have to run the zigzag gauntlet, and I 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.”

Read "Primaries North and South of Oregon" for additional information about primary voting laws in Washington and California.