Oregon said no the measure for "open primaries". I was mixed on this
measure. I joined the Democratic party this year specifically to vote in
the primary. I have yet to drop my party affiliation, although I still
consider myself an independent. And in spite of the fact that I vote
Democratic nearly 100% because the few politicians I actually believe in
are Dems, and because the others tend to come across to me as the
better of bad choices.
I voted no on the measure for two reasons: I'd heard mixed reviews for
open primaries run in other locations, so on that count I decided to
be conservative by keeping the current closed primary. My ultimate
reason for a no vote: I am more interested in "instant runoff"
elections than "open primaries". I believe if we had passed this
measure then the odds of getting a measure for instant runoff passed
in the next few years would be significantly lower.
From Blue Oregon, "it's time for instant runoff"...
http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/11/its-time-for-in.html
Instant runoff seems to provide a means of encouraging "third party"
candidates, and of supporting voting for those candidates without
"wasting" a vote.
3 comments:
I prefer the name preference voting as it seems clearer what it is.
This is what Australia uses.
As a longtime member of the Democratic Party, would you mind correctly spelling our name?
Referring to the method as the 'Single Transfer(r)able Vote' is also a bit clearer because it states the mechanism at work behind the method and PR-STV is the same as IRV for single seat elections.
Post a Comment