2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Frankly, I'm nonplussed by the manner in which this issue has been framed. Years ago, both parties declared war on open selection of partisan candidates by successfully destroying Washington's Blanket Primary under the legal argument that private groups have the right to select their own officials. Fine. This means that the creation of super delegates belongs to the internal conversations of party members. It's their business, not the business of the general public.

Oh yes, the juxtaposition of the electoral college ( a very different beast) with super delegates merely disguises this fact.

A more appropriate conversation for a general public news station would be whether states should create a two-phase selection process (primary and general elections) that IGNORE party affiliation and merely select the top "n" of general election candidate wannabees.

I miss the Blanket Primary, but consider it the only justification for public financing of a private organization's official selection process. In other words, the parties are presently leaching off the public when they choose a primary process over the working alternative, a caucus.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Primary Fairness:

If you want a two-phased voting process, then it should be party neutral: the top "n" candidates can go to the general election regardless of party.

If not, then why should governments be paying for election processes for private groups (parties)?

Without the blanket primary system (born and killed within the PacNW), these questions really are the only ones that matter.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context