May 15, 2004
'Oregonian' Bungles Measure 26-53 Endorsement
Falls For Bogus 'Housekeeping' Argument
Earlier this week, we mentioned an Oregonian article on Measure 26-53 -- one which turned to us for a look at opposition to the proposal. Last month, readers may recall, we strongly urged a "no" vote on this measure.
In an editorial today which as of this writing has not been posted online, The Oregonian joins the ranks of those who have swallowed wholesale the official City line that Measure 26-53 is merely some sort of "housekeeping" matter:
Think of it as a bit of spring pruning and tidying up. On the May 18 ballot, Portland City Auditor Gary Blackmer has put forward Measure 26-53, which removes a minor but anonying redundancy in the city election process. Right now, the city charter insists that candidates can be elected only in the November general election.
Thus, any clear winners who emerge from Tuesday's primary -- meaning candidates who draw one vote more than 50 percent -- haven't really won under the city's rules. Their names must appear again, solo, in November.
According to the auditor's calculations, this exact scenario plays out about three-quarters of the time. Of 40 city officials elected since 1980, 30 have won a majority in the spring, then had to stand for election in the fall.
Eliminating these "single-candidate runoffs" would pay off in some savings and efficiencies -- without diminishing the robustness of our republic.
As we pointed out in our item opposing Measure 26-53, things are not actually as simple as The Oregonian would have us believe. This is partly because, as we've said, they've fallen for the bogus "housekeeping" argument.
For one thing, as reported by the League of Women Voters of Portland, this measure would also necessitate a change in the way signature requirements for City initiatives are calculated, because currently those numbers are based upon percentage of votes cast in the preceding general election -- which of course would frequently no longer exist if Measure 26-53 is adopted.
In and of itself, this is not inherently a problem issue, but there's been no public discussion on how that reformulation would work, to guarantee that there'd be no significant changes in this regard. That's improper.
But that's not actually what concerns us most about Measure 26-53. Rather, we simply believe strongly that primaries should be primaries.
Looking at how long the current City election campaigns existed with an almost utter lack of media coverage, it's not difficult to argue that a month or two of attention to candidates running for public office simply is not enough for a proper democratic process and conversation about the issues. The entire point of primaries, in a very real sense, is for voters to select from which candidates they wish to hear more, during the time between the primary and general elections.
There's a fundamental philosophical disconnect in the official City line on what the problem is here. Blackmer argues that the problem with a single-candidate runoff is that it's inefficient. We would argue, however, that the real issue with single-candidate runoffs is that they point to a flaw in how we conduct the primary election to begin with.
Primary elections should not be structured to elect anyone -- either immediately or with the additional formality of a single-candidate runoff in November. They should be designed to allow voters to choose which two candidates the City will choose from when the November general election arrives.
This problem is an artifact of our non-partisan municipal elections. In a partisan system, political parties choose who they will run in the general election. Our non-partisan process has confused the issue by not having political parties involved. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't think of the primary election in the same fashion: It should still be the opportunity for voters to choose who will run in November.
Arguments in favor of Measure 26-53 misconstrue the nature and intent of primaries, and show a complete lack of desire to examine the reasons for having one election to select candidates and a second election to select office-holders.
Which is precisely why today's Oregonian editorial is wrong when it asserts that Measure 26-53 will not diminish the robustness of our republic.
We urge readers who have not yet cast their ballots in the May 18 primary to resist the lazy arguments of the City, Willamette Week, and The Oregonian when it comes to Measure 26-53. Defeat this proposal and then tell the City Auditor instead to draft a proposal which will make our primary elections real primary elections, where we select candidates, and our general elections real general elections, where we select office-holders.
Comments (1)
Josh on 15 May 2004
Thanks again, b!x. You've convinced me to vote no, although I was helped along by the paltry election coverage this season from every media outlet but you.
The Oregonian itself hasn't done any favors to the robustness of our democratic process so far this year. By reading it (or for that matter, by watching TV news), one might not realize that a voting majority will be elected and a new directon for the city will be set. Where's the involved examination of candidates and their positions? Where's the studied look at different priorities in different areas of the city? Where's the careful discussion of issues of civic importance?
Oh yeah, it's right here.