Moving through the Oregon Voters Pamphlet…
The Constitution Party candidate for Governor, Alan Auer, make the point that…
We are all created in the Creator’s image; therefore, the unalienable rights of the unborn is the first duty of civil government. Human life is sacred. Male and female created He them. For this cause shall a man leave his Father and his Mother and shall cleave unto his wife.
Ahem. “Male and female created He them”. Pronoun problems?
Running in the 5th Congressional district is, a (sigh) 9/11 Truther. Marvin Sannes. Ther war that we’ve been fighting since 1939 is over?
I’m curious about the eye-patch on the Pacific Green candidate for 3rd Congressional district, Michael Meo.
Skipping over to the ballot measures, we can all laugh at the Reefer Madness on the Opposition Statements regarding Measure 91.
But Measure 90 presents something worth looking at… First of all, Maurice Henderson and the Yes on 90 pulls that classless schtik of buying a few slots for a couple of parodies and a straight-forward argument for passing the measure… interesting to see he profers a quote from Sal Parrinto and the Independent Party, the one party that as it an endorsement clearing-house by design benefits from this measure — as representative of third parties.
Moving on to actual arguments against… there is an interesting problem with the case study thrown out here… Washington’s 4th Congressional district… go to Planned Parenthood’s argument…
The negative impacts on women’s health are already clear in Washington, a “Top Two” state. Because of the Top Two, voters in the state’s 4th Congressional District this fall will have their choice of voting between:
Conservative Republican Clint Didier, who is anti-choice, or
Conservative Republican Dan Newhouse, who is anti-choice.
And those will be the only choices available to voters in the congressional race, thanks to the Top Two. Pro-choice voters in the district will be forced to choose between one of these anti-choice candidates, or simply not vote at all.
Ah, the perils of being a single issue voter. As opposed to the past two decades where they’ve had the choice between one conservative Democrat who is anti-choice and a Conservative Republican who is anti-choice, or a moderate Democrat who is pro-choice and a Conservative Republican who is anti-choice, or… a conservative Republican who is anti-choice and… Gordon Allen Pross who is who knows and who cares?
The conservative Republican wins in every case.
The problem may be brought into focus by Carl Wolfson’s statement…
Because of the Top Two primary in Washington State, voters in the 4th Congressional District will be forced to choose between the following two candidates:
Conservative Republican Clint Didier, who is anti-choice, opposes gun laws, wants to repeal Obamacare, and parrots the right-wing position on immigration, and
Conservative Republican Dan Newhouse, who is anti-choice, opposes gun laws, wants to repeal Obamacare, and parrots the right-wing position on immigration
Voters who don’t identify with these two candidates and their very similar agendas will have no other alternatives on the ballot. This is a district where more than 78,000 people voted for a Democratic candidate in 2012 against an entrenched incumbent.
And yet, under the Top Two elections system, these voters won’t see anyone on the ballot who even remotely represents them. They can choose between someone they fundamentally disagree with, and someone they fundamentally disagree with. Or, more likely, they’ll simply choose not to vote in that race.
It’s worth noting that the actual Democrat in the primary had up an ad where he was shooting guns, the better to emphasize his disassociation with the national Democratic view.
And we do have an interesting debate herein on the effects of this on small “d” democracy. Do you prefer to have an automatic loser who “remotely” represents your broad spectrum of viewpoints, shading here or there, as some kind of tribune… or… two people who don’t remotely share your views, but one will win, and perhaps — perhaps — they have to be aware of a slice of the electorate that they can appeal to — in Newhouse’s case with some Moderate Republican rhetoric, in Didier’s case with some anti-establishment rhetoric… pick your poison.