The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

There is an initiative in Oregon to allow non Republican and Democrat voters to vote in primaries in the state elections, and it is hotly contested because it could create a general election of members of the same party, two Republicans or two Democrats running against each other, but it would at least give the Independent voters a voice in deciding candidates. It's Oregon Measure 90 and it seems to make sense to allow the voice of the independent in the decision of (my thought the lesser of two evils) leadership for the state.

What are the possibilities of something like this passing in Oklahoma? Would the voting public embrace a change like this?

There is a lot of info for either side, but I am leaning towards open elections. The reason is obvious.

So the question is, would a similar vote of the people pass in Oklahoma? A vote on the principal of the candidate instead of the party?

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS478US478&q=orgegon+measure+90#q=oregon+measure+90&spell=1 (https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS478US478&q=orgegon+measure+90#q=oregon+measure+90&spell=1)

I lean against open primaries.  I view it as somewhat like Ford Motor Company stock holders voting for the Board of Directors for General Motors.  Wrong group.  For the purposes of primary elections, join the group you find less/least objectionable and have a say in choosing the candidates that will be in the general election.  I don't believe it is that difficult to change parties.  You just need to make up your mind in time.

We need to get away from partisan politics whenever possible. My wife has been in two campaigns, one for school board and one for city council. Both of these jobs are truly non-partisan.

State and federal elections will be partisan for a long time, if for no other reasons that partisanship allows people to make very general assumptions about candidates they will never meet and the tremendous amount of jobs in both parties. Many people make a living only representing their party.

The better fix is to dilute the power of the two parties by adding a third or a fourth party. I don't see this happening soon, but the Tea party might if they continue to struggle winning elections to other republicans.

My only issue with the current system is that we tend to end up (at least lately) with a more extreme version of candidate from each party.  I.e., the Dem will be more Liberal, and the GOP more conservative than the moderate version of either party.  If we allowed open elections, including primaries, we might see a more moderate candidate emerge that was more palatable to the general populace.

Also,  it would be really interesting to see the results of a ranked-voting election with instant runoff with no primaries.  In the 2012 election, for example,  John Huntsman had a lot of bipartisan support (including mine), but was so centrist that he couldn't get out of the GOP primaries.  In Ranked voting, he might have bubbled up with a lot of second-choice votes and won the whole thing.  The extremists on each end would not have been happy, but (and this is regardless of Obama's performance, etc) we would have had a much calmer political climate since then.

Agreed.

My views are squarely Libertarian and I can’t stand the extremes of either of the two major parties.  We need moderation, not extremism in politics.  If candidates realized they would be accountable to all of their constituents throughout the election process, perhaps they would focus more on doing what is right rather than carrying water for the more extreme elements within their own party.

Party defines candidates but often wrong. Mitt Romney truly only cared about the wealthy, while Mike Huckabee had a history of caring for the poor.

Romney disgusted me, but Huckabee could have earned my vote.

No.  Can't happen here.

And one would only be interested in this if there were an interest in having something closer to a democracy....somewhere voters could actually have a say in elections.  Unlike the 'power brokered' system we have now where only the moneyed interests have a real shot at virtually every level.

Side note - a Constitutional Amendment would be required that deliberately defined corporations as not human beings.

I believe your political preferences have incorrectly labeled Romney but that does not surprise me.  Not just you but almost any Democrat.  I can't stand listening to Huckabee and switch the channel.  He includes too much religion for me.

Mostly because the moderates of both parties have left the party.  It may indeed be time for some new parties to evolve.  I can see both the extreme right and left going away but more likely the right since the left buys their way to office with government benefits to voters.

Back at you with that whole political preferences incorrectly labeling people.

Nobody is immune. 

The right does it too...but instead of promising subsidies to the common people, they do it for big business...

Even though big business Corporations may be "people", there are a lot more individual real people that vote.  Most of them lean left toward the Democratic Party rather than right.  Guess which party is more likely to survive without moderates. (Hint: It's not the Republican Party)

But...

Corporations can pour money into politicians' coffers unlike how individuals do.  Agree?

And I'll concede obviously that BOTH parties work for big business interest.  It just seems that these days, one party is looking out almost exclusively for the interest of big business, and the other one puts on the guise that they are looking out for the individual, when the truth of the matter is that both parties get sucked in by corporations.

Individuals like me and I expect you, yes.  Individuals like Soros etc, probably close.  They may use a foundation or whatever as legal cover but the money is still there.  I believe one needs to include Unions as being tremendously influential in elections as well as Corporations.  To me, Unions are nothing more than huge Corporations anyway.

Not on the Republican side they don't.  You could argue that unions are the counterbalance to big business.  Except that big business is just that.  Business.  It's comparing apples to really really big apples.  Big business typically hates unions.  If most of them had their way, they'd probably start hiring children again for a pittance of a wage.

No, I don't remember Unions ever supporting Republicans.  Unions, through various means, were legally influencing elections long before Corporations.  I could argue that personhood for Corporations is counterbalance to traditional Union support for anti business candidates.  I think both apples are similar size.  FWIW, I am not anti-regulation for businesses.  I do think it occasionally gets over done though.

You don't remember well because your memory really sucks....OR, the more likely case is that you just didn't pay attention in history and have learned nothing about history ever since!  Corporate influence, overreach, and out of control behavior is exactly WHY unions came about!  But that just really isn't what "The Script" wants people to know, now is it?  Maybe that's why you don't know that...??

Then you don't remember the Teamsters, the largest labor union in the country, supporting Reagan and GHW Bush in the 1980s? It is true that they now mainly support Democrats, but it is not true that unions never supported Republicans.

On the original subject of open primaries, the argument for it seems to be that empowering the vast number of independents to participate in party primaries would lead to more moderates being nominated. I haven't had time to research the issue, and only recall a handful of primaries in which crossover votes appeared to decide the election such as the Mississippi US senate primary last Summer. Are there any studies that support the claim that independent voters force parties to nominate moderates?

OK, I forgot the Teamsters supporting Reagan and GHWB.  2 or 3 elections in how many years?  Any other major Unions slip my memory?

I'll amend my statement to Unions almost never support Republicans..

Of course elections should be open.  It shouldn't be the party.  It should be the individual.

Will it happen in Oklahoma?  Not a chance.

This has been my thought for a long time. I have to admit that I have not always voted for people because they have an "R" or "D" attached to them in a general election, I vote for what the candidate claims they stand for. The anti open election campaign here has been making claims that you may have a case where there are two candidates of the same party, (got a mailer saying "Do You Want Rush Limbaugh deciding who the candidates are?" will try to get a scan that I can post) I would hope that there is a provision to prevent that. I just think that Independents should be able to vote in primaries for any of the candidates, but I don't know how you would regulate it. Maybe create a third ballot for registered Independent voters (anonymously of course)? I don't see a reason to try and change from the party system we have, just make it more level for voters.  I'm sure the "R" & "D" don't want this as it would upset their beloved apple carts.

The election process should be as open and as easy as possible. 

If someone who qualifies to vote (age, citizen, lives in district, etc) is denied a vote then it's not a true election.

Going back to letting the party bosses choose the party's candidates would solve this whole open primary debate.

Mmmm yeah, then we would have Billary/Biden vs Paul/Palin combos. Love that scenario..........

Selective memory.

Reagan was a union boss before he ran for Governor. The local police and fire unions favor republicans more than democrats. The police union always endorses the challenger. They haven't endorsed an incumbent mayor in Tulsa in my lifetime. Ever. No mayor was ever good enough for them. They just play the same card every election and if they win, they make the new mayor dance for them. If the incumbent wins, they just sue them during contract negotiations.
 
Yes, the unions are part of the democratic platform each year and in general support democrats, but they work for many a republican.

How do you "go back" to what you have been doing all along, and continue to do??

It's not a solution I could endorse.

And he was at one time a Democrat too.  Are you saying the Teamsters supported him because he was formerly a Union guy.  I know the Air Traffic Controllers didn't care for him.

Local shenanigans rather than a solid policy.  How widespread do you think police and fire unions favoring Republicans is?  I think not much.  I won't say "never" since it only takes one example to negate "never" or "all".

I'll agree with saying Unions support some select Republicans but saying Unions supporting many Republicans is an exaggeration since Democrats think that Unions supporting any Republican should be a crime punishable by death.

 So much for that idea. Was hoping it would pass but it did somewhat poorly written, and being a strong union state the SEIU was against it and campaigned heavily against it. No relation between the Dems and the unions.  :-\

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_Employees_International_Union