Well, won’t this just mean that the two big money special interest-funded blandidates will always advance?


Money creates name recognition, which is particularly important if voters can only show support for a single candidate: such voters are strongly incentivized to support only a front runner/well-funded/well-recognized candidate.

As long as the 2015 Legislature fulfills the equality intent of the Oregon Open Primary and removes the single choice limitation, voters will be able to show support for all favored candidates. Consequently the name recognition/electability factor becomes a less dominant consideration, voters can be more honest about their preferences, and underdog candidates have a better chance to advance.

Showing 4 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Paul Scott
    commented 2014-04-04 16:40:16 -0700
    The way that I see campaigns acting differently would be that if they know they have an audience of not just their own party, but also all nonaffiliated voters and even potentially voters currently in another party, they are far more likely to be seek a true majority public policy.

    There will continue to the influence of money unless the courts decide otherwise and I don’t see that happening. But there are many very inexpensive ways to get your message out through social media and paid advertising may end up having an adverse influence?

    I honestly believe deep partisanship and the associated ‘purist’ (unrealistic) ideologies are the real source of bias and poor decision making in public policy.

    Not sure what you mean by more crowded? The Primary will have more choices, (because it involves all candidates regardless of party), the general election will have only two. Looks to me that in term of the number of candidates there isn’t going to be much change.

    No way around name recognition, it is mostly a function of incumbency. *Incumbents did lose a number of primaries in California to more moderate members of their own party. I would assume that’s mostly the influence of independent voters.

    Thanks for the comments James, it’s good to challenge a concept,

  • Mark Frohnmayer
    commented 2014-04-04 15:18:10 -0700
    James, it won’t, and that’s not what the answer says. It says name recognition will be a less important factor when you can choose all the candidates you like. See the results of the Manhattan experiment for real world validation.

    Are you suggesting that a system that encourages more people to participate is a bad thing? Hmm.
  • James Nobles
    commented 2014-04-04 15:14:47 -0700
    How will money cease to create name recognition under your system? Especially since you may, as your organization promotes as a benefit of this system, have an ever larger, more crowded field of candidates. Will the laws of campaigning suddenly change? I don’t see the incentive for campaigns or voters to act any differently than they currently do. If anything it will require more money as potential candidates who might otherwise stayed on the sideline jump into races under the notion that with more candidates they can win an election with out receiving a majority or votes.
  • Paul Scott
    commented 2014-02-23 14:48:47 -0800
    ‘Favored’ mean that I like more than all others. How can I have more that one favored candidate? Favored = favorite