A:
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.
Was this helpful?
Showing 4 reactions
Sign in with
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,
Paul
Are you suggesting that a system that encourages more people to participate is a bad thing? Hmm.