Tuesday, February 28, 2006
ASK MITCH
Don't bother asking your representative about how HB2614 works.
Here's why:
To: REP Greenlick
Subject: HB2614
Just exactly how is this bill (law) in the interests of anyone except the two largest political parties and incumbents like yourself? Politics as usual is it? You want to disenfranchise anyone who threatens your "buddy system" and erect roadblocks for independent candidates. More and more Oregon voters are deserting the two established parties. Instead of trying to listen and discern why this may be and address the causes, you and (almost all of your cronies) "circle the wagons" and enact this blatantly unconstitutional law.Ralph Nader showed you for what you really are; scared of a fair, open election process. It's more important for you to preserve your own asses than to allow any fresh air or ideas into the system. Count every vote - HAH! By closing your eyes and ears to the will of a growing percentage of the electorate, you demonstrate your elitist, selfish attitudes yet again. Whatever your motivation, democracy will not be stifled.You just don't get it.
P.S. Take me off your mailing list!
From: Rep Greenlick
To: StoneGuy
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 4:56 PM
Subject: RE: HB2614
Would you like an answer from me, or do you simply want to vent?
Mitch
From: StoneGuy [mailto:stoneguy@comcast.net]
Sent: Fri 1/27/2006 8:29 AM
To: Rep Greenlick
Subject: Re: HB2614
If there's an answer that makes sense, I'd love to hear it!
From: Rep Greenlick
To: StoneGuy
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 5:22 PM
Subject: RE: HB2614
If the bill is the one that stops party members from voting in the primary and then signing nominating petitions in the same nominating process, here is what was in my consideration. Anybody who had deserted either of the political parties (as you say, more than a quarter of the voters) won't be affected. Registered Ds vote in the Democratic primary and registered Rs vote in the Republican primary. The theory is that gives them their primary vote. People who aren't a member of either party are also entitled to one "vote" that is signing one petition for a candidate for any single office. That seems fair and gives each person the equivalent of one vote in the primary. It didn't seem fair for a person to vote in the Democratic primary for an office and then vote again by signing a petition for nominating somebody to an office.So the bill isn't intended to disenfranchise anybody who isn't a party member, it's intent is to stop party members from having more than one "vote" in the primary system..
Mitch
ps. Do you still want off my mailing list?
From: StoneGuy [mailto:stoneguy@comcast.net]
Sent: Tue 1/31/2006 10:22 PM
To: Rep Greenlick
Subject: Re: HB2614
Maybe I'm misinformed. If I'm registered as R, I can't vote for any R candidates in the primary if I sign a petition for an Independent? Or is it that, If I'm registered as R, and I sign a petition for an Independent, my signature is not counted. What if I favor R's (or D's in a parallel universe) except for the office for which I sign a nominating petition? What about ballot measures? Help!
From: Rep Greenlick
To: StoneGuy
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 6:59 AM
Subject: RE: HB2614
You will automatically get a ballot in the R primary. I think that disqualifies your signature if you sign a petition to nominate an independent, under the concept that you have already voted. But it might only be if you have returned the ballot and actually voted. ( I don't remember which.) It sounds like you should favor, as I do, the initiative that is on the streets now to create the open primary in Oregon. That approach allows everybody to vote in the primary for all candidates for an office. And the top two vote-getters move on to the general election, whether they are Rs, Ds, Libertarians, or Independents.
Mitch
From: StoneGuy [mailto:stoneguy@comcast.net]
Sent: Thu 2/2/2006 11:42 AM
To: Rep Greenlick
Subject: Re: HB2614
Where's the best place to determine exactly what the effects of this bill will be? If an important bill affecting my voting rights is confusing to you, something's wrong. If there's better legislation or an initiative, why vote for HB2614? It still sounds as if it limits my freedom to support whomever I choose by forcing me into an all or nothing situation. It still effectively keeps independents off the ballot. It still tends for protect the two major parties and incumbents. I suspect that the two latter results were the primary reason for it's introduction and bipartisan support - what other event or urgent public need was addressed? Help me, here. The Nader situation was not created by R's. If it was exploited by R's - well, democracy is messy. But the solution is not less democracy - it's more democracy. Don't you think?
From: Rep Greenlick
To: StoneGuy
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 7:15 PM
Subject: RE: HB2614
I think the effect of the bill is clear. I just don't remember the details and didn't look it up to check. The last time I saw it was 6-7 months ago among dozens of other bills. Democracy is messy. But I really approve of the principle of one person - one vote. And that is what convinced me on this one. And the effect will certainly make it more difficult for independents to get on the ballot, but really not too difficult. Senator Ben Westlund, who is considering a run for governor as an independent told me getting 18,000 independent signatures wouldn't be a barrier. The much more important barrier is the decision of whether an independent could actually win. And you certainly have a choice. You get to choose whether you are a member of the Democrat Party, the Republican Party or an independent. And you can change that back and forth at will by changing your registration. If you decide you are an R you get to vote in the R primary to determine that party's candidates in the General Election. If you want to effect which independent candidates are nominated, become an independent. And, of course, when November comes you get to vote for nominees from several parties.
Mitch
From: stoneguy@comcast.net
Sent: Thu 2/2/2006 10:14 PM
To: Rep GreenlickSubject:
Re: HB2614
No, seriously. Should I contact the Elections Division or what? For the record, I too approve of that one person - one vote principle. I just didn't see it compromised by the old system. Until Nader's failed bid, nobody said boo. Too much coincidence for me. I fail to see how restricting who can sign nominating petitions does anything but restrict choice. A vote is a vote - a signature on a nominating petition is NOT a vote. It seems pretty clear to me. If I can't help put my favored candidate on the ballot - I can't vote for him/her either. As for the new system making it more difficult for an independent to get on the ballot, how difficult is too difficult? Who makes that judgement? Ben Westlund's optimism notwithstanding, any reduction in access to the political system is suspect. Especially when it's sponsored by those with the most to lose.Ideally we would all affect which candidates are nominated, regardless of party affiliation. Thanks for the chat.
Well, one way to do that is to support the Open Primary initiative proposal. I certainly do support that, although the leaders of both parties oppose it. I guess that makes it a bi-partisan proposal. And the small parties also oppose it -- a multi-partisan proposal.
Mitch ¶ 1:57 PM
Don't bother asking your representative about how HB2614 works.
Here's why:
To: REP Greenlick
Subject: HB2614
Just exactly how is this bill (law) in the interests of anyone except the two largest political parties and incumbents like yourself? Politics as usual is it? You want to disenfranchise anyone who threatens your "buddy system" and erect roadblocks for independent candidates. More and more Oregon voters are deserting the two established parties. Instead of trying to listen and discern why this may be and address the causes, you and (almost all of your cronies) "circle the wagons" and enact this blatantly unconstitutional law.Ralph Nader showed you for what you really are; scared of a fair, open election process. It's more important for you to preserve your own asses than to allow any fresh air or ideas into the system. Count every vote - HAH! By closing your eyes and ears to the will of a growing percentage of the electorate, you demonstrate your elitist, selfish attitudes yet again. Whatever your motivation, democracy will not be stifled.You just don't get it.
P.S. Take me off your mailing list!
From: Rep Greenlick
To: StoneGuy
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 4:56 PM
Subject: RE: HB2614
Would you like an answer from me, or do you simply want to vent?
Mitch
From: StoneGuy [mailto:stoneguy@comcast.net]
Sent: Fri 1/27/2006 8:29 AM
To: Rep Greenlick
Subject: Re: HB2614
If there's an answer that makes sense, I'd love to hear it!
From: Rep Greenlick
To: StoneGuy
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 5:22 PM
Subject: RE: HB2614
If the bill is the one that stops party members from voting in the primary and then signing nominating petitions in the same nominating process, here is what was in my consideration. Anybody who had deserted either of the political parties (as you say, more than a quarter of the voters) won't be affected. Registered Ds vote in the Democratic primary and registered Rs vote in the Republican primary. The theory is that gives them their primary vote. People who aren't a member of either party are also entitled to one "vote" that is signing one petition for a candidate for any single office. That seems fair and gives each person the equivalent of one vote in the primary. It didn't seem fair for a person to vote in the Democratic primary for an office and then vote again by signing a petition for nominating somebody to an office.So the bill isn't intended to disenfranchise anybody who isn't a party member, it's intent is to stop party members from having more than one "vote" in the primary system..
Mitch
ps. Do you still want off my mailing list?
From: StoneGuy [mailto:stoneguy@comcast.net]
Sent: Tue 1/31/2006 10:22 PM
To: Rep Greenlick
Subject: Re: HB2614
Maybe I'm misinformed. If I'm registered as R, I can't vote for any R candidates in the primary if I sign a petition for an Independent? Or is it that, If I'm registered as R, and I sign a petition for an Independent, my signature is not counted. What if I favor R's (or D's in a parallel universe) except for the office for which I sign a nominating petition? What about ballot measures? Help!
From: Rep Greenlick
To: StoneGuy
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 6:59 AM
Subject: RE: HB2614
You will automatically get a ballot in the R primary. I think that disqualifies your signature if you sign a petition to nominate an independent, under the concept that you have already voted. But it might only be if you have returned the ballot and actually voted. ( I don't remember which.) It sounds like you should favor, as I do, the initiative that is on the streets now to create the open primary in Oregon. That approach allows everybody to vote in the primary for all candidates for an office. And the top two vote-getters move on to the general election, whether they are Rs, Ds, Libertarians, or Independents.
Mitch
From: StoneGuy [mailto:stoneguy@comcast.net]
Sent: Thu 2/2/2006 11:42 AM
To: Rep Greenlick
Subject: Re: HB2614
Where's the best place to determine exactly what the effects of this bill will be? If an important bill affecting my voting rights is confusing to you, something's wrong. If there's better legislation or an initiative, why vote for HB2614? It still sounds as if it limits my freedom to support whomever I choose by forcing me into an all or nothing situation. It still effectively keeps independents off the ballot. It still tends for protect the two major parties and incumbents. I suspect that the two latter results were the primary reason for it's introduction and bipartisan support - what other event or urgent public need was addressed? Help me, here. The Nader situation was not created by R's. If it was exploited by R's - well, democracy is messy. But the solution is not less democracy - it's more democracy. Don't you think?
From: Rep Greenlick
To: StoneGuy
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 7:15 PM
Subject: RE: HB2614
I think the effect of the bill is clear. I just don't remember the details and didn't look it up to check. The last time I saw it was 6-7 months ago among dozens of other bills. Democracy is messy. But I really approve of the principle of one person - one vote. And that is what convinced me on this one. And the effect will certainly make it more difficult for independents to get on the ballot, but really not too difficult. Senator Ben Westlund, who is considering a run for governor as an independent told me getting 18,000 independent signatures wouldn't be a barrier. The much more important barrier is the decision of whether an independent could actually win. And you certainly have a choice. You get to choose whether you are a member of the Democrat Party, the Republican Party or an independent. And you can change that back and forth at will by changing your registration. If you decide you are an R you get to vote in the R primary to determine that party's candidates in the General Election. If you want to effect which independent candidates are nominated, become an independent. And, of course, when November comes you get to vote for nominees from several parties.
Mitch
From: stoneguy@comcast.net
Sent: Thu 2/2/2006 10:14 PM
To: Rep GreenlickSubject:
Re: HB2614
No, seriously. Should I contact the Elections Division or what? For the record, I too approve of that one person - one vote principle. I just didn't see it compromised by the old system. Until Nader's failed bid, nobody said boo. Too much coincidence for me. I fail to see how restricting who can sign nominating petitions does anything but restrict choice. A vote is a vote - a signature on a nominating petition is NOT a vote. It seems pretty clear to me. If I can't help put my favored candidate on the ballot - I can't vote for him/her either. As for the new system making it more difficult for an independent to get on the ballot, how difficult is too difficult? Who makes that judgement? Ben Westlund's optimism notwithstanding, any reduction in access to the political system is suspect. Especially when it's sponsored by those with the most to lose.Ideally we would all affect which candidates are nominated, regardless of party affiliation. Thanks for the chat.
Well, one way to do that is to support the Open Primary initiative proposal. I certainly do support that, although the leaders of both parties oppose it. I guess that makes it a bi-partisan proposal. And the small parties also oppose it -- a multi-partisan proposal.
Mitch ¶ 1:57 PM
