By Blair Bobier





Let's face it: Except for the hoopla and hyperbole of a few hotly contested races, the 2012 Oregon primary was a complete waste of time and money.

After all, 90 percent of all Oregon House races were uncontested, the presidential competition was over before it started, and the Republicans didn't even field a candidate for attorney general -- the one statewide race that drew any attention at all.

Yet, we, the taxpayers, financed this fiasco to the tune of millions.

Does anyone really care about the primary? The Democrats didn't bother putting up candidates in nine House races and in three Senate districts. The Republicans sat out the treasurer race, too.

The parties' lack of interest was matched by the voters: A mere 28 percent of eligible voters cast ballots.

Despite well-intentioned proposals for improving participation, there is really nothing that can be done to save the primary. The Oregonian, in a recent editorial ("Raising primary concerns," May 17), suggests that a "top-two" primary system might make things better.

In fact, top two -- which was overwhelmingly rejected by Oregonians in 2008 -- is about the only thing that could make matters worse. In a top-two system, the primary is a free-for-all where all candidates from all parties compete against each other. Then the top two finishers -- regardless of party affiliation -- advance to the November general election. There are many problems with top two, starting with the fact that it limits voters to two choices in the general election.

To be fair, The Oregonian actually got it half-right. The free-for-all aspect of the top-two system isn't necessarily bad; it's just taking place at the wrong election. As we just witnessed, most people don't vote in primaries, but a top-two system lets voters in these low-turnout primaries decide the election choices for everyone else in November.

Even worse, voters in November would have their choices limited, in particular races, to just Republicans or just Democrats. Independent and "third party" candidates would disappear from the November ballot.

Instead, let's just kill the primary and let all candidates run against each other in November. Campaigns would be shorter and less expensive, and taxpayers would save millions of dollars by eliminating one entire election.

Using ranked-choice voting would remove the "spoiler" dynamic from this free-for-all election and ensure that whoever wins has the broadest support possible.

With ranked-choice voting, voters rank candidates in order of preference, marking their first choice, second, third and so on, instead of voting for just one candidate.

A candidate who wins a majority of first-choice rankings is elected. If no candidate receives an initial majority, the candidate with the fewest first-choice rankings is eliminated. That candidate's supporters then have their votes count for their second choice. The elimination process continues until a candidate has the majority of remaining votes.

Also known as instant-runoff voting, this method is used in Oakland, Calif., Minneapolis, San Francisco, Australia and Ireland, among other places.

With an all-inclusive November election, all voters could choose from all candidates. Voters who don't belong to any political party -- the fastest-growing segment of the Oregon electorate -- would finally be enfranchised.

Critics of this plan might suggest that we would have too many candidates to choose from. That's doubtful; we can't even field competing primary candidates for 90 percent of the Oregon House races right now.

Others might contend that we'll have so many candidates running at once that voters won't learn enough about them to make an informed choice. But it's an incredibly unusual race that draws more than two candidates.

Even in the rare elections that muster a big field, such as Portland's mayoral race, the press, cash and organizational strength determine the front-runners anyway.

Oregon's primary is useless and expensive. It deserves a solution unique to our pioneering state: death with dignity.

Blair Bobier is an Oregon lawyer who writes on election reform.