Talk:Oregon Ballot Measure 65 (2008)
From Ballotpedia
Who is Dan Meek? Why are there multiple unsourced paragraphs dedicated to his opinion? That section needs some cleanup. Gardengnome 12:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Writing articles about ballot measures
- Naming the article
- Including hyperlinks and footnotes.
- Strive for a neutral point of view and Avoid weasel words.
- Long lists of supporters, opponents are to be eschewed.
- Avoid edit wars. Deleting relevant, sourced information is often a step on the way to an edit war.
- Before making edits that are likely to be controversial, discuss the issue on the article's talk page.
- In general, strive for neutrality, balance, and fairness of tone.
- Add useful information...links to campaign finance filings, links to the websites of the organizations that support and oppose the ballot measure.
- What are the main arguments that are being made for and against? Incorporate this information in bullet-pointed lists with references to primary source material. Write about the arguments others are making, and clarify where necessary that that's what you're doing.
- Use subsections and bullet points liberally.
- Read articles like Proposition 93 to get ideas of what to include and for style tips.
Dan Meek is a prominent Independent Party member.
The entire article should refrain from calling it an "Open Primary", and instead should call it a "Jungle Primary". An Open Primary is when each party still has a ballot and primary and the voters simply choose which party ballot on the day of the election. It's closer to a "Blanket Primary", where everybody votes for one candidate regardless of party and the top vote-getter from each party (well, officially recognized party) goes on. That was struck down by the Supreme Court, so Washington State went from a Blanket Primary to a "Jungle Primary", or "Louisiana Primary", after the only state where it was used.
Open Primary is a known definition in political science. It's not even just a misnomer, but a misleading attempt to frame the debate. Open Primaries have advantages and disadvantages that are totally different than a Jungle Primary. The proponents know this but are lying to the public about it because they want to call it an "Open" process, which itself is misleading because it greatly damages the ability of third parties to participate in elections, effectively encoding the two party system into the election system even more than straight plurality voting.
It's odd that in Oregon, the proponents of the Jungle Primary would call it an Open Primary because Washington used to have a real Open Primary (2004 election) (Montana-style) until an initiative changed the system to the Jungle Primary (Louisiana-style) system.
Since the Open Primary people would likely oppose the use of the name "Jungle Primary", the more neutral name, "Top Two Primary" should be used.
To prevent confusion, the article should clarify the definitions so people can honestly compare the systems other states have used. Calling it something it simply is not isn't just false, it's an injustice to intellectual honesty. swoolley
