RE: [Condorcet] Statutory Language?

Nixon, Rep. Toby Nixon.Toby at
Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:09:49 -0700

The staff does have it on their work plan for this summer, so we should have a bill for next year.
My overall strategy remains the same. The major parties (R and D) are quite enamored with the Montana-style primary (open with private choice) that we have now, and it is very unlikely they will even consider a change unless forced to do so. When I-872 exhausts its appeals, it is likely that the Grange will run an initiative to eliminate party labels from the ballot entirely and make all races non-partisan. That would be the best opportunity to come forward with a Condorcet proposal and actively push it -- gives the public the ability for vote for any candidate regardless of party with no motivation for trying to vote for the weaker candidate in a different party, preserves party labels on the ballot, and saves millions of dollars in election costs. We will introduce the bill in 2007 and I will try to at least get it a hearing, but bringing it up for a vote is likely going to require a crisis.
     -- Toby


From: on behalf of Jeff Fisher
Sent: Thu 4/6/2006 6:42 PM
To: Condorcet Yahoogroup
Subject: [Condorcet] Statutory Language?

Toby --

Now that the brief '06 session is about over, where do we stand? Has your 
staff written last year's ideas into a proposal? Can we get it onto the 
next committee calendar? May some of us plan to attend and testify (my 
family is eager to see me follow through on last year's "story").

If the committee (or its chair) remains hostile, might we slip the proposal 
drafted by your staff to an initiative driver who can adapt it for a petition?


-- Jeff Fisher ><> Vancouver WA



*	 Visit your group "Condorcet <> " on the web.
*	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: <> 
*	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <> .