"Democracy is tyranny of the minority by the majority."

Why would you bother changing the way elections work without going to an approval or instant-runoff voting method? This is stupid.

I don't understand the logic of the opposition (not saying I agree with this is), but it seems like their single point of contention that they have that's grounded in reality is that this measure is being funded by the business community, therefor it's bad. That's not good enough of an argument.

Generally speaking, this seems like it will really push for more centrist elected officials; that is centrist for the area they'd be representing, there's a lot of difference between state districts 36 and 60. If two Republicans are running, they have to actually court the Democratic vote rather than riding in unopposed.

I AM Labor here in Oregon, and I like this idea.

Graham: The continued low turnout numbers in WA and CA, three and two cycles, respectively, aren't all that theoretical. Republicans may have to court Democratic votes and vice versa... but if only the diehards are still turning out, that may not make much of a difference.

eldepeche: Here's the backstory on the approval voting piece. It was in the original proposal unveiled last year. Until no one wanted to fund a campaign on something seen as too radical.

http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blogto…

Is this the same as the unified primary or a different initiative?