Credit: Dirk VanderHart

Portland’s voter owned elections died a convincing death saw narrow defeat at the hands of the people in 2010, when Portlanders roundly rejected the system by a slim margin. But there are tenuous signs of life in the old girl yet.

This sign was posted on the ground floor of the Board of Trade Building (310 SW 4th) this afternoon.

Voter_owned.jpg

The meeting was closed off to the public, but revolved around how supporters might revive publicly financed elections, an attendee said. As killed by voters, the system allowed candidates for city council and mayor to gather 1,000-1,500 $5 contributions to receive $150,000 in public funding from the city.

The process was enacted in 2005, and has a bit of a spotty past. Former council candidate Emilie Boyles ran off with the public money in 2006, for example. But City Commissioner Amanda Fritz won election to council her first time around using public funds. It’s been a pet issue of hers ever since.

Fritz’ office confirmed she attended today’s meeting, calling it a “brainstorming session.” The meeting was arranged by Common Cause Oregon.

Reviving voter owned elections, by the way, has been oft-discussed since its demise. Whether this nascent push has legs remains to be seen.

I'm a news reporter for the Mercury. I've spent a lot of the last decade in journalism — covering tragedy and chicanery in the hills of southwest Missouri, politics in Washington, D.C., and other matters...

4 replies on “Are Voter Owned Elections Mounting a Comeback?”

  2. “Roundly rejected”? What are you talking about? It failed by a margin of less than three-quarters of 1% (or just 1600 votes out of 210,000) in a general election in a Republican wave year. That’s practically a rounding error. The measure would have passed in 2008 or 2012. 49.62% to 50.38% doesn’t mean “killed by voters”; it means “try again.”

  3. Oh please, don’t try again.
    Yes, it aspired to higher ideals and all – but simply wasn’t needed.
    Do we have to go over it again for you?

  4. Yes to voter owned elections. Its good democracy reform, and the benefits far outweigh the costs. Of course, those currently holding office and their party, and their political industry allies (media, consultants. etc) aren’t really interested in fixing something that in their opinion isn’t broken (After all, they did get elected and they make a lot of money doing it). While their political opponents (The feeble Republicans) are simply philosophically against it.

    But, from a pro-democracy and good government standpoint, it could very efficient.

    http://washcoindependents.com/election-ref…

Comments are closed.