Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Neural Foundry's avatar

Strong argument here. The precinct committee vacancy data realy exposes the operational gap that gets ignored in reform rhetoric. I ran a rural voter turnout project back in 2019 and we couldn't even find enough volunteers to staff a single-day canvasing operation, let alone year-round election infrastructure. Dismantling a working system before buliding its replacement is how you get worse outcomes, not better. The trust issue cuts both ways but at least vote-by-mail has audit trails.

Expand full comment
Ben Roche's avatar

Thank you Natalia, I have not heard of any "Party" unofficial vetting process. Meetings are required to be open to all elected PCP's and party organization is grass roots and even protected by Oregon law:

A person must be registered in Oregon as a member of a major political party (e.g., Republican or Democratic).

OregonLaws

The candidate must have been a registered member of that party for at least 180 days before the filing deadline for the candidacy declaration.

Oregon Secretary of State

Must have an active voter registration in Oregon.

Apart from the above 3 legal qualifications, a county party cold reorganize with a caucus of newly elected PCP's with whatever changes they feel need to be made to the county bylaws, and organization structure.

Where you are correct, is internal faction fractioning is real. Our founding father warned against factions, and in the ORP we have factions within factions causing fracture and infighting. The now shorter ORP platform is an opportunity to find common ground on broader 80% issues and unify, but will that happen. It's really up to the minority stop sicking on issues that are not more broadly supported, and unify behind issues that have wide support across oregon. We did this on the NoTaxOregon referendum. Join the Oregon Freedom Coalition and make a difference.

Expand full comment
12 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?