Candidates disagree on non-partisan Secretary of State

I agree. Secretary of state needs to be non-partisan. I think Oregonians are sick and tired of the party lines. I think the only one's who really believe in the parties, are the party leaders.
The rest of the people feel voiceless and I bet they don't think any of the current candidates really reflect what they believe or think.
Maybe we need someone outside the system to jump in.....someone who represents "The People".
Then, we could move on to do the same thing in the race for Governor.

Making it nonpartisan merely hides information from the voters.

Anybody who has gone door-to-door knows that regular voters ask one question - almost every time - when you show up to talk about a candidate. "Is he a Democrat?" (And I imagine, when you're hitting Republican households, the opposite.)

And very often, when you say "Yes", they say, "OK. I'll vote for him."

For many, many, many voters - some politicial scientists suggest as many as 90% - that's all the information they need.

Why would we deny voters that critical bit of information?

Voters need more information, not less.

Kari,
Party identification may be helpful in partisan races, like legislative seats, where we are looking for a majority. But you underestimate voters if you think that they can't choose candidates based on issues.

Both of these statewide positions are nonpartisan and we seem to have no problem ensuring these are held by Democrats. Non-partisan doesn't mean their affiliation is secret.

Will you be blogging a different tune if your client, Kate Brown, decides to support the idea?

Will you be blogging a different tune if your client, Kate Brown, decides to support the idea?

No. I don't change my views on issues based on my client's views.

In general, I only work for folks I mostly agree with - but I can't agree with all of my clients all of the time. After all, with some five dozen clients, they're bound to disagree with each other once in a while.

My views are my own. And I don't speak for my clients.

There's no reason to start throwing around ethical charges, Stacey. Do you change your opinions based on what your clients believe? I don't think you do.

As for this issue, I expounded on my opposition to making political offices "nonpartisan" many times before. (Mostly in the discussions about open primary, which I support. But I support an open partisan primary, not a nonpartisan primary.)

I forgot the name of the international organization that Jimmy Carter was working with that sanctions the legitimacy of democratic elections, but I do remember that one of the criteria is that that the head of elections is a nonpartisan office. I think it would be nice if Oregon could comply with international standards of democracy.

The state of NC has a non-partisan elections commission. It could be handled that way.

The fact of the matter is that the US is one of a very few countries that allows elections to be run by partisan officials.

The metaphor that Ken Mayer (U Wisc) uses is this: it's like letting one football team put one if it's players in as the ref.

We'd never accept that in a sports contest, so why do we think it works in a partisan contest?

Ken Blackwell, also served as an honorary co-chair of the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign.

Does anyone else see a huge difference between an SOS that is "a republican" or "a democrat" being in charge of elections; and a guy who (probable illegal activities aside) was a contribution bundler for Bush, and is currently a bundler for Fred Thompson, serving in the same position?

I don't think many people, when they think of the Secretary of State, think about which party he or she belongs to. I think this whole issue is of biggest concern to the party leaders, not the actual voters.

I think more important is people are looking for someone "outside" the system.