I received my Oregon Ballot today...

[1337BaldEagle]

And I noticed that all of the"non write-in" Appeals Court nominees were listed Incumbents. Does Oregon only list incumbents on the ballot? What's the deal? Or is there really no other person "running" for EVERY category?

Before some over zealous mod moves my post or deletes it do to its political nature, let me assure you voting on Court appointees and nominees plays a huge roll in our firearms rights and how the laws pertaining to such is interpenetrated. We can see this by looking at the upholding of the Portland ban in recent time and OFF vs Oregon Board of Education in 2011.

Anyways, thoughts? If in fact they only list the incumbents, I find that rather unfair and grossly neglecting the ease of voting.

Eagle

Read More

 

[rocky3]

And I noticed that all of the"non write-in" Appeals Court nominees were listed Incumbents. Does Oregon only list incumbents on the ballot? What's the deal? Or is there really no other person "running" for EVERY category?

Before some over zealous mod moves my post or deletes it do to its political nature, let me assure you voting on Court appointees and nominees plays a huge roll in our firearms rights and how the laws pertaining to such is interpenetrated. We can see this by looking at the upholding of the Portland ban in recent time and OFF vs Oregon Board of Education in 2011.

Anyways, thoughts? If in fact they only list the incumbents, I find that rather unfair and grossly neglecting the ease of voting.

Eagle

Our ballots arrived last week and many were running unopposed. We never vote for any running unopposed as it makes no difference in the outcome. We could write in, but whom would we vote for? So we send it in blank and wish we could know something about who was on that ballot.

 

[PiratePast40]

The voters pamphlet has the information, or at least resumes' on all the judicial candidates.

 

[1337BaldEagle]

The voters pamphlet has the information, or at least resumes' on all the judicial candidates.

ok then why must I write in non incumbent candidates? That seems to be counter productive.
I would say it gives incumbent an unfair advantage, would you not?

Eagle

 

[Mark W.]

In Oregon no one hardly ever runs against an incumbent judge at any level. The reason is simple in order to run you need to be an attorney. If you loose you end up trying to do business in front of the guy you ran against.

 

[rocky3]

many politicians, including the judicial really don't like you to know they are the incumbents. There is a lot of rage over incumbents and long ago Incumbents did have an advantage over a newbie, no more. As the saying goes " Throw the bums out".

 

[Dayu]

In Oregon no one hardly ever runs against an incumbent judge at any level. The reason is simple in order to run you need to be an attorney. If you loose you end up trying to do business in front of the guy you ran against.

This.

And the reason there are only write-in lines is that nobody else filed for that position - because of what Mark said.

People *talk* about wanting different legislators and judges, but very very few will actually *do* anything about getting them in.

 

[1337BaldEagle]

Sure sounds like a coosh job for them then.

 

[Jim Colvill]

On all unopposed, Metro, and "no candidate filed" position I wrote in names of my friends.

 

[PiratePast40]

I don't understand your questioning. If there isn't anyone willing to run for the position, what additional name should they put on the ballot?

 

[1337BaldEagle]

I was not sure that every single candidate was running uncontested. I'm astounded if that is truly factual.

 

[44mag2ndamend]

In Oregon no one hardly ever runs against an incumbent judge at any level. The reason is simple in order to run you need to be an attorney. If you loose you end up trying to do business in front of the guy you ran against.

Status Quo, who wants to work with a frienemy. Definitely part of the reason our system remains unbalanced. Not enough people with the experience, education, expertise, and plain ole guts to do anything about it.

 

[Martini_Up]

69 positions, 7 people have names on the ballot. The rest of the 62 are write in (washington co).

funny, everyone says get involved with the voting process, don't like the candidates in general, vote primary....

easy to see how people become disenfranchised and just toss the envelope aside.

 

[PiratePast40]

Actually, I think it's the ultimate 'put up or shut up'. If you think you can do better then register for the position. Or get involved and come up with alternate candidates.

I can understand why people don't want to run for public office. As soon as their name is on the ballot, they're accused of being un-American lazy liars, thieves, and incompetent fools. Heaven forbid they should win the election and think they can do something positive for the people that elected them. And then are told that since they are incumbents, they have no right to be decision makers in a second term.

Public service certainly isn't for the faint of heart or thin skinned.

Edit: I think that all of us can agree that politics can be frustrating. Elections, and deciding on who will run is complicated and messy. Like it or not, we have 2 major parties. But we also should understand what the parties stand for, and how that equates to our values, and for the greater good. Voting for someone in the primaries is especially frustrating since we're also voting on who we think has the best chance for carrying the message. If there are no candidates running against an incumbent, then we should take a look at why that is, and not broad brush the incumbent as having an unfair advantage.

 

[44mag2ndamend]

Public service certainly isn't for the faint of heart or thin skinned. Well put Pirate, I will still vote.

 

[1337BaldEagle]

If there are no candidates running against an incumbent, then we should take a look at why that is, and not broad brush the incumbent as having an unfair advantage.

If they don't put a name on the ballot for a person who wants to be on the ballot, and leaves it up to the average voter to go "searching" for the other candidates then it's not "broad brushing" it's an actual unfair advantage.

My ballot had every position with a "write in" spot and an "incumbent" spot with no other options and I was questioning why that was.

I have determined that it is a result of receiving a "nonpartisan" primary ballot instead of one of the better known parties. I was under the understanding that the nonpartisan runners would be on my ballot. But apparently not, or there are in fact no nonpartisan runners for any of the 9 positions. This I found unlikely thus the question.

Eagle

 

[PiratePast40]

I've never registered as an independent, so afraid I'm not familiar with choices they have for the primaries.

 

[Stomper]

On all unopposed, Metro, and "no candidate filed" position I wrote in names of my friends.

Sheesh, what did your friends ever do to you?

 

[PiratePast40]

If they don't put a name on the ballot for a person who wants to be on the ballot, and leaves it up to the average voter to go "searching" for the other candidates then it's not "broad brushing" it's an actual unfair advantage.....
Eagle

I'm sensing some frustration and a possible misunderstanding of the primary election process. If there are no other people registered to run, a name be on the ballot wouldn't be expected. My comment about finding suitable candidates was meant to be long term. If you are looking for someone to convince to run, or wish to run yourself, you need to get started long before the filing deadline in order to get your name on the ballot.

As far as the incumbents name being on the ballot, I think it would be a violation of the law if the names weren't published. We have every right to know who has filed/registered and is running for public office.

 

[1337BaldEagle]

I'm sensing some frustration and a possible misunderstanding of the primary election process. If there are no other people registered to run, a name be on the ballot wouldn't be expected. My comment about finding suitable candidates was meant to be long term. If you are looking for someone to convince to run, or wish to run yourself, you need to get started long before the filing deadline in order to get your name on the ballot.

As far as the incumbents name being on the ballot, I think it would be a violation of the law if the names weren't published. We have every right to know who has filed/registered and is running for public office.

Sorry, I must be supper hard to understand when posting online.

I don't think that I ever implied that the incumbents names should be removed from the ballot. What I did imply was 1) disbelief that there was no nonpartisan candidates and 2) if there was and they didn't put their names on a nonpartisan ballot and that that would give the incumbents an unfair advantage.

Does that clear it up?

Eagle