STAR Voting Initiative Petition Filed

by Alan F. Zundel

The 2016 elections exposed just how broken our election methods are. Now we have a chance to start changing that!

On Tuesday November 14 an initiative petition to institute STAR Voting for Lane County offices was filed at the Lane County Elections Office in Eugene. A parallel campaign is being organized in Portland for Multnomah County. If enough signatures are collected in each respective county, the initiatives will appear on their November 2018 ballots.

STAR (Score Then Automatic Runoff) Voting is a solution to multiple electoral problems. It:

  • Allows voters to express their preferences more fully and accurately,
  • Doesn’t force a voter to choose between more than one candidate they like,
  • Gives equal weight to each voter’s vote, and
  • Produces a winner with wide support.

In STAR Voting voters can score each candidate in the general election on a scale from zero to five, including giving two or more candidates the same score. Scoring candidates is similar to the familiar zero-to-five star scoring we use for products or movie reviews.

The two candidates with the highest overall scores are entered into an automatic runoff without the need of a second election. Each voter’s vote goes to the finalist who they scored higher, and the candidate who was scored higher most often wins.

STAR Voting builds on the long history of studying alternative voting methods by combining features of Score (or Range) Voting, Instant Runoff Voting, and Top-Two Elections, for a simple, integrated system that improves on all of them.

If the Lane County initiative passes, offices such as the county commissioners, the sheriff and the district attorney would be elected using STAR Voting instead of the current Top-Two voting method. For county elections STAR Voting has the added attractions of eliminating the cost and bother of a primary election and reducing the prospect of only one candidate appearing on the November general election ballot.

Mark Frohnmayer and Alan Zundel, both long-time activists for voting reform, are the chief petitioners for the Lane County initiative. Mark is a software and clean technology entrepreneur who was the Chief Petitioner in 2014 for an initiative to create a Unified Primary and is the founder of Equal Vote. Alan is a former political scientist who was instrumental in last year’s successful campaign to allow Ranked Choice Voting in Benton County and recently served on the Secretary of State’s task force to reform Oregon’s redistricting process.

Once the petitions are approved after review in each county, signature gathering will begin.

Volunteers for Lane County can contact, and volunteers for Multnomah can contact For news of the campaigns you can follow the STAR Voting Facebook page, and for more information on STAR Voting see the Equal Vote website.

Interested parties in Multnomah County are invited to join a planning meeting on Sunday, November 19th from 3-5 pm at Lucky Lab, 1700 Killingsworth in Portland. If attending please RSVP

The Lane County campaign is currently accepting donations but only by check at the present time. Checks may be made out to “STAR Voting for Lane County” and mailed to:

STAR Voting for Lane County

c/o Alan Zundel

825 Monroe St., #1

Eugene, OR  97402

Update on Oregon Single-Payer Health Care

by Alan F. Zundel

Charlie Swanson of the Health Care for All Oregon (HCAO) board has written to correct some of my speculations about SB 1046, the bill for single-payer health care currently in the Oregon legislature.

I guessed that the plan to refer single-payer health care to the ballot was a way for state legislators to “pass the buck” to voters so they would not antagonize powerful interests such as the insurance industry.

According to Charlie, SB 1046 was introduced as a way to move discussions forward and build support in the legislature. It was not expected to get out of the Senate Health Care Committee, and it had only a courtesy hearing there.

He writes, “We knew before the session started that we were not going to try to convince the health care committee to move the bill forward, though at that time we were hoping for a courtesy hearing in both the house and senate health care committees.”

The bill was not regarded, even by HCAO, as ready for action. There are still many considerations about the best way to shift costs for health insurance from the private sector (for example, premiums, co-pays and deductibles paid by employers or individuals) to public insurance. The amount needed is also uncertain and subject to various factors.

Funding considerations are a major aspect of a single-payer plan, and still need more discussion, research and reflection to create a sound plan.

In any event, a single-payer bill will entail provisions for raising revenue, which in Oregon requires a 60% super majority in both legislative chambers, not a simple majority. Even if all Democrats backed it, it would still need Republican support, unless there is a large shift in party representation in the legislature.

(As an aside, State Senator James Manning recently claimed at a meeting of Our Revolution Lane County that if Democrats could gain “six seats” in the 2018 election, they would pass a single-payer bill. They are currently one seat short of 60% of the seats in each chamber.)

But even if a bill did pass the legislature, it is virtually certain someone would institute a referendum on the bill, placing it on the ballot to give the voters a chance to approve or disapprove of it. As it will end up in the voters’ hands anyway, it would be much easier to move it forward in the legislature by asking them to refer it to the ballot in the first place.

Is National Health Insurance a “Far Left” Proposal?

Ted Kennedy

by Alan F. Zundel

National health insurance was first instituted in Germany in 1883 by chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Who was Bismarck? An arch-conservative trying to win worker support away from the growing socialist movement, which he suppressed with the Anti-Socialist Laws of 1878.

Far from being an idea nurtured solely by socialists or the “far left,” national health insurance has long been a proposal within the mainstream of modern politics.

In the United States the idea was first taken up by Teddy Roosevelt, who switched from the Republican to the Progressive Party in his Presidential campaign of 1912. (He lost in a three-way race to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.)

Opponents from business, the insurance industry, and medicine soon mobilized against the idea and tagged it first as foreign German idea (our enemy in World War I) and then after the Russian Revolution a communist one.

Yet President Franklin D. Roosevelt picked it up in the 1930s for his New Deal program to address the Great Depression. He had his Committee of Economic Security develop a secret report for a system of national health care, but he held back from proposing it until he passed the Social Security Act of 1935.

FDR then had the Social Security Board then do further work on the plan and presented it at a major conference in July 1938. He sent the plan to Congress in January 1939 but his attention was diverted to World War II. He revived the issue in his 1943 State of the Union address, calling for a “cradle to grave” social insurance system, and in 1944 campaigned for an economic bill of rights that included universal health care. FDR supported national health insurance again in his 1945 State of the Union address but unfortunately died that April.

Where Roosevelt was cautious, his successor Harry Truman was bold. Truman backed the Wager-Murray-Dingell bill for universal health care and took on the conservative opposition. After winning an unexpected election victory in 1948, he submitted a plan for national health insurance but it was stalled by the rise of anti-communist McCarthyism. The Democrats then turned to a step-by-step strategy.

Bills to establish national health insurance for seniors were introduced in 1959, 1960, 1961, and 1962, throughout the terms of Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy, but got stuck in the House Ways and Means Committee. The chair, Arkansas Democrat Wilbur Mills, was concerned that national health insurance would force southern hospitals to treat black patients and so refused to hold hearings on the bills.

Kennedy worked on Mills and was able to get hearings in 1963, but was assassinated that November. His successor Lyndon Johnson next took up the cause and after a landslide election in 1964 passed Medicare and Medicaid, landmark programs providing government health insurance to seniors, the poor and the disabled.

But this was not the end goal. After the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in the Presidential campaign of 1968, his brother Senator Ted Kennedy took up the unfinished task of universal health insurance during the Nixon Presidency.

Nixon, worried about a Presidential bid from Kennedy in 1972, developed his own plan for national health insurance, relying on mandating employers to offer health insurance and subsidized insurance for poor families. However, when he unveiled it early 1971 it proved to be too liberal for conservatives and too conservative for liberals, who stuck with Kennedy’s plan for single-payer health insurance.

During Nixon’s second term he again wanted to get in front of the issue and instructed his staff to consider all options, even single payer. They came up with the “Comprehensive Health Insurance Program,” which was similar to his previous plan but more extensive. It provided for an employer mandate, a comprehensive benefit package, and government subsidies for those without government or employer insurance.

(Nixon’s plan was essentially the template for Governor Mitt Romney’s health care plan in Massachusetts in 2006 and President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act in 2010.)

Nixon even entered into secret negotiations with Kennedy and Wilbur Mills for a compromise plan, but with the Watergate issue heating up Kennedy and Mills decided to go forward with a bill of their own, a single-payer plan with cost-sharing by consumers and an intermediary role for employers. When the Watergate scandal forced Nixon from office his successor Gerald Ford worked with Mills on a bill until Mills was caught up in a scandal himself.

Ford lost the election of 1976 to Jimmy Carter, a conservative Democrat more concerned with controlling health care costs than extending coverage. When he repeatedly rebuffed Kennedy’s overtures to support single-payer, Kennedy challenged him for the 1980 Presidential nomination.

Republican Ronald Reagan won that election and initiated the conservatism of the Reagan-Bush years of the 1980s, during which there was an ill-fated catastrophic coverage bill which passed but almost immediately repealed. Bill Clinton took up the gauntlet when he finally recaptured the Presidency for the Democrats in 1993. However Clinton rejected single-payer for a “managed competition” approach which spectacularly failed to pass Congress.

Senator Kennedy, frustrated with Clinton and working around him, managed to pass a successful bill in 1997 to extend health insurance to children just above the poverty line by funding it with a tax on tobacco. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was the biggest expansion of government health insurance since Medicare and Medicaid. Six years later Kennedy worked with the George W. Bush administration to extend prescription drug coverage to Medicare patients, although he bitterly opposed the final form of the resulting bill.

After gaining a commitment from Barack Obama to make universal health coverage a top priority of his administration, Kennedy endorsed him over Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Presidential nomination campaign. Kennedy continued to engage in the health care negotiations leading up to Obama’s Affordable Care Act of 2010, although he died of brain cancer before it passed.

Now it is Senator Bernie Sanders, a longtime proponent of single-payer, who has become the leading figure to bring single-payer health insurance to the United States. Sanders’ continued popularity after his Presidential run and widespread dissatisfaction with the complexity of the ACA have brightened the prospects for a “Medicare For All” bill, which has its opponents panicked.

Is single-payer national health insurance a far-left proposal from the fringe of politics, as they claim?  Only someone ignorant of American history could think so.


State Legislators Passing the Buck on Health Care for All?

by Alan F. Zundel

Health Care for All Oregon (HCAO) is a citizens’ group that has been working for several years to bring publicly-funded health insurance to all Oregonians.  The Affordable Care Act, passed by Congress in 2010, provided the opportunity for this by allowing waivers for states to set up their own health insurance systems, provided they cover the same number of people with the same level of benefits as under the ACA.

HCAO has managed to get a study funded and is developing a bill to create a single-payer system in Oregon. “Single-payer” means that instead of having a confusing maze of multiple health insurance plans, both private and public as we currently have, the state would provide health insurance that covers everyone. HCAO is aiming to put an initiative on the ballot in 2020 to create a single-payer system.

State-run single-payer systems are essential to the larger goal of bringing a single-payer system to the entire nation, such as the “Medicare for All” concept promoted by Senator Bernie Sanders. While a bill in the U.S. Congress can continue to keep the concept in the public eye and give supporters a rallying point, it is unlikely to pass a Republican President or a Congress dominated by Republicans. (Not to mention the fact that Congressional Democrats aren’t all on board with it either.) But if the concept can be shown to work in one or more states, the prospects for a national system will greatly improve.

HCAO wants the state legislature to refer their initiative to the ballot so that they don’t have to spend a lot of time and money gathering the thousands of signatures that would otherwise be needed. This raises the question: If the legislature could be persuaded to refer such an initiative to the ballot, why wouldn’t they be willing to simply pass it into law themselves rather than having the voters decide it?

There are two ways to answer this question. One is that legislators might like the idea of a single-payer system but feel that such a big change should be decided by the voters themselves. The other is that legislators prefer to pass the buck to spare themselves the heat from private health insurance lobbyists. I suspect the second is closer to the truth.

It is predictable that private health insurance companies will oppose a single-payer system, as it essentially would put them out of business. Other powerful players that now profit from people’s health care needs, such as pharmaceutical companies, would also oppose it. These opponents are going to rally their formidable resources against a single-payer system whether via a bill passed by the legislature or an initiative passed by the voters.

If you were a legislator, would you rather have them threatening your reelection prospects or aiming their fire at defeating an initiative? The question answers itself. An initiative gives a double bonus for legislators. Not only do they escape the direct wrath of opponents of a single-payer system, but if an initiative is defeated they can say, “You see, the voters didn’t want this anyway.”

It’s up to us as voters to pressure our legislators to support a single-payer system. Preferably they’d pass a bill themselves, but if we don’t actively engage them they may not take any action at all.

A bill in the recently ended legislative session, SB1046, would have set up a state board to develop, implement and oversee a single-payer system in Oregon. It got stuck in the Joint Ways and Means Committee, which failed to act on it before the session ended.

The bill was co-sponsored by 8 out of 17 Democratic state senators and 24 of 35 Democratic state representatives. (No Republicans were co-sponsors.) If you live in one of their districts, please contact the co-sponsors to thank them for their support for the bill and encourage them to continue to actively support a single-payer system. They are:

  • Sen. Michael Dembrow, chief co-sponsor (District 23, Portland)
  • Sen. Lew Frederick, chief co-sponsor (22, Portland)
  • Sen. James Manning, Jr., chief co-sponsor (7, Eugene and Junction City)
  • Sen. Rod Monroe (24, Portland)
  • Sen. Floyd Prozanski (4, Eugene)
  • Sen. Chuck Riley (15, Hillsboro)
  • Sen. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward (17, Portland and Beaverton)
  • Sen. Kathleen Taylor (21, Milwaukie)
  • Rep. Alissa Keny-Guyer, chief co-sponsor (District 46, Portland)
  • Rep. Chris Gorsek, chief co-sponsor (49, Troutdale)
  • Rep. Jeff Barker (28, Aloha)
  • Rep. Phil Barnhart (11, central Lane and Linn Counties)
  • Rep. Deborah Boone (32, Cannon Beach)
  • Rep. Margaret Doherty (35, Tigard)
  • Rep. Julie Fahey (14, Eugene and Junction City)
  • Rep. David Gomberg (10, central coast)
  • Rep. Ken Helm (34, Washington County)
  • Rep. Diego Hernandez (47, Portland)
  • Rep. Paul Holvey (8, Eugene)
  • Rep. John Lively (12, Springfield)
  • Rep. Sheri Malstron (27, Beaverton)
  • Rep. Pam Marsh (5, Ashland)
  • Rep. Rob Nosse (42, Portland)
  • Rep. Carla Piluso (50, Gresham)
  • Rep. Karin Power (41, Milwaukie)
  • Rep. Dan Rayfield (16, Corvallis)
  • Rep. Jeff Reardon (48, Happy Valley)
  • Rep. Tawna Sanchez (43, Portland)
  • Rep. Barbara Smith Warner (45, Portland)
  • Rep. Jennifer Williamson (36, Portland)
  • Rep. Brad Witt (31, Clatskanie)
  • (Rep. Ann Lininger of District 38, Lake Oswego, resigned from office in August)

If your state senator or representative is not on the above list, contact them to ask them why they did not support the Oregon single-payer bill.

Also important to contact would be the members of the Joint Ways and Means Committee, which had jurisdiction over the bill but failed to take any action on it. The members of the committee who did not co-sponsor the bill are:

  • Sen. Richard Devlin, co-chair (Democrat, District 19, Tualatin)
  • Rep. Nancy Nathanson, co-chair (Democrat, 13, Eugene)
  • Sen. Betsy Johnson, vice-chair (Democrat, 16, Scappoose)
  • Rep. Greg Smith, vice chair (Republican, 57, north central Oregon)
  • Rep. Jackie Winters, vice-chair (Republican, 10, Salem)
  • Sen. Alan DeBoer, (Republican, 3, )
  • Sen. Fred Girod (Republican, 9, Stayton)
  • Sen. Bill Hansell (Republican, 29, Athena)
  • Sen. Arnie Roblan (Democrat, 5, Coos Bay)
  • Sen. Chuck Thomsen (Republican, 26, Hood River)
  • Rep. John Huffman (Republican, 59, the Dalles)
  • Rep. Mike McLane (Republican, 55, Powell Butte)
  • Rep. Duane Stark (Republican, 4, Grants Pass)
  • Rep. Gene Whisnant (Republican, 53, Sunriver)

Contact them and urge them to support single-payer health care in Oregon.

(Senators Frederick, Manning, Monroe, and Steiner Hayward, and Representatives Gomberg, Holvey, Rayfield, Smith Warner, and Williamson were both on the committee and co-sponsors of the bill.)