Maybe I'm just obtuse, but why does second place matter? Doesn't first place win?

Graham -

If the 1st place winner in the primary does not achieve 50% or more of the vote, then there is a fall runoff between the top two candidates. Amanda will be running opposite somebody, we just don't know who yet.

That explains some of the comments around Adams's win that I didn't understand. What I don't understand is why the Oregon Republican Party doesn't even bother to field token candidates for major political positions. Like Attorney General or Mayor of Portland.

It makes me want to change my party affiliation and get on the ballot. I bet I'd get 10% of the vote just because of that (R) next to my name.

Graham - the "top two go through" unless someone gets 50 percent plus 1 vote only happens in nonpartisan races, which Portland's mayor and city council races are. So you can run and tout Republican values all you like (Adams certainly touted his D credentials), but there won't be an R next to your name on the ballot.

Graham, this is how Michael Bloomberg won the mayorship of New York. The Democratic field is always crowded but it's easy to slip on through to the final election as a Republican. (Same goes for why Mitt Romney that sob was governor of Massachusetts.)

So much for my attempts at getting on the Repubilcan ballot in Portland.

But I could still try for Attorney General. Do I actually need to be a lawyer to run for that?

The 50%+1 rule looks pretty damn stupid this morning when one candidate bodyslams everyone else, even the next closest competitor, by over 30%. Bissonnette, Branam, and Lewis should all do the right thing and concede to Fritz now.

Graham,

Yes, you have to be a lawyer that has passed the Oregon Bar Exam in order to run for the position of Attorney General in Oregon.

Assuming that you meet this requirement, it is still too late for you to be placed on the ballot as a Republican candidate for Attorney General. The election yesterday was the primary election for your party, and the state Republican party made their choice (in this case the choice to not even have a candidate.

If you really want to get on the ballot this fall, then your only option is to win the endorsement of one of the other political parties in the state. The Libertarian and most other parties select their candidates and state nominating conventions.

Oops...that last line should read "The Libertarian Party, as well as most of the other smaller political parties in the state, select their candidates at nominating conventions."

Don't forget that small parts Portland are in Clackamas and Washington counties. But my quick look this morning of the combined results from those counties keeps a Fritz-Lewis runoff:

Branham, plus 55 votes
Bissonette, plus 14 votes
Fahey, plus 33 votes
Fritz, plus 213 votes
Lewis, plus 49 votes
Smith, plus 72 votes

In response to #7 up there, I do think a run-off election is absolutely necessary, even if Fritz won by a large margin. Consider that guys like Bissonette and Smith were catering to much of the same voters (I personally voted for Smith, but I would choose Bissonette as my second option just fine) and you could make an argument that many people who voted for Fahey would have voted for Lewis as well, or vice versa. The field of candidates this year for that seat was so numerous and so strong that it was very difficult to get a group of people united behind one candidate, but Fritz already has a huge amount of support from her last campaign two years ago, so her winning is not that much of a surprise (although by how much, I think it is).

Yeah, that "no run-off" logic makes no sense. Though I'd like to see Amy apply her wonkiness to how Portland could or couldn't use an instant-runoff system.

I'm not an expert on it, but I like the idea of Instant Runoff... In the case of this election, the results may have been dramatically different.

You had two candidates with a strong "basics" message—Fritz and Lewis—and three (Branam, Bissonnette and Smith) with a bigger picture view. Though the basics messages carried the day, the bigger picture vote was split amongst three candidates. In an IR system, I could see one of those three going through—or people who liked Fritz and Lewis' messages to choose the other second, putting one of them over the top and winning outright.

Correction...

I have no problem with runoffs. I have a problem with people using my money to immediately pay for a second campaign after my money paid for them to lose by nearly four times (43%-12%) the first time around. There should be a little more common sense to the implementation of both 1) public campaign financing (which I don't have a problem with in general) and 2) the 50%+1 rule (which I also don't have a problem with in general). It's the specifics when they're put into practice that are dumb sometimes. This race being a good example.

While I strongly support Instant Runoff Voting, I advocate it to replace current systems where similar candidates "work against each other" (so-called "spoilers"). It should be used to get winners-by-majority in elections that now allow for winners by mere plurality.

However, I oppose using Instant Runoff Voting to "merge" the primary and general elections. I'm not aware of any situation that currently uses a run-off election that I approve of replacing the run-off campaign with IRV.

I think this city commissioner race is an excellent example: There were campaigns for many different offices competing for attention, and little opportunity for most voters to really get to know much about the individual candidates or their positions in this - one of the "lesser offices" on a ballot crowded with national, state, and other local races. Now that the field has been narrowed to 2 candidates, those two will, and should, have a separate, final process (i.e., campaign) where the candidates, the media, and the voters focus more intensely on them and their differences.