Rick's Dancer's Blog on the top two proposal is interesting.  He pastes 
a big long op-ed from Phil Keisling and then asks people their opinions.

http://blog.rickdancer.com/2008/05/open-primary-in-oregon-what-do-you-think/

(It's curious that he uses blog software I helped security audit and 
contributed code for -- wordpress.  I actually wrote my own blog 
software for my website: http://swoolley.org/blog.cgi?get=src )

Every comment Rick got (seven out of seven) is against the top two, and
all for various different reasons and all across the political spectrum
-- greens, independents, republicans.

What's he doing supporting it?

Today in his endorsement meeting he said he's officially supporting the
top two primary -- a decision today to support it.  Huh?

But he sent in a ballot statement on August 26th:

http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov42008/military_vp/dance_r.pdf

His statement clearly indicating he supports "opening the primary
election".  If that's not "already supporting it", I'm not sure what is.

He also "interprets" the comments that say, "gee, I could do away with 
party labels, but the implementation is wrong," and then says, "I like 
that I'm hearing that we should get rid of party labels."

What's going on with Rick Dancer?  To be honest, I'm not sure.

I posted another comment just to clarify another issue Rick seemed to 
bring up:

In response to the common refrain that minor parties and non-affiliated 
voters don't get their primary processes paid for the solution is easy:

Pay for their primary processes just like we do with the other 60%, the 
two major parties.  It wouldn't cost that much more with modern 
technology.  And for non-affiliated voters you hand them a ballot with 
non-affiliated candidates with a none-of-the-above vote option.  Anybody 
who beats out none-of-the-above is nominated to the general election.

This doesn't destroy parties (and third parties), equalizes access for 
independents on the ballot, and costs the same as Phil's proposal.

There are simple solutions, and then there's Phil's dangerous top-two 
proposal.

Let's consider direct solutions that don't upend the system we already 
have that's providing a place for third parties to be heard -- instead 
let's improve the dialog by opening up access to the primary process for 
non-affiliated voters directly.  Centrists should also create their own 
party, instead of gerrymandering the primary system for their own 
benefit.