An election reform with real benefits

Submitted by Simon on Thu, 08/26/2010 - 7:14am

CNN reports that "[i]f Republican incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski is defeated in the GOP primary, her only option is to run as a write-in candidate" (emphasis added). Really? I should think that a defeated candidate always has the option of taking their defeat like a grown-up and letting the matter lie. Indeed, one might think that accepting the result of the primary instead of egotistically looking for a way around the judgment should be the default position for a defeated primary candidate.

Being an optimist, I suspect that Murkowski will be a grown up and accept defeat graciously. If she does not, cases like hers and Charlie Crist's make a compelling case for more states to enact "sore loser" statutes. South Carolina's code § 7-11-10, recently upheld by the Fourth Circuit in South Carolina Green Party v. Election Comm'n, will serve as an instructive model:

Nominations for candidates for the offices to be voted on in a general or special election may be by political party primary, by political party convention or by petition; provided, no person who was defeated as a candidate for nomination to an office in a party primary or party convention shall have his name placed on the ballot for the ensuing general or special election, except that this proviso shall not prevent a defeated candidate from later becoming his party's nominee for that office in that election if the candidate first selected as the party's nominee dies, resigns, is disqualified, or otherwise ceases to become the party's nominee for such office before the election is held.

This is one reform that all critics of self-important politicians should be able to get behind.

Related:
Sore loser (4/29/10)
Nationalizing election mechanics? (11/12/08)

Simon's blog

Add new comment

1526 reads

2010 Election

Going to have to quibble, yet again.

Submitted by Rafique on Thu, 08/26/2010 - 8:13am.

This isn't about Murkowski, per se, but as a general principle. If a candidate loses his or her party's primary, there is a great deal of wisdom in accepting the judgment of the voters of that particular party, and either calling it a day, or considering other options. My question is, why is it a bad thing if that candidate tries his or her hand as an independent, and submits to the judgment of the whole electorate? What's intrinsically self-important about that? I mean, there are plenty of reasons that one could offer up why Murkowski should hang it up (if she loses), but unless I'm missing something, your argument is that if the party says you're out, then you're out, no matter what. I just think making a blanket rule like that isn't good.

ADDED: Thinking it over a bit more, I can see how such laws can be used to prevent electoral chaos, with candidates getting endorsements from multiple parties, and causing a great deal of confusion. Still, I do think there are cases when candidates ought to able to run as independents (Lieberman, Crist), and this sort of law would prevent that, and I'm not sure that's a good thing.

I think it's the flipside of

Submitted by Simon on Thu, 08/26/2010 - 9:48am.

I think it's the flipside of the coin to the principle I had in mind here: when you participate in a process, you bind yourself to the outcome. So if you decide that you prefer arbitration to court, you should accept the outcome, if you participate in a primary as a voter, you should accept the outcome, and if you participate in a primary as a candidate, you should accept the outcome. It's about honoring the results of a process as you would have your opponents honor the process had you won.

I don't know about a law...

Submitted by Pat on Thu, 08/26/2010 - 9:50am.

I think Rafique is on the right track here, this isn't an area where we need a law. Not all bad things should be against the law. If Crist (or Murkowski) can get a majority of Floridians (or Alaskans) to support him, then those folks shouldn't be denied the ability to vote for the candidate of their choice.

What should happen is that party donors should refuse to contribute to any candidate who refuses to sign a pledge to respect the primary results. Then, if the candidate breaks the pledge, he is easily denounced as an oath-breaker. Alternatively, if folks give money in the absence of such a pledge, then that is an indication that they really are giving to the individual, regardless of his party membership.

At most, I might be willing to entertain a law which says that donors must be provided with a check-box option as to whether they want their money back if the candidate decides to not honor the results of a primary by running with another party or as an independent. This would then basically be a contract between the donor and the candidate, and the candidate would have to refund any money the donation of which was motivated by the candidate's partisan affiliation.

See, perhaps that's the

Submitted by Simon on Thu, 08/26/2010 - 11:10am.

See, perhaps that's the difference here, because I think that throwing one's hat in the ring does pledge—i.e.morally oblige—that person to respect the results. But it's not working. I'd certainly be happy to see a more informal solution, of the kind you mention, tried. If that works by sharpening the incentives to do the right thing, that's ideal. I like the idea of the checkbox, too, which has a similar incentive-shaping effect without mandating behavior.

It's not working...

Submitted by Pat on Thu, 08/26/2010 - 11:59am.

I agree it's not working, because a lot of voters just don't seem to care whether their politicians are feckless oath-breakers. I know a LOT of people who, once they've decided who they're going to vote for, will continue to vote for that person unless and until they are convicted of a felony... and even then they might, if they think the conviction was "political" somehow.

But if that's the way people want to vote, then that's their right; we can't legislate against stupidity...

Now see, I think I'm on a different page than you two, because

Submitted by Rafique on Thu, 08/26/2010 - 1:41pm.

my quibble is really with the idea of party switching being a bad thing, in all cases. Now, if parties want to set of a pledge, or a similar system like that, then that's their right--and obviously, if the candidate breaks it, they'd be exposed as an oath-breaker. The thing is, I think the individual and the party are on the ballot, and if a candidate chooses to run as an independent, and voters choose to see that as an act of disloyalty, then they have every right to not vote for that candidate. If they feel they should have their money back, they have every right to ask for it. You see, the penalties, assuming they are justified, would be exacted at the ballot box, as it should be. If you think a party-switcher is a craven power-seeker, then don't vote for him. Run ads against him. Of course, people may disagree with that asessment, and run counter ads, but that's the process.

I think the parties have ways of sorting these things out. I'm not sure any new rules are neccessary.

we can't legislate against stupidity...

Nope.

Including Crist with

Submitted by Jim M on Thu, 08/26/2010 - 2:43pm.

Including Crist with Murkowski in this manner is an incorrect comparison. Crist made his decision prior to the primary. He did this because Florida's rules on ballot access are among the hardest in the nation. A defeated primary opponent is done in Florida. There is no way to get on the ballot after a primary loss due to deadlines. So it is unfair to use Crist in this example.

Jim, Crist made a decision to

Submitted by Simon on Thu, 08/26/2010 - 5:09pm.

Jim, Crist made a decision to participate in the GOP primary because he thought it was his for the asking. When it looked like it might go south, he bailed out. Still, you're quite right that there is a valid distinction to be drawn. The SoCal sore loser statute would shut out a defeated Murkowski or Lieberman, but would not preclude Crist from appearing on the fall ballot: he bailed out rather than soldier on to an ignominious defeat (if you'll forgive the mixed-branch military metaphor). In this regard, the SoCal model could be improved.

I am sorry to say this, but

Submitted by Jim M on Thu, 08/26/2010 - 10:10pm.

I am sorry to say this, but your basis on this are wrong. How can he have made a decision to participate in the GOP primary when no such filing had been established under the regulations of the state of Florida? He did participate in fund raising. That I agree. He even did it under GOP auspices. However, he never actually qualified to run for office until he after he made his decision to run as an independent. There is no law that would apply to what Crist did, nor should there be. Now if you want to make a fund raising rule that if you change party, you have to refund money, that would seem to fit Crist. I would not even argue against that law if proposed. But under the rules of the state of Florida, Charlie Crist had never filed to run for the GOP primary for the US Senate. None of what you propose could nor should it apply to his situation. It is unfair to call it sore loser when he never actually took it to the race. As far as the solider on to an ignominious defeat, why is this better than trying to win a different way if you think you can win? I don't know of too many soldiers who want to go into battle knowing they will lose. Plus, I don't consider it a desirable quality for someone who is suppose to be in a leadership position to not readdress their situation if there is little chance of winning. Now, I agree that once someone loses in a primary, that should be it.

Political parties should not be a prison. They are choices to be made in freedom and liberty. To imply that someone should not be able to run for office if they change their party before the primary no matter what the reason, which is what it appears you would be in favor of, is never something that I could ever support. If someone thinks they are doing the right thing in changing parties, no matter if it is a case of opportunism, than they should be able to do it. I do like that the Florida law makes it so that a politician can not go through an election and lose in the primary and take another shot. But it should be their choice of how they run.

Pat shoots...he scores...GOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL!

Submitted by bucyrus on Thu, 08/26/2010 - 6:49pm.

If Crist (or Murkowski) can get a majority of Floridians (or Alaskans) to support him, then those folks shouldn't be denied the ability to vote for the candidate of their choice.

Bull's eye.

Simon you care about the sanctity of two party politics. Most of the rest of us don't even think such a thing exists. I'm familiar with the details of your argument on this matter, so need to reprise them, I'm happy to agree that disloyalty to party makes the character of said turncoat a question.

But no matter how you slice it, your position sanctifies the two-party system to the point where you think that the entire broad constituency of a state should in this circumstance be precluded from voting for a person that they find preferable to the party-anointed options.

I think you make a legitimate point when you say that voters should be troubled by actions such as Lieberman's and Crist's. But if they aren't troubled enough by this to vote for one of the party alternatives, that's their business.

Just as Pat says, if a candidate can get a majority's support, folks shouldn't be denied the ability to vote for that candidate. With, of course, notable exceptions for things like say criminal wrongdoing.

But remember, Brian...

Submitted by Pat on Thu, 08/26/2010 - 7:05pm.

I think anybody who would vote for Crist (or Murkowski) after they've defected from their party solely to try to cling to their job is an idiot. If they'l betray the party they had previously claimed membership in, they'll betray anybody who doesn't further their own egotistical ambitions.

understood

Submitted by bucyrus on Sun, 08/29/2010 - 11:12pm.

I understand that's part of your particular viewpoint. But notice that your expansive claim relies on the idea that every defection is equally egregious and always ego-driven.

There is no doubt in my mind that some or even many of these such defections are due primarily to egotism. [Or, as you put it, solely to cling to the job.] But not all, not wholly, and not always. IMO, it's extremely plausible for a long-serving politician to understand that he or she serves constituents first and party somewhere after that. If that's the real belief, then it's entirely acceptable to me that a politician might fell it iss necessary to be disloyal to party to be true to the people of the state.

For example, I am certain Joe Lieberman has an extremely healthy ego. That doesn't make it untrue that he felt his party deserted him and the people of the state as a whole by supporting an anti-Iraq war partisan. Lieberman could be an utter egomaniac and still be right that he was a better representative of the people of his state as whole than Ned Lamont. And the results bore him out, If you ask me. The notion that he should have loyally stepped aside to preserve the sanctity of the 2-party process feels preposterous to me.

I am pretty comfortable with letting the population of general election voters decide whether or not a party defector has defected solely to keep the job or not. It's pretty much a given that the spurned party is going to tend to make this interpretation, but its the broader constituency that has the right to decide.

You and I have discussed this

Submitted by Simon on Thu, 08/26/2010 - 7:22pm.

You and I have discussed this so often over the years that we could practically come here and say "Argument #4!" "Response #2!" etc. Not that it isn't always enjoyable, of course.

Since we've rehearsed this so often, I'll just sketch the point for the benefit (if that isn't too self-aggrandizing a way of conceiving it) of other readers.

My view is that a closed-primary two-party system with limits on consecutive terms is the most efficient way for ordering and structuring public participation in government, taking as givens (1) the assumptions of the American Constitutional order—although I have sometimes thought that the Minbari system of government has much to recommend it—and (2) the practical realities that we learn from public choice theory. I don't value the two party system out of any particular fondness for that system, or for either party, but rather, for its instrumental value in funneling issues into relatively clean choices that are comprehensible to a busy electorate. This approach to elections—ideally when combined with a governmental structure like that of the federal government (which more states should adopt), i.e. a hierarchical system with a limited number of elected officials overseeing and responsible for a larger number of appointed officials—strikes me as maximizing meaningful public participation (which I take to be a good) in making decisions that are extremely complicated and which might otherwise be resolved (as they are in other, more technocratic governments) by faceless bureaucracies without meaningful public involvement.

And it's not hard to see the application of that view. Obviously when a state divides the executive power into a multitude of offices, sending hither swarms of candidates to harrass our people every other November, and bamboozle their attempts to hold government responsible the rest of the time, that's bad. No less obviously, if New York v. United States did not accurately describe the existing Constitutional order, it is the Constitution that should change, not New York. And no less obviously, when third party candidates get into elections, the results are usually confusion and plurality winners whose legitimacy is easily diminished by political critics.

Even more briefly, I believe that the system I have described is pareto efficient, and that reforms bringing us closer to that ideal are beneficial.

A closed primary two party

Submitted by Jim M on Thu, 08/26/2010 - 10:48pm.

A closed primary two party system with term limits is the anathema to maximizing public participation especially when you include gerrymandered districting. Australian ranked voting system election in a single election with no primaries or term limits would actually allow for a more informed choice. Parties are fine for high level sorting but not necessarily the best way for the electorate to decide. This would allow for a person to vote for some who may better fit their ideology. Especially for that 1/3 of the voting population who do not fully subscribe to the two party ideological dichotomy and want to vote for some one who is a little more nuanced. We are not in a Parliamentarian system where party trumps the individual in many ways. Political parties in the US are merely a category and not always that good of one. A two party closed primary, such as is the case in Florida, locks me out of voting for my preferred candidate for office at times since they are running in another party. I have never voted a straight party line and never will. I think the vast majority of US citizens fall into this mindset also. That is why I think the closed primary two party system actually works to decrease public participation.

As far as term limits go, I have changed my mind having seen how the Florida Legislature has changed now that term limits that were imposed have hit the second generation of elected officials. There is a lack of mentorship and leadership in the chambers. The legislation being passed is many times poorly crafted or not really thought out very well. Plus, the legislators seem to feel extra pressure to push item through since they have a short time to do it. The leadership issue is a big problem. The Florida GOP has put as next in line for the Speaker of the House a gentleman who has numerous financial issues because they have to be chosen very shortly after they are elected to office due to the way the term limits work in Florida. I would prefer that districts be more competitively made in order that no candidate would feel safe in office. Term-limits are an easy way out for the voter. In the past three elections for the Florida State Legislature, only three incumbents have been voted out. That is the lowest turnover rate ever for the state in any three election period going back to WWII. I would have been interesting to see how Rubio would have performed during the last few years of a really bad economy in the state. Term limits forced him out but he did not want to run for anything other than a state wide office after his stint in the House. Instead of being in the Legislature having to deal with the worst budget situation the last two years, he has been able to sit on the sidelines because of term limits. Term limits do force out some bad politicians but I have come to the conclusion that they force out even more good or decent ones and given the state a less reliable Legislature in a time of economic crisis.

I have no problem with the

Submitted by brian.shapiro on Fri, 08/27/2010 - 12:34am.

I have no problem with the concept of two parties, two major parties will exist because politics is about forming coalitions. Coalitions will either be formed in Congressional caucuses like you have in Parliamentary government, or in the electoral process, like we've had historically.

The problem I have with politics today is not that we have two parties but the they're machines that have been institutionalized through things like the FEC and ballot access laws. Something like the emergence of the Republican Party in the 19th c just couldn't happen today. Back then, if caucuses thought that they could form better coalitions, they could abandon them, leave and form a new coalition. Which is why in the 19th c we had three different party systems, DR-Federalists, Whig-Democrat, Republican-Democrat. Doing that today is political suicide. You'll have an uphill road getting on the ballot and getting through the court system (against better financed opponents), and finding people in likewise situations doing the same. Its why the only minor parties that survive in todays system are ideological debate clubs like the libertarians and greens.

In fact we've only really been a true two-party system this century. At any time in the 19th century you would find minor parties having some substantial degree of representation in Congress, even if it were only about 10 members. The last hurrah of that type of dynamism was the Progressive Party, and it was shortly after the Progressives were in Congress and TR was blamed for spoiling the election, that strict ballot access laws were put into place. (To prevent fringe groups like Communists from getting power like they did in Europe, of course).

Why not discuss going back to the system we used to have in the 19th century? Party caucuses decide candidates, not primaries, and ballot access isn't determined by party affiliation. That means that people get on the ballot as individuals, and its simply up to parties to endorse them and provide them material support. The loyalty question is answered by the fact that a party caucus has to ask the candidate whether they're really committed to working for the sake of the party.

There's a lot of talk on this blog about the 17th amendment and how it changed things, but very little talk about how its only in recent history (20th century) that political parties have become institutional entities. Are people aware how much its affected the process?

not to clobber, but

Submitted by bucyrus on Sun, 08/29/2010 - 6:27pm.

its instrumental value in funneling issues into relatively clean choices that are comprehensible to a busy electorate

Ok. Binary funneling. Bug or feature? Seems to me what you are calling a feature is perceived as a serious bug for everyone who doesn't like being funneled. Isn't every new independent another data point in support of the idea that the funneling is perceived to be part of the problem

How about "clean" choices? When does the cleaning of our choices become gross oversimplification, a stripping out of important details and conundrums that need to be faced? If one buys the idea that entropy applies to political and philosophical thought, don't we have to worry that the cleaned up choices are actually the production false or misleading dilemmas?

And how about the "busy" electorate? Are we really well-served by letting ourselves off the hook when we can't bother to pay attention. Isn't it true that the less we pay attention, the more we get what we deserve, so to speak?

Suppose we presume that systematically speaking, we must necessarily accept that we are reaping what we sow. Then, if we are also becoming increasingly more dissatisfied with what we are reaping, don't we owe it to ourselves to try to adjust our methods of sowing?

Much of this is what Jim is

Submitted by Simon on Sun, 08/29/2010 - 10:20pm.

Much of this is what Jim is getting at (I haven't had a chance to reply yet). Briefly:

re your ¶ 1, binary funneling is appropriate because one candidate will win. Binary funneling makes the choice clean and stark: one will win, one will lose. I don't have any faith in people's ability to accurately diagnose what is "part of the problem," because so many of them seem to suggest that what is needed is more parties, which makes the problem even worse.

re your ¶ 2, there is certainly an oversimplification introduced, but given the alternatives, there is no better way to approach matters.

re your ¶ 3, we have to deal with the real world. You and I can do something about what we pay attention to, but we have no power at all over what other people pay attention to. For all choices involving anyone other than ourselves, we have to accommodate those actors as they are, not as we think they should be. Most people are busy. People work two jobs; they work eighteen hour days, they have children, they are busy. That's just a reality. It'd be nice if it was otherwise, but that's a fact. Those people are not going to conjure an extra three hours a day in which they could deeply analyze politics, and if they could, they wouldn't waste them on deeply analyzing politics, they'd play with their children or sleep. If those people—ordinary Americans—are going to have any meaningful input into the political process, there cannot be a threshold requirement that they have a deep understanding of the gamut of political issues. Such a requirement excludes them. But when you have two political parties with broadly-understood philosophies, and candidates bearing those parties' standards can be assumed to share those philosophies (the assumption eliminated by open primaries), busy normal people can meaningfully participate.

Re 1 If necessary we can

Submitted by bucyrus on Sun, 08/29/2010 - 10:56pm.

Re 1 If necessary we can still have a mechanism for binary funneling without privileging 2 parties.

Re 2 It's pretty elitist to maintain that oversimplification is the only possible approach. That doesn't make you wrong, it just means that your argument is premised on insultingly low expectations about the potential insight and wisdom of everyday folks. Your beloved binary funnel insists that we must stay stuck in a constant oscillating feedback loop between thesis and antithesis. I am more optimistic about my expectations for the wisdom of vox populi in this one respect: I think they are capable of digesting thesis and antithesis and arriving at a synthesis. They are capable of understanding and preferring a candidate who provides a superior synthesis of the oversimplifications that the two parties thrive on. But not if synthesis viewpoints are never given stage or volume or time.

It's just like how folks are capable of ordering from an ala carte menu or a chinese restaurant menu that lets you choose 2 from column A and 1 from column B. Notice that when a restaurant allows no substitutions this is not done for the sake of the diner, but for the sake of managing the restaurant. Same thing with the 2 party "no substitution" menu. It's not that way for the sake of voters, its for the convenience of the politicians and their 2 parties.

Your argument that we have the best of all possible systems now is depressingly panglossian.

re 3

I am happy to acknowledge that its unrealistic to expect some sort of revolutionary change in the attention, political passion, and intellectual tenacity of voters. But its quite a giant leap from that to your contention that busy normal people can only "meaningfully participate" if things are grossly oversimplified into 2 choices that fail to account for significant details. Busy normal people are intelligent enough to understand when neither the thesis nor the antithesis is getting it correct or completely enough to meet America's needs.

It's just like how folks are

Submitted by brian.shapiro on Mon, 08/30/2010 - 12:42pm.

It's just like how folks are capable of ordering from an ala carte menu or a chinese restaurant menu that lets you choose 2 from column A and 1 from column B. Notice that when a restaurant allows no substitutions this is not done for the sake of the diner, but for the sake of managing the restaurant. Same thing with the 2 party "no substitution" menu. It's not that way for the sake of voters, its for the convenience of the politicians and their 2 parties.

Although restaurants will keep the menu itself simple for the sake of the diner. They both want to keep it easily readable, and create an impression about what the restaurant is about to people who might be interested.

But like I said in my addition, binary opposition in politics is natural and needs nobody to help it along. Attempts to help it, or institutions or laws that help it, only corrupt the process and put it in the hands of party machines.

And that only ends up keeping a sort of status quo, preventing any genuine reforms, because it entrenches that corruption.

Democrats are now celebrating the achievement of everything Progressives have tried to do since Teddy Roosevelt -- which, apparently, is an individual mandate that will be soon overturned by the courts. Tea Partiers are mad at elected Republicans for becoming fat and corrupt and betraying conservative principles. Lets see whether the new Republican congress will surprise anyone.

Navigation

User login

Subscribe via RSS

Resources

The latest from our partner, the PoliGazette

Blog Roll

Search